Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in public session. I remind members, those in the Public Gallery and witnesses to make sure that their mobile phones are completely turned off as the signal affects the communications systems here. We are here to discuss climate change issues specific to agriculture, food and the marine. I welcome, from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Dr. Matthew Crowe, director of the office of evidence and assessment; from Environmental Pillar, Mr. Michael Ewing, co-ordinator of Environmental Pillar and Mr. Ian Lumley, the built environment and heritage officer in An Taisce; from the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, Mr. Oisín Coghlan, director of Friends of the Earth and Ms Noreen Gumbo, head of the humanitarian programme, Trócaire; and from the Marine Institute, Dr. Peter Heffernan, chief executive and Dr. Paul Connolly, director of fisheries, ecosystem and advisory services. I thank them for coming before the committee today to discuss specific issues concerning climate change and its impact on the agriculture, food and marine sectors. I thank them for their written submissions which I circulated to members earlier. Their opening statements were circulated in advance and I would appreciate if they could summarise their opening statements in no more than five minutes if possible. We will have a good engagement with members with questions and answers afterwards.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or any official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I will call the groups in the order read out. I invite Dr. Crowe from the EPA to make his opening statement.

Dr. Matthew Crowe:

I thank the committee for the invitation. I am happy to be able to help it with the deliberations on this important subject, to answer any questions as well as I can and to follow up as necessary with any information that the committee might need subsequently. I submitted three documents in advance to the committee, including the most recent state of the environment report of the EPA, the EPA's submission on Food Wise 2015, and a very recent report called the State of Knowledge on Climate Change Impacts for Ireland. We might come back to them during the discussion. I want to touch on a few key points from the submission. The first is the overall policy direction. I drew attention in the submission to two policies in particular, the longer term national policy objective for 2050 of an approach to carbon neutrality and the more immediate Food Wise 2025 strategy. Looking at the two together, the overall policy direction is clear, that farming, land management and food production must happen in harmony with the environment. The second point I wanted to make is that because of climate change, things have to change in agriculture, land management and food production, but these changes have to involve and have to work for farmers and rural communities, because they will have to implement these changes in the long run. The third point I wanted to make relates to carbon neutrality, which is a key part of the policy plank for climate change up to 2050. Currently, in Ireland, land is a net source of carbon dioxide. Land can either be a sink or a source of carbon dioxide. Forest land, for example, is a major sink. It absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and traps it.

That is something we will have to reverse over time. Our land should be a net sink, not a net source. Again, it is something to which we may return.

The fourth point is that, from now on, when we do anything in this area with regard to agriculture we should try to get multiple benefits for whatever actions are taken. It has to be good for the farmer, it must work for the bottom line and it must work for water quality, climate, nature and air. Many actions can be undertaken at farm level that can satisfy those different benefits.

Fifth, there are many very positive things happening and I have listed them in my submission. I draw the committee's attention to one in particular, which is the most recent one I could find and was in the national development plan that was published a couple of weeks ago. It is town-scale pilots of food and agricultural waste to gas in agricultural catchments for local gas networks supply and biogas production, and the piloting of climate smart countryside projects to establish the feasibility of the home and farm becoming net exporters of electricity. They are two potentially significant activities that could have a very positive impact for farmers, rural communities, towns and people living in single houses around the country. There are up to 500,000 such houses in Ireland.

The sixth point relates to adaptation. Mitigation means trying to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions into the atmosphere, but adaptation is equally important in Ireland. We learned the lesson again last weekend with the snow and we had Storm Ophelia just before Christmas. These events tell us that Ireland has many vulnerabilities to extreme weather events, and the climate change scientists, both international and national, tell us that we are likely to have more extreme weather events in the future. The issue is getting ready and being prepared to deal with the consequences of climate change.

Finally, I reiterate the point about involving, engaging and collaborating with farmers and rural communities. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this. It is about seeking the common ground on the things we can all agree are good for the environment, the economy and for society. There is plenty that can be done in this country which will work for the economy, society and environment, particularly in rural Ireland.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Dr. Crowe. Mr. Coghlan and Ms Gumbo are sharing time. I invite Mr. Coghlan to make his presentation.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan:

The Stop Climate Chaos Coalition is grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on climate change. Our coalition of overseas aid, environmental, youth and faith groups has been working together since 2007 for Ireland to do its fair share to tackle the causes and consequences of climate change. The changing climate poses a threat to everybody in Ireland, to all parts of the country and society and to all sectors of the economy. Agriculture is not exempt from these climate risks and threats. In fact, agriculture is particularly dependent on a stable climate. In recent years we have seen this in the damage done by flooding and the fodder crisis and, in recent days, by the damage done by the combination of Storm Emma and the "beast from the east". All these extreme weather events are made more likely by global warming. Our greenhouse gas emissions are loading the dice against ourselves and our future.

Just as it is not exempt from climate risks, the agricultural sector is not exempt from climate responsibility. Both the EPA and the Climate Change Advisory Council have used the word "transformation" to describe the scale of the change we need in our society and economy to do our share to prevent runaway climate change. Nobody is asking the agriculture sector to do more than its fair share, just its fair share. In fact, the national policy position on climate action, adopted by the Government in 2014 and underpinned by the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, accords special and differential treatment to the agriculture sector. In line with EU policy and climate laws in other countries such as the UK and Finland, the national position stipulates an 80% reduction in emissions from electricity generation, buildings and transport, but only carbon neutrality in agriculture and land use. That is, by 2050 our agriculture emissions must be offset each year by our enhanced sinks, grasslands, peat lands and tree cover. That still requires a 2% reduction. If we are to match the two it means coming from approximately 19 million tonnes of emissions now to approximately 9 million. That will require a 2% reduction in agriculture emissions every year, at least, from now to 2050. That compares with a 5% reduction across the rest of the economy, so there is a significant advantage for agriculture.

Unfortunately, neither the rhetoric nor the action of Ministers or industry stakeholders is in line with the national policy position. In fact, agriculture emissions over the last couple of years have been rising by 2% per year rather than falling by 2%. The Government notes that the national policy position states that Ireland will take an approach to carbon neutrality which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production. The Climate Change Advisory Council has asked the Government to clarify that because it is not clear what exactly is meant. There are a couple of things we can say right now. We either start taking measures to reduce the emissions now, or we do not and agriculture over-shoots. We cannot define our way out of this challenge, and our approach to carbon neutrality cannot be not to do it. If we fail to reduce agricultural emissions we must reduce emissions from other sectors by more than the 80% target we have already set. There is no escaping the imperative to take action commensurate with the threat of climate change.

The other variable here is the capacity for sustainable food production. This is something Stop Climate Chaos Coalition member organisations such as Trócaire, Concern and Christian Aid have considerable experience of, given that they work across the world with people struggling to achieve sustainable food production. My colleague, Noreen Gumbo from Trócaire, will address this is her statement.

Ms Noreen Gumbo:

I am the director of humanitarian programmes in Trócaire. I have worked in humanitarian and development aid for more than 25 years. I have two messages today. The first is simple. Climate change is already a crisis in most of the vulnerable countries in which we work. It is impacting significantly on hunger and nutrition. Without tackling the underlying causes of climate change hunger will increase in the coming decades. Reducing global emissions, protecting people’s livelihoods and investing in resilience are essential to protect food security in the context of this changing climate.

In Ireland we are increasingly aware of the impact of extreme weather. Imagine if, instead of a forecast of a week of snow, we were facing an entire season of drought, following on from a previous season of drought. This is what east Africa is currently undergoing. Drought is an insidious crisis. By the time a drought hits the headlines families have been doing everything they can for months, such as selling livestock or tools, which is their equivalent of bank savings, taking children out of school and migrating temporarily, thus splitting up families. As the gap between droughts in east Africa decreases, families are unable to recover before the next one hits. In countries Trócaire worked in during the period 2015 to 2016, such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, South Sudan, Sudan and Malawi, we have seen drought, food shortage and flash floods. In Sierra Leone, Myanmar, Pakistan, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua we have seen heavy flooding and landslides. Trócaire and other agencies are providing humanitarian aid when needed, but it is not enough. We are helping communities to adapt their agricultural practices, strengthen natural resource management and diversify their incomes to increase resilience, but without tackling the root causes of this people will run out of options.

That brings me to the second message, which is that hunger is caused by poverty, not by inadequate food supply. The poverty is in the form of lack of access to economic resources to buy food or lack of resources such as land, water and tools to grow it. The world currently produces enough food to feed the global population, yet the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that approximately 795 million people of the 7.3 billion in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2014 to 2016. Almost all the hungry people lived in developing countries. We find that the hunger affects children under five years old and the elderly most quickly and dramatically. Eradicating hunger in areas of the developing world that experience it, and that are already experiencing increasing food insecurity as a result of climate change, requires a series of responses at various levels. Key among these is the requirement to increase the resilience of food production to the impacts of climate change in these regions, to increase local incomes and access to food and to ensure people's livelihoods.

With this understanding, if we are concerned about food security in the context of a changing climate, we must be concerned, first and foremost, with ensuring all countries, including Ireland, will fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement to hold the rise in average temperature to well below 2° Celsius - 1.5° Celsius should be our aim - and the countries and communities experiencing increasing food insecurity as a result of climate impacts will be supported to adapt. In his visit to Ireland in 2015 the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon said, "Ireland has been a champion of efforts to counter hunger, but today one cannot be a leader on hunger without also being a leader on climate change."

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now call Mr. Ewing who is co-ordinator for the Environmental Pillar.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

I will speak after Mr. Lumley.

Mr. Ian Lumley:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for facilitating this presentation.

Action is needed at a global level in all sectors; it is needed in transport and energy as much as in agriculture. Irish agricultural emissions are rising by nearly 3% a year. Dairy cow numbers are increasing by 6%. The increase in emissions in 2016 was 2.7%. Not only does this have a climate impact, it also has the effect of warming oceans, causing ocean acidification which affects marine life. The United Nations environmental programme is telling us that the world needs to move to a more plant based diet. It stated, "A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products". At the same time, Ireland is embarking on a beef and dairy industry expansion which contradicts the national policy position on climate change. It has been misleadingly justified on the basis that capacity for sustainable food production should be the approach rather than a business as usual model for expansion.

A number of very problematic arguments are being used to justify the expansion of the beef and dairy industry. The first is that Ireland is contributing to global food production in terms of beef and dairy exports. What this is mainly doing is exporting a western beef and dairy diet which is not meeting the needs of the world's poorest and most hungry. It is a middle class diet export. There is an argument that if Ireland was not increasing production, somebody else would. This highlights the reality of the need for global action. There is an argument that Ireland produces beef and dairy more efficiently. Efficiency measures that have been gained are marginal and being undermined by increased production. A 2017 EU report stated Irish agriculture was the least climate efficient in Europe in terms of output. There is also the argument that Ireland is accommodating a global market demand, but this demand has been created deliberately by trade deals and promotions. The promotion of infant formula is controversial and problematic and icontrary to the World Health Organization's advice on promoting breast-feeding.

Arguments have been made that Irish emissions can somehow be offset against grassland management, forestry and bio-energy, but the technical reports available show that the capacity is very limited. There are arguments that what Ireland is doing in grassland management and beef and dairy agriculture is best suited to the Irish climate, but there is inadequate research on the alternatives. It should be a general principle that we reach a genuinely sustainable food production matrix to enhance food security and biodiversity, reduce climate impact and support the promotion of a more plant-based diet. There is a major opportunity to do this in the current CAP reform negotiations. In Ireland, this should mean that we move towards the production of nutritionally diverse plant-based food crops that are climate resilient, compatible with soil conditions in the environment and sustain employment and rural communities.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

I apologise on behalf of Dr. Alex Copland who was supposed to be here. He is still snowed in in his house in Banagher, County Offaly. I have been brought in at the last minute and apologise for shortcomings in my presentation.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure Mr. Ewing will be an adequate substitute.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

I thank the Chairman; he is very good.

The Environmental Pillar welcomes the opportunity to present evidence on Irish agriculture and climate change and is grateful to the Chairman and committee members for their time in hearing this presentation. We hope to offer some solutions to the crisis agriculture is facing in dealing with its contribution to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. We do this, in particular, with a focus on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, post-2020.

The future CAP programming period is being examined, with a view to reforming the policy to address pressures and issues surrounding agriculture, food and rural areas in Europe. With the European Commission presenting its vision for a future CAP in its communication in November, the next step is for the Council of EU Agriculture Ministers to present its joint statement. Part of this process has seen the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine launch a consultation exercise to develop an Irish position on the future of the CAP. We welcome this with open arms. We are absolutely delighted that the Minister is taking this approach because we need to come up with a model for Ireland that will make us the star in Europe in agriculture and in the case of the CAP.

The Common Agricultural Policy has played a major role in the development of a socially, environmentally and climate-destructive model of farming across the European Union. The reform of the CAP in 2013 was meant to ensure measures to secure the sustainable management of natural resources would receive public money, with funds being ring-fenced for climate protection measureas. Unfortunately, attempts at real reform were thwarted by vested interests in lobbying member state governments and MEPs for a business as usual approach, leading to the intensification of European agriculture through CAP supports. It is to be hoped such a short-sighted approach will not be the conclusion of the current reform process. It is clear that a failure to address important and urgent issues in the European Union covered by bhe CAP may cause long-term and irreparable damage to the agrifood sector and rural areas in Europe as a whole. In its November communication the European Commission indicated that it was prioritising environmentally sustainable activities and basing rewards on them, which we welcome strongly. We will be keen to work with agricultural interests to ensure climate measures are adequately financed, in other words, we are totally behind public money being used for public good. Another innovative element of the Commission's communication was a focus on results-based actions. We strongly support an approach that is focused on delivering results rather than the more abstract indicators used to monitor or evaluate implementation of the CAP.

A third emphasis by the Commission suggests giving increased powers to individual member states when deciding on how to spend CAP funds. There is concern in some member states that this may create a race to the bottom in terms of ambitions for the policy. An ambitious CAP programme in Ireland that seeks evidence-based measures to deliver results represents a timely opportunity for Ireland to realign its food production system. Furthermore, with a likely reduced CAP budget for the next programming period, a member state that can demonstrate that the content of its CAP programme is ambitious, that seeks to build on a strong foundation of evidence, best practice and inclusive stakeholder engagement and that has social and environmental sustainability as core objectives is likely to be seen favourably during budgetary negotiations. CAP payments need to be targeted at recipients who are directly implementing actions to address EU priorities as defined by the objectives of the CAP. It is likely that this will require a substantial shift from the current distribution of payments under the CAP and recommended that this shift occur in a defined and transparent way during the course of the next programming period to maintain stability within the sector and allow existing CAP beneficiaries to realign their activities with the market or the mechanisms a new CAP would support. Part of this will involve simplification of the payments' process. Rather than farmers having to go through a multitude of contracts and agreements - we all know what they are - they should have a single contract encompassing both pillar 1 and pillar 2 to deliver on varying obligations under the CAP. Such an approach would see not only improved simplification for participating farmers as they would only need to go through one set of paperwork, it would also improve the integration of actions and undertakings between each of the elements operated as separate schemes. Such a co-ordinated approach could better address environmental requirements such as linking pillar 1 greening with agri-environment or non-productive investments. It would also link production activities supported by the basic payment scheme with non-productive activities, appropriate greening or agri-environment measures or similar.

In summary, in order to build a forward-looking agriculture sector that will make a significant contribution to the European Union’s climate mitigation efforts, it is essential to have a solid knowledge base, knowledge-sharing and an inclusive dialogue between all stakeholders, farmers, NGOs, scientists, decision-makers, etc. This should include a national and EU evidence-based set of data for the farming sector’s potential to achieve climate mitigation, including its socioeconomic impacts. It should also include a policy analysis assessing the extent to which this potential is being achieved and the role farming policy such as a reformed CAP plays and should play in it in the future.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our final speaker to make a presentation is Dr. Heffernan from the Marine Institute.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

My colleague and I are delighted to be back before the committee. Dr. Connolly is much more expert in fisheries matters, on which I am sure there will be questions. I will summarise briefly our statement and submission.

The committee will not be surprised that as the representative of a marine agency, I will be speaking more from the perspective of the part of Ireland - 90% - that is under water.

Oceans make up 70% of the planet's surface. It should be no surprise that Ireland's weather and climate experience is dominated by the Atlantic Ocean. Our written submission sought to highlight the very significant socioeconomic impacts associated with climate change from a maritime perspective, not only with fisheries and aquaculture but also with land-based industry and agriculture. There are trends we can see very clearly. The waters around Ireland are continuing to warm. We are seeing increased winter precipitation, decreased summer precipitation, more storm surge events, increased sea level rise and extreme wave heights. One only has to think about Storm Ophelia in the south east of Ireland where a record wave height of over 17 m was recorded. It was so strong that it took the measuring device away with it. Acidification is a considerable worry. The oceans absorb 25% of all man-made carbon. They absorb 90% of the heat produced.

There are trends in fisheries. Cod and haddock stocks are declining. We also see increasing stocks of hake and monkfish, which are even more valuable. Aquaculture faces the risks of acidification and what it can do to oyster and mussel productivity. We are also seeing new and increasing occurrences of harmful algal blooms, which can have disruptive impacts on market access, production and increased food safety risks. The severity of storm surges is not limited to the coast. It can have impacts on drinking water and essential national infrastructure in cities.

While the threats are numerous, there are several opportunities. We have the potential to harvest sustainably and grow new species that are better suited to these changing ocean conditions. Undoubtedly, more effort in the scale of ocean research and sustained monitoring will be required in order to equip Ireland with suitable advice to manage and mitigate risks associated with climate change. When we look at Ireland's integrated marine plan, a very ambitious target for 2020 was set to double the socioeconomic value to €6.4 billion from a base of €3.2 billion in 2012. By 2016, Ireland was achieving a €5.7 billion economic return from the maritime sector. There is a lot for Ireland to get right in the future. To do that right and to manage the interaction with climate change and the ocean will require an enhanced, integrated national effort. Robust advice and enhanced projections are essential to deal with the changing oceans and climate. Ireland has a very substantial solid performance base and infrastructure to build on. We have world-class facilities in oceanographic, environmental and fishery science research, world-class research vessels and ocean observation systems, a data buoy network and a tide gauge network right around the country that is a very solid base for expansion of the scientific endeavour. The endeavour will be taken on in collaboration with many State actors, Departments and agencies.

Climate change and oceans are inextricably linked. A healthy ocean has an existential impact on life on earth; it is our planetary life support system. The oceans are the heartbeat of the planet. Half the oxygen one breathes comes from microscopic plants in the ocean and 97% of the planet's water is in the ocean; it is the planetary reservoir. One can understand why the major focus of the Marine Institute's next national research plan and our next strategy will put a very serious emphasis on the role of climate and oceans and the interplay between both. We will be very happy to take questions from the committee.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Heffernan. The first member to indicate was Deputy Penrose.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. We are acutely aware there is a two-way relationship between agriculture and climate change. The nature of our climate impacts upon our ability to produce goods. As the climate changes and variations arise in it, the agriculture sector will have to adapt. When I first started out in 1974 there were almost 300,000 farmers across Ireland. There was low-intensity and low-productivity farming and they were mostly family farms. That is the model that many people now advocate as a sustainable model but it would not survive. How do the witnesses see us achieving the targets set out in the various agriculture reports such as Food Harvest 2020? How do they fit in? Do the witnesses see us trying to achieve those targets to maintain the maximum number of farm families in rural Ireland? This is about rural Ireland. It is very important. Many people come in and make presentations and forget they are dealing with real people who are trying to eke out a living on the ground. People in rural Ireland are deeply concerned about climate change. It has been evident in the past week. We still have to try to live there. Very often, the agricultural community wants to ensure it maintains its production levels but wants to do so in a climatically sustainable way. It has made significant changes.

There will be a consultation on CAP. Do the witnesses have any idea how CAP should be distributed? Are they suggesting we move away from a basic payments system to an alternative system that rewards people in a more proportionate way for reducing climate change impacts? Climate conditions in Ireland are generally favourable to grass growth. Many of our products are based on grass, which is the comparative advantage we have. Our beef and dairy sectors are highly focused on it. Is it not very difficult to tell Irish farmers that they should drop the only place where they have a comparative advantage in terms of production capacity and ability? Notwithstanding what the witnesses said, the products from nine out of ten animals we produce are exported. We are self-sufficient. We have to sell nine out of every ten animals. That is important.

There have been fairly intense contributions made by the witnesses and they were well summarised. They said another country will not fill that gap but of course one will. We are talking about the world population increasing by about 1 billion over ten or 15 years, and eventually being 10 billion. Where will the food come from to feed those people? Has anybody given any thought to that in the context of this issue? I am all in favour of many of those things. I have been very supportive of various things such as heat production, oilseed rape and bioethanol production and all of those things that would be very useful as cash crops down on the farm. I was very supportive of them. When the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine tried to introduce them, they fell flat on their face. They went south. Not alone did they go south but many of the farmers almost went south with them as well. We are trying to replace fossil fuels. I note Deputy Eamon Ryan is present. He has been very consistent in advocating the displacement of fossil fuels. He has been a strong advocate of rotation crops. Could any of those methods, including anaerobic digestion and various things, significantly contribute to climate change success down on the farm?

I hope such methods are affordable but some are significantly expensive. I recall that farmers were encouraged to grow miscanthus in the midlands but it was a disaster and it took years to extricate farmers from the resultant difficulties. I applaud the submissions that have been circulated. I hope my Marine Institute colleagues will forgive me for not being an expert on the fishing industry. The cattle, sheep and dairying sectors are more important in the midlands and the witnesses present have made presentations on those sectors. Outside the farming sector, people believe that farmers are doing their best to offset emissions.

I am surprised none of the witnesses have commented on the following point. Like my parliamentary colleagues here, I have firmly called on Coillte to produce more afforestation. Coillte is no longer a major player as the vast bulk of afforestation is carried out by about 18,000 farmers. The carbon sink has been mentioned and the actions taken by farmers have made a huge contribution. The work done by farmers has not been factored into the equation.

In terms of carbon emissions, the original target was 39% but now Ireland must reduce its carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, a fact referred to by Mr. Coghlan. I acknowledge Mr. Coghlan had a view on that but can the witnesses identify specific actions that could be taken at a broad agricultural level, ether at the basic producer level or the processing level, that will help us to achieve the 30% target by 2030?

Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I apologise for missing the first presentation by the EPA but I managed to watch the other presentations on screen.

Climate change is a recurrent issue for this committee. A number of us travelled to Brussels before Christmas. The clear message that we got from MEPs, Commissioner Hogan and everywhere we went was that the new CAP scheme would place greater environmental requirements on farmers in terms of water quality, biodiversity and climate change. Any responsible person would have to say that to grow an industry, with all that we now know and the witnesses are keenly aware of the fallout, things must be done in a sustainable fashion. One will go nowhere if one does not do so and one is just pillaging the earth.

We must to our best to rescue the situation and put ourselves on the right trajectory. While we obviously must take account of scientific findings and take on board what we are told, in many ways, we must fine-tune how we bring people along. Everybody has a part to play but I refer to what happens sometimes when climate change is being discussed. Everybody seems to get excited about the Paris climate accord and agreement but when it comes to individual choices people cannot see that they can make a difference. Sometimes, where they can make a difference, they choose not to do so. The Government must create policies that will encourage people to change their lifestyles. In terms of energy usage, all of our business and lifestyles have emanated from the fact that we discovered oil. Many technologies have stemmed from that discovery and it could be argued that if we had diversified at an earlier stage we would be in a different position and would have avoided a number of wars as well.

One attitude that sometimes comes across, and I mean no disrespect, is that one is urged to stop doing this and that and it seems like we must pull back. The reality for us, as politicians who deal with people, is that people expect certain lifestyles now in the agriculture sector or in terms of the type of car one has or how power is used in the home. Anything where we tell people to stop and switch off is often viewed as a backward step. Of course the message has been conveyed that people can save money by conserving energy but I am impressed more by new solutions. A very simple solution has been the advent of light emitting diodes, LEDs, and lighting and electricity has become a lot more efficient, cheaper etc. Solutions that prove meaningful to people must involve all of the technology. It not good enough just to tell people that Armageddon is coming because people just throw up their hands and decide to carry on as normal and, unfortunately, that is the message that people are given.

Energy is a major part of agriculture too. I hail from a part of the country that has a lot of natural renewable energy resources such as wind and wave energy. The wind energy sector on land has been developed more. I have often thought that when we were developing projects, there were no experts around to identify where projections should be developed. Instead, politicians attended public meetings where we encountered people who objected to such development. It is all very well to say, at a high level, that we should achieve this. I have heard calls to crush the farming way of life but that is unrealistic. Instead, people switch off and do not participate in an innovative fashion. Some people have even called for farmers not to keep livestock any more. Such people are negative towards the many positive things that farmers do or are involved in and have been contradicted in terms of the dairy sector. Ireland has the most carbon efficient dairy production sector in Europe and Ireland is fifth in beef production. Every aspect of farmers' lives are affected by climate change. Environmental requirements must be satisfied before farmers can draw down payments and farmers are heavily penalised if they do not comply with the rules stipulated by Europe. All of that must be acknowledged in terms of farming.

I note that Deputy Penrose has left the meeting. Mr. Lumley mentioned fodder shortages. Ireland, as a country, has natural advantages when rearing bovine animals. Therefore, is it realistic to expect Irish farmers to grow more plant-based food crops? My understanding is it is easier to grow protein crops in the tropics, for example, than here. I imagine that attempts to grow some of those crops here would not be successful. Is that not a reality, from the climate point of view, in respect of how we live and in terms of what our diets require?

As for how targets will be achieved, an awful lot of targets have been discussed at a higher level. The Irish Government is regularly bashed for not meeting its targets. I believe this country should be sustainable in its approach to all things and it is a good economic move as well. Recently there have been media announcements about hybrid vehicles and manufacturing in China and India. Ireland has to meet many targets such as Food Wise 2025. The food sector is a major employer in rural Ireland and is a considerable part of the Irish economy. How do the witnesses reconcile that fact with having a transition blueprint and who pays for all of this while bearing in mind the current realities we are facing?

My next question is on the local authorities.

It seems that we need to bring things down to a more local level. Do the witnesses envisage more of a role for local authorities in that regard? I appreciate that they have environmental sections and work with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and so on but can they have more of a role in trying to achieve some of our targets, whether through education or otherwise? What might that involve or is it feasible?

As regards the marine, Dr. Heffernan referred to the €6.4 billion growth target in terms of Ireland's ocean economy. Mr. Lumley discussed the expansion of the beef and dairy industry and set out that our targets in that regard are not sustainable. As regards targets in terms of the marine, does Dr. Heffernan think that harnessing our ocean wealth is being future-proofed in terms of climate change? If so, how is that progressing? Could some of what is being implemented or encouraged by the Marine Institute be brought to bear on agriculture? What advice would Dr. Heffernan offer on the dilemma with which we are faced in that regard?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance, their comprehensive oral presentations and the background presentations which they submitted to the committee in advance of the meeting. The fact that this is the third or fourth of these meetings demonstrates that the committee very much understands that climate change and how we deal with it must be a key part of agriculture in the future. The farming community is very much at one on that objective.

Dr. Crowe spoke first and one of his opening comments was that there must be change but that such change must also work for farmers. We must proceed according to that ethos and principle. We must also recognise that there is a tremendous tradition of agriculture and agricultural produce in this country. In terms of traceability and standards, we have an exceptional agricultural product and that is why we are so successful in terms of exports, production and reputation. That will increasingly have to be put alongside sustainability and will increasingly be demanded by the markets to the same extent that our environment requires us to produce in a carbon-friendly manner.

I would be interested in the perspective of witnesses in respect of Food Wise 2025, which sets very ambitious but achievable targets in regard to agricultural production, and whether they believe we should continue to achieve those objectives or push to do so. Although we are becoming more efficient, the expansion of production contributes to our overall footprint. I think we should follow the targets set out in Food Wise 2025 but I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' perspectives in that regard.

In terms of climate, this country is very suited to food production, in particular grass-based food production, which puts us in a situation whereby we have a very good story to tell. The evidence indicates that we can also produce at a competitive advantage from a sustainability point of view compared to other countries in the global market.

Some other European Union countries face challenges similar to those pertaining in Ireland. They do not have as high a percentage of their overall emissions based in agriculture as does Ireland but they are trying to address climate change. I would be interested in the witnesses' views on how other EU countries are tackling this issue and whether there are any lessons for us in that regard.

The Citizens' Assembly held a module on this issue, although it did not give it a massive amount of time. One of its recommendations was for the imposition of a carbon tax. I do not believe that is the way to go but I would be interested in the views of the witnesses in that regard.

As regards the marine, Dr. Heffernan indicated our cod and haddock stocks are reducing. According to the research, how much of that is attributable to climate change as opposed to fishing levels? In view of the fact that under the Common Fisheries Policy catches by fleets from EU countries are being managed and stocks seem to be responding to that, how much of an impact on stocks does Dr. Heffernan believe the temperature increase is having?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A startling set of statistics that was presented to the committee and which is available in the public domain in recent times tells its own story. According to the statistics, 42% of farms in the west of Ireland have closed in the past 20 years, the vast majority of which were small family farms. At European Union level, the European Court of Auditors found that 1,000 farms are lost every day across the EU. I had to recheck that to ensure it was correct. The European Court of Auditors also found that one third of farmers under the age of 44 have left farming in the past ten years in Ireland. That goes against all the stated policies of bringing younger people into farming and making it more productive. Under EU and Government policy over many years, we have moved to a more intensive and market-led form of farming that has driven huge numbers of small farming families off the land. It is estimated that 75% of many farmers' incomes comes from direct single farm payments at European level. Those single farm payments heavily favour large operators in the manner of their distribution. The policy framework at European and Government level has served to push us towards the intensification of farming and has driven smaller farmers off the land. We must have honesty on these issues. I would like to hear the views of all the witnesses on how that relates to the topic under discussion today.

A valid point made by one of the farming organisations is that the European Commission is currently negotiating the Mercosur trade agreement yet other branches of the European Commission are rightly pointing to the high contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gasses in Ireland. Agriculture contributes more than 30% of the total, which undoubtedly is very serious. On the one hand we are being told we must address that and will be fined if we do not and on the other, the Mercosur agreement is being negotiated, which will bring in huge amounts of beef and other products that do not have anywhere near the same environmental standards as such products from Ireland from countries that are destroying their forestry and rainforest left, right and centre. That dichotomy must be addressed and I would like to hear the witnesses' views in that regard. These are loaded questions and the witnesses can probably sense my views on the matters but I would like to hear their views.

Another point made by farming organisations that appeared before the committee is that Ireland has had an historically low level of industry and the contribution of agriculture to the overall level of greenhouse gasses here is, therefore, higher than one would find in other European Union countries. That is a fair point. They also argue that greenhouse gas emissions should be measured not alone where food is produced but also where it is consumed. If there is market-led demand for high-quality grass-fed Irish beef, responsibility for the greenhouse gas emissions accruing from the production of the beef should be shared by the consumers and producers. That is a reasonable point and I ask the witnesses for their views in that regard.

I seek the views of the witnesses on the forthcoming Common Agricultural Policy framework. Some have already addressed that issue.

What are the witnesses' views on the current payment levels? There is an argument payments should be capped at €60,000 to ensure they are spread more evenly and we can reverse the statistic of 42% of family farms being lost in the west and so on. With the current European Union framework, do witnesses see contradictions in terms of the messaging of the trade negotiations versus greenhouse gas demands? How can we collectively address those issues at Irish and European level?

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use makes up 24% of total emissions in the environmental pillar. Does that include any of the processors such as the creameries or meat producers? Are they categorised as agricultural or industrial?

The Environmental Protection Agency referred to Origin Green, Bord Bia's sustainability programme. I see it more as a marketing tool. How effective is it as a monitor of the sustainability of production, particularly in the case of food manufacturers? It involves on-farm sustainability audits for the farmers who have to deal with controls. For food businesses, however, it is a plan. What is the difference? Is there any enforcement in this project?

Everybody said our model of farming is wrong and is not sustainable. I did not hear of any alternatives, however. Will the witnesses give more specific details about alternative agricultural production? What does one do to keep people living in rural areas if we move from this unsustainable form of production?

What is the Marine Institute’s view on the sustainability of land use as that does have a direct impact on marine use? I do not believe the marine sector is contributing to climate change but it is reacting to it because of what has happened on the land. What changes will be introduced? What new fish will fisherman have to go after because of climate change?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a global problem. For example, say grain farmers here moved over to afforestation, became carbon sinks rather than carbon sources and we balanced the books to become carbon neutral. Last week with the snow, our fondness of bread was a national joke. We also have thriving brewing and distilling industries. We will need grain to sustain those industries. What if the grain comes from Russia by rail, road and boat? Could that carbon footprint be greater than the sequestration from new forestry? If each country balances its books, then the world problem is solved. If we stop producing beef, however, the English must source theirs from South America. If one considers the size of the carbon footprint of beef from South America, would it not be better to leave us to produce it as efficiently as we possibly can?

There is a big movement to change and, apparently, veganism will solve the whole problem. However, take the difference between having a steak dinner and an avocado salad. The avocado probably has a far greater carbon footprint than the steak. This is not just an Irish problem. What are the witnesses’ proposals in this regard?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an awful lot of talk about global warming and climate change. My views are well known on this. While I agree the climate changes, I do not concur with many people's views as to how it changes. Back over the ages and through the centuries, there has been climate change when we did not have as many cows, highly intensive farming or mechanical engines or vehicles. The climate always changes. I am reliably told that, if this country were to become completely emission-free, the difference it would make in the worldwide context is only 0.13%. The rest of the world would make up 99.87%. Our farmers and our business people are targeted in an unfair fashion in the overall context of some people's views on climate change and global warming.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Land Commission threatened farmers that if they did not till one acre of their farm, they would lose it and it would be divided among their neighbours. That happened and people had to go to England to survive. One farm beside me was taken off the owners in such circumstances. Then along came the Agricultural Training Council, ACOT. Farmers were the best custodians of the land and knew how to manage their land. Every farmer knew the grass yield of his farm. One farm might be known as the grass of seven cows while another farm might have the grass of 16 cows. ACOT advised farmers to intensify. Instead of where they might have one cow to three acres, ACOT turned it around the other way to have two or three cows to one acre.

That is what farmers did. They were given grants to do that and to improve marginal land. As well as getting the grants, farmers had to spend a lot of their own money and work very hard to try to bring the land around. That was as a result of the advice the received from officials of the Department - fellows with collars and ties. The farmers and the business community are paying for the likes of us inside here. Farmers, the self-employed and private companies are paying for public services and for the public administration of the country.

Farmers went along with that. Then, lo and behold, in the mid-1980s, fellows with good land were told they had to set so much of it aside and there was a satellite or a camera up in the sky looking down on them if they did not do that. This is the way farmers have been advised and, we will say, controlled because they are told to do these things. This country is already paying €480 million in carbon tax. Where is the carbon tax going? I believe it is going into social services because I do not see it doing anything to help the model that the climate change body or the global warming crowd are talking about.

In the Project Ireland 2040: National Development Plan document, it is stated that €22 billion is going to be directed towards dealing with climate change. Where is that money going to come from? Only from the poor fellow out in the morning milking his cows or the other fellow on the road with a lorry trying to transport food products or whatever. They are going to pay. We are already paying €500 million a year. They are going to double that to €1 billion a year for the next 22 years. That is where they are getting the €22 billion. I am very sure of it.

The people working will have to pay for that because there are no Mother Teresas. Mother Teresa died and there are no leprechauns. The money will have to be extracted out of the working people, the farmers and the business people. It is there the money is going to come from and nowhere else. We cannot get money to put a few extra beds in University Hospital Kerry in Tralee. There is going to be no massive injection of money. I cannot see it. We have no gold. We have no mines. I cannot see it coming from anywhere else so it is going to come out of the pockets of the poor working people. I think all this is fine if we could afford it. However we cannot afford this. It is a game. Look back to 2007. Everyone was told they had to buy diesel cars. Now we are being told-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I just want to inform Senator MacLochlainn that a vote has been called in the Seanad. I ask Deputy Danny Healy-Rae to ask some questions when he is finished.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the committee realise the harm being done to the country and to the people that are trying to keep it going? Are they going to be broken further? Farmers are in a bad enough position as matters stand with Brexit looming. We do not know if it will be a hard border , a soft border or what kind of border, but one thing is sure, it will not be as good as they had it. There is a decline in farming. It has been mentioned by others. There will be a greater decline. The farming community made up the backbone of the country and kept it going back over the ages and the centuries. When they give up, the country will give up. That is my belief.

We are talking about ways to help. Planting of forestry is restricted if it is to be covered by grants. There has to be 80% green ground and 20% other rough ground. Down our way, it is always the other way; we have only 10% or 20% of green ground and the rest of it is rough ground. All of that type of ground has been used since 1950 to grow the grandest of trees. My father started work in forestry in 1950 and there have been two crops out of it since. It was pure rough ground way up the mountain. All that has stopped since either 2011 or 2012. That would one way of utilising the land because it is hardly fit for anything else.

The other thing I am very hurt about is the notion in the Project Ireland 2040 document that we will not be able to burn any turf or peat after 2030. That is unfair to people cutting a bit of turf for their own fires. We have notions from some Deputies that it would be better to leave the turf in the bog. I can tell them that there would be a lot of people in Gneeveguilla, Kilcummin, Scartaglen, Killorglin, Kilgarvan and all the way to Cahersiveen that would be fairly cold inside in their houses if they could not cut a bit of turf. This is what is going on. It is absolutely ridiculous. The Chair is part of the Government. He is doing his very best but I can tell him and his party that if this is rammed down the rural people's throats on top of everything else they are taking, he will get an answer again some day.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to ask questions of the witnesses. The political speech can be made on another day.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Chair think what the Government is trying to do to the working people is fair in light of the fact that 0.13 of 1% is what we are emitting in this country? That is what we are liable for. They are choked and using face masks in Japan as they go about their work. They cannot breath there. We have the cleanest air. Go to Valentia Island, to the top of Mangerton Mountain or to anywhere else in between. We have the cleanest air. What are we at? What are we trying to do to the people? They do not understand. It does not make sense. Our emissions are 0.13%. Let the rest of them tune up first or make an attempt to do so. However, they are making no attempt. We have Trump in America and someone else in China and Japan. We are told that we have to have certain types of diesel engines. We were told that in 2007. Where are all the grand diesel engines we had at that time? They are in Third World countries, they are in Africa and they are in India. They are working fine and still going. The new engines here only last two or three years. It is not working out. If a modern engine in a lorry breaks down, any operator knows it cannot be reconstructed. It has to be thrown away and a new one bought. That is the story now where once it was possible to remodel and do a job on the other engines. That cannot be done now.

It is all costing money. Everyone is operating on a margin. It is so tight now for a fellow to keep going. We are going to make it harder. That is what Project Ireland 2040 is trying to do, and we are hurting so many people along the way. People are told about electric cars. There is nowhere to plug them in to charge their engines. People will also have to be told that there can be no pools of water on the road if they are driving electric cars. If they are obliged to drive through the pools of water I have been trying to go through over the last fortnight, they will soon find out how far their electric cars will keep going. They will not keep going like the diesel or the petrol vehicles. One splash of water and they are finished. They will be walking then. I think many people want people in rural Ireland to do now. I refer to finishing up walking or cycling at the very best. That is what they are trying to do to us. Instead of trying to go forward-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy have questions for the witnesses?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----it looks to me like they are trying to send us backwards. However, they might have a battering on their hands before they get all these airy-fairy ideas through.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I call Deputy Martin Kenny who will be the final questioner.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, I had to go the Chamber for a Topical Issue debate. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their contributions. I read most of the submissions earlier. I have a couple of brief points because I know most of the questions have already been asked.

One thing that strikes me is that farming in Ireland has become more intensive. The intensification of farming has brought us down a particular route and has certainly made food cheaper for the consumer. However, a lot of that farming is based on inputs, many of which are imported from various parts of the world. That is linked to some of the other issues we have. We have often had people from the tillage sector before the committee telling us how they are struggling to survive and how tillage in Ireland has practically been wiped out. They cannot compete with the cheap products that are coming in from abroad. That is having a very negative effect on our greenhouse gas emissions, yet tillage is a very good carbon sink.

As I was leaving, Dr. Matthew Crowe was talking about forestry. I live in Leitrim and forestry is a big issue there. We have huge tracts of almost 100% Sitka spruce forest, which grow and then are cut down completely to grow again and be cut down completely again. There is an issue around all of that. We need to find a better model of afforestation, which creates continuous cover so there is continuous segregation of carbon. It is very much a profit-driven enterprise rather than being something that is there for the farmer to try and make some money from. There is a big resistance to it in the farming community for many sensible reasons.

I am sure slurry and slurry storage have come up. Our answers to the problems we had in the past around the Water Framework Directive focused mainly on sewage and what was happening with our towns' sewage systems, one-off housing and all of that. We avoided the issue of agricultural slurry by giving farmers very good grants to store the slurry. Slurry can only be stored for so long, however, and then it has to go out on the land. The climate has changed and part of what we have been dealing with in the past years are increasingly wet summers running into the harvest. It ends up that the land is often saturated and cannot take the slurry. Something we do not have in Ireland that is used in many countries is biodigestion. What can we do in that regard and how is it moving forward?

On renewable energy, should we be looking at supporting farmers to erect solar panels and other systems in order to negate the carbon that is being produced by farming? Deputy Danny Healy-Rae has left but he mentioned a couple of things of which we also need to be cognisant. Big multinational and global corporations produce the vast majority of the problems we have, yet the emphasis is put on the little guy when it comes to solving them. That needs to be borne in mind. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae also said that everything is going towards modernisation, which increasingly means becoming a throw-away society. He had a point there, out of all that he said. We need to look at that. We know it in our own households. If I buy a washing machine and it breaks down after five years, the guy who comes to look at it will say, "Ah, we cannot fix them anymore. You will have to throw it out and buy a new one." That is part of the logic that has come in.

I thank the witnesses and apologise that I was not here earlier.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will return to our witnesses, starting with the Marine Institute.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I will take a couple of the linked questions and will leave the fisheries-specific ones to Dr. Connolly. Senator Mulherin asked about targets for the integrated marine plan for Ireland and the relative future-proofing of those. Deputy Pringle asked about the balance of the ocean. The ocean is the sink for 25% of the carbon produced on the planet. The balance is very much absorption, with the oceans negating for the land and people on land. In general, the two things that are crucial to the state of the ocean with regard to climate are the gas exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere, and the sinking of carbon and delivery of oxygen for us all.

All water on the planet returns to the ocean. That is the reservoir. There is a Chinese proverb that says all water is on a journey back to the sea. Water quality in all its facets is very important to the health of the ocean system and all of its ecosystem. I refer to the enhanced focus on the Water Framework Directive and its marine counterpart, the marine strategy framework directive. They touch on every aspect of dealing with water, all emissions, all water arriving into the ocean and the quality of water waste treatment. They are very important factors for the ocean in receiving the water back and society needs to bear them in mind.

On the question about moving forward in the achievement of the €6.4 billion target, while it is tangential to the committee's focus on agriculture and the marine, one of Ireland's greatest assets that is very much part of our future is the fact that we have the largest combined renewable energy asset given to any nation on this planet, between the combination of offshore wind, tidal and wave. I have often heard it described as Ireland's oil for a future world. It is not only carbon neutral but it would have enormous potential for substitution of what are primarily carbon sources of energy in the modern economy. Wind is the closest to market. Tidal is next, and the next in sequence is wave. Ireland has an integrated investment portfolio of infrastructure between the Science Foundation Ireland centre of excellence in University College Cork with world-class wave tanks, the one-quarter scale wave energy test site in Galway Bay that has a scientific observation cable, and then plans for a full-scale device centre off Belmullet. That is one of the greatest economic opportunities for Ireland in the short, medium and long term. It would have a very significant contribution to energy balances.

There were questions about the relationship of the ocean to a number of sectors. The ocean is central to a fast-growing area of Irish tourism and activity-based leisure. This is working off the brand of the Wild Atlantic Way, literally from the south to the north of the country. The ability to provide more detailed information on ocean conditions on app-based deliveries offers potential to increase tourism revenue. Activity-based tourism is a very low-carbon footprint type of tourism.

Another very valuable asset is wild salmon from an angling perspective. A facility in Newport, County Mayo is one of the global indicators sites for how well salmon are doing and what populations are returning. It is a species at its southern limit in natural distribution so it is really important that the data in respect of a long-term trend of over 50 years are available to help mitigate and plan for the future.

Another emerging area of the ocean economy is the use of marine based molecules and materials from the deep ocean for functional foods and for providing significant added value to food production. They are also used in pharma and medtech, and in emerging and new sensor technologies to develop nature-inspired design materials that go on sensors. While it is the smallest element of the overall mix of the ocean economy, it is the fastest growing component, with new and emerging sectors measured from 2010 onwards. That augurs well for the future and will help, to a large extent, in carbon-proofing the growth areas.

In marine fisheries, the scale of effort is going in the direction of increasing efficiency, while the quantum of natural resources that is going to be available will not see an expansion or an explosion in the activity of fishing. The whole effort is towards extracting greater value and ensuring sustainability. My colleague, Dr. Connolly can talk about emerging opportunities.

Finally, while I would not be competent to talk on the more detailed aspects of land use and agri-practices, there are others present who would be.

I can give two examples of how understanding the ocean can benefit us in dealing with the challenge of climate change, as well as other challenges. As the Atlantic Ocean dominates our weather experience and our climate, the earlier we get a depth of understanding of what that is delivering to us, the greater the benefit for Ireland. I am talking in the medium term of being able to predict conditions in the next season and the years such as the general growth conditions that are likely coupled with the weather forecasting. As we go into a period of more and more precision in agriculture and aquaculture and satellite-linked practices, it is not unreasonable to think that we will be able to forecast and predict that for a season ahead. Certainly that would give us an enormous ability to plan, mitigate and reduce.

In addition, recent research points to the potential - I stress that it is the potential - of significant methane reduction by the integration of marine plant materials, seaweeds into the diet of cattle and other bovines. That is a potential and other experts who will appear before the committee may be able to address it in detail.

Chairman, I have dealt with the questions from Deputy Pringle and Senator Mulherin and my colleague Dr. Connolly will answer the fisheries questions.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

Deputies McConalogue and Pringle each asked a question on fisheries, which I will answer together. The first question is about changing fish stocks and the opportunities for the industry. The science view is that species such as cod, haddock, plaice, pollock and saithe will start moving north as the water warms up. We have no doubt that in the next ten to 20 years, there will be increases in sea temperature that will cause these stocks to move north to get to the colder waters. What will take their place? We will have species that are more southerly distributed, such as boarfish, hake, monkfish and brill, that will move north and take their place. There is also another opportunity here in that the market value of the new species that will move into the waters, such as hake and monkfish, are much more valuable than species such as haddock and cod. There may be an opportunity there, but the extent of the movement north, when it will take place and its variations around Ireland and Europe are extremely uncertain but we definitely think that there will be a displacement of the stocks that the Irish fishing industry will be targeting in ten to 15 years.

Mackerel stocks are really important to Ireland Inc. and we are already seeing a shift in the distribution of where they spawn. The west coast is a really important spawning ground for species such as mackerel, horse mackerel and blue whiting. Every year off Scotland and Ireland, more than 7 million tonnes of these fish spawn there. With the shift in temperature, we are beginning to see slow movement north of these spawning areas and that will affect the fishing industry and the time of the year that boats can go out to exploit the mackerel and get it at the times that it is of the highest economic value. There is major uncertainty around that but we know that there will be significant changes coming.

My last point reflects on a comment by Senator Mulherin on Common Agricultural Policy reform. I will draw on my experience in the Common Fisheries Policy reforms in 2013. The Senator made the point that it is really important to bring people with one. It is really important to bring the farming industry with one in terms of change, just like we brought the fishing industry with us in times of fundamental change around the way the science is done around the stocks and the concept of maximum sustainable yield. We showed the industry that they would have to take short-term pain but the long-term benefits would far outweigh it. We are beginning to see five years later that there are much improved stocks around the Irish coast. We still have work to do, but we brought the industry with us by explaining the concepts and I think it will be really important to do the same in respect of the CAP reform.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

Chairman, I overlooked to mention another area of growth potential for Ireland in food production is in shellfish aquaculture and shellfish production. That relies on a totally natural source of food, there is no footprint associated with the food production. Equally finfish that are fed marine-origin lipids and protein have a very high food conversion rate which would give it among the lowest carbon footprints for food.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Heffernan. I now invite Ms Gumbo to speak.

Ms Noreen Gumbo:

I will deal with the role that Ireland can play in an increasing global population. I referred to the fact that we contend there is no basis for this argument. What is clear, and I think there was common ground in terms of the impact of climate change arising from agriculture in Ireland and in the countries in which we work is that we cannot get away from the fact that emissions are impacting on the recurrence of drought in places such as eastern Africa and the Sahel. The issue is not around supply but around access. We know that Ireland's exports are going to the more affluent societies and are not filling that hunger gap. The role we need to play is supporting, with the same empathy that we have for Irish farmers, smallholder farmers in east Africa and the Sahel to ensure they have a viable livelihood in the places that are being impacted most at this time. This can be done through research, technology or some of the roads we have travelled. I think support for those smallholder farmers is the way to go, rather than arguing that we can increase Irish agriculture with a view to filling that gap.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Mr. Coghlan.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan:

The contributions from Deputies and Senators was very rich and I will try to address a few of them.

There was a specific question on the size of agricultural emissions and the level of overall Irish emission and our role in the global problem. I was asked whether the level of emissions from processors and creameries fall within the agricultural or the industrial sectors. As far as I understand and others may correct me on this, they are not classified as agricultural emission, as agricultural emissions are the land-based emissions only. The other ones would be in the industrial sector or potentially in the power generation sector in the EPA inventories. They are separate from what we talk about when we talk about agricultural emission, which are the methane and other gases related to agricultural production itself.

On Ireland's overall place and level of responsibility in the global emissions setting, Ireland is not being asked to do more than its fair share; every country has to do its proportionate share in reducing emissions over time. Europe has been relatively understanding, in the context of the European allocation of emissions, that Ireland was a developing country 20 years ago when this started and Ireland was asked to do less than other countries. We are not being asked to do more than anybody else. When I started my present job with Friends of the Earth a little more than ten years ago, I came from the overseas aid sector and at the time we were very proud of the fact that per person, we were the sixth most generous country in the world in terms of overseas aid. We had a very good track record on aid but I discovered then that we were the sixth most polluting country among the rich countries in terms of climate pollution. When I looked at that, it was a clear contradiction in how we interact with and show solidarity with poor communities in the global south. Since then the recession has reduced both our emissions per capita and our aid per capitabut we are still the eighth most polluting country in the rich world per person. This includes our agricultural emissions, as well as everything else. It is worth saying that agricultural emissions are about the same as they were in 1990 but transport emissions have more than doubled in that time. This is not about one sector. All sectors will have to pull their weight. We are now 12th per person in terms of overseas aid. Our pollution has remained relatively high per person and it behoves us to reduce that over time between now and 2050 to do our fair share.

On the issue of food, and Ms Gumbo has covered most of it, but a member raised a question on the intensification of production and imports as well.

Ireland imports more calories than it exports. For all the talk and reality of our food production, by the nature of our consumption patterns and our production patterns, Ireland is importing calories for 1.4 million people more than we export. Ireland is not a net contributor to global calories, never mind global food security, just by the reality of the current global food production system.

Questions were asked about Ireland's grass-based agriculture, the place of beef and dairy, whether we are just saying "Stop" and if there are other ways of looking at the issue of climate regimes that apply. Friends of the Earth for the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition are definitely not saying that beef and dairy production should stop now or overnight, or even in the immediate or foreseeable future. We are saying that to begin with we cannot bet the future of rural communities in Ireland on ever increasing beef and dairy production, given the carbon constraints that we all face around the world, the climate challenge and the fact that it is probably not practical for everyone in the world to have the dietary patterns we now have if we are to stay within the global carbon budget over the coming years.

Deputy McConalogue and Senator Mulherin spoke about the grass-based system inside the European Union being to Ireland's natural advantage and how could we possibly not use it. Senator Mac Lochlainn asked about consumption versus production and which is the best for responsibility. We have an EU trading system, for example, for electricity emissions, cement and so on. For the current round of EU negotiations, if we had come up with and proposed - it was on table - a European emissions trading system for agriculture within an overall limit of agricultural emissions, and if Ireland competed for ours to be the most efficient and to get the biggest share of that market, that would have been fine because it would not be creating new loopholes. It would have created a level playing field inside a limited budget. This is how Ireland treats things at a national level - we treat agriculture separately - but at EU level, Ireland has said to put them all together. Ireland basically ended up looking for loopholes for the agriculture sector to try to define our way out of the challenge. This is not practical.

On a global level and the issue of consumption versus production, it would be fairer if Ireland was accountable at international level for its emissions for things Ireland consumes rather than for things Ireland produces. In that case, all those beef and dairy exports would be the responsibility of India, China or the United States of America and not our responsibility. Ultimately, however, Ireland would be responsible for the emissions in the production of all the cars, washing machines and televisions we import from China and Japan. It is interesting that a good few years ago the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, funded research that showed on a production basis if all countries produced like Ireland, three planets would be needed to absorb the pollution. The pollution calculation for consumption ends up much the same. Ireland's consumption is about the same as three planets' worth of pollution, so neither is sustainable. It would, however, change the relative responsibilities within Ireland and this would have been worth looking at. That horse has bolted because that is a decision at UN international level. Farming representatives may have said that at this committee, and we have backed them in saying it, but it is not what Ireland tried to do in the UN negotiations leading up to the Paris Agreement. Ireland looked for exemptions for agricultural production rather than a new way of dealing with those emissions.

The carbon tax issue was raised a couple of times. I believe that carbon tax has a role to play but it is not a silver bullet. People respond more to smaller-scale incentives, be it the plastic bag tax, a congestion charge, a grant for a solar panel or a price for electricity from a solar panel. "Tangible" is the wrong word - it is more easy to get one's head around these incentives than the abstraction of a carbon tax. I believe a carbon tax has a role to play in the rest of the economy and in the agriculture sector because it changes the incentive structures for us. It makes polluting activities more expensive and it makes retrofitting a house, or moving in to forestry or other less polluting activities more environmentally attractive. On its own, however, a carbon tax will not do the trick.

Reference was made to whose pockets the carbon tax is coming from and into whose pockets it is going. It is often forgotten that when the tax was introduced in the budget in December 2010, VAT was reduced in the same budget. For a while those measures cancelled each other out. Essentially, one indirect and technically and socially regressive tax was reduced in the form of VAT and another tax was increased. At the time, not much was made of the fact that they were revenue neutral. The other way of doing it is to have it going in to the general Exchequer, or use it to pay Ireland's fines for overshooting our emissions, which is not ideal. Another idea on the table on this budget is that the carbon tax goes up significantly and the Citizens' Assembly said two things of interest in this regard. They said that they would be willing to pay higher carbon taxes themselves for more polluting activities, and they said that agriculture should not be exempt and should face similar pricing incentives. Raising the carbon tax is very much on the agenda for the coming budget, with a potential decrease in income tax at the same time to offset labour costs versus pollution costs, or it could be given back in a payment to people. people could pay carbon tax and then get it back in a tax dividend system. This is a social transfer to marginalised communities because those people who have a lower income spend less, so they would gain money from a carbon tax. Those persons who drive bigger cars and have a more expensive lifestyle would pay more in to the system. We could have a socially progressive tax if it was given back in a dividend to citizens.

Turning to the issue of opportunities in rural Ireland and especially energy opportunities, Mr. Joseph Curtain of the Institute of International and European Affairs is the lead author of a climate-smart agriculture report in which he brought together many stakeholders. In his address to the Citizens' Assembly, Mr. Curtain said: "Ambitious climate action can happen in such a way that benefits rural communities and in a manner that drives regionally dispersed economic development." Much of this is because of the opportunities around renewable energy, through both developer-led projects and community-led projects. I agree with Senator Mulherin that developer-led projects were not necessarily always done that well. Ireland did not have a system in place to guarantee a share of ownership, and not just a community benefit in the form of payment to the local sports club. The new government scheme provides for community shared ownership of developer-led projects, but it specifically provides for 20% of new renewable energy to be community-led projects where they have majority ownership. We are, however, disappointed that there was no provision for a price or payment for really small-scale micro level solar generators, particularly on the rooftops of farms, businesses and houses in the State and in rural Ireland. Our organisation and the Irish Farmers' Association are at one on this issue and we have both pushed for a scheme that would allow people to be paid for the electricity that they feed in to the grid. There is talk of a pilot scheme around grants, but grants are inefficient: they can be captured by the contractors who install the solar panels. It would be better to have a price support that would allow rural communities and others to benefit. I would like to see every school, in the State install solar panels on their roofs and be paid for electricity they generate.

There are real opportunities for rural Ireland in this regard and I hope this will be the focus when considering where Ireland goes now: how do we diversify agricultural income and other income streams to have vibrant and diverse economy in rural and urban Ireland, which is what we all want. I hope we can work together on that. I must bring my son to GAA training now so I must leave.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Coghlan. That is no problem.

Mr. Ian Lumley:

Some members referred to the major conflict, which is quite obvious, between the ongoing annual climate negotiations that take place at UN level, including meeting the Paris Agreement targets and the ongoing global trade agreements, specifically the Mercosur negotiations that could potentially result in higher carbon impact beef products coming in to the EU from South America among other concerns. If we are to have effective climate action at global level, it will have to be integrated with targets that meet the Paris Agreement, and trade agreements must reflect that. This was a major issue at the Bonn climate summit last November. In his speech President Macron raised a very important signal that if there was a conflict between meeting global climate targets and countries that were able, through trade agreements, to export products that undermined the climate targets then there would have to be a reconciliation of that conflict with carbon taxation or some other mechanism or agreement. We have to start thinking of accounting for pricing and disincentivising higher carbon impact actions, in energy as much as in food, and incentivising decarbonisation.

This opportunity can now be realised at European level through the negotiations taking place on the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. European agricultural policy resulted in the removal of milk quotas under the previous CAP round. This has caused problems with respect to climate action and emissions. In Ireland and across Europe, major issues include continuing biodiversity loss and water quality. The Netherlands is facing major legal pressures on nitrates and water quality, potentially resulting in significant destocking, some of which has already occurred. The negotiations on CAP present an opportunity to make climate action a centrepiece of future European agricultural policy and subsidy support, with a switch to supporting more plant-based and locally-based food, enhancing biodiversity and water quality, controlling nitrates and addressing problems with ammonia emissions.

In Ireland, substantial resources have been devoted to researching and promoting grassland agriculture to the exclusion of other sectors. A redirection of targeted, area-based pilot schemes is required towards better quality tillage, plant-based food and potential energy crops. There are lessons to be learned from what happened when miscanthus was incentivised without a proper support system for the crop being put in place. My colleague, Mr. Ewing, will discuss the potential for high-value nature farming which could result in a significant rebooting of the CAP figures to favour those parts of the country that have lower support for farm incomes.

We must also take a realistic approach to the concept of offsetting, which has limited potential for forestry and bioenergy. We must ensure that support mechanisms in forestry and bioenergy are compatible with the concerns of local communities. The concerns raised by Deputy Martin Kenny regarding County Leitrim, for example, are widely recognised as a consequence of the current system of subsidies.

Major issues arise with regard to Origin Green, a branding and labelling system that could cause serious reputational damage to Ireland when reconciled with the reality of our rising climate emissions and the difficulties we will experience meeting nitrates and water quality targets as a result of increasing stocking levels. The problem applies not only to the bovine sector, but also in horticulture, including the extraction of peat for horticultural use.

On marine issues, there is serious unpredictability in respect of the impact of warming oceans and ocean acidification on the marine ocean feeding chain. We should not take comfort from projections showing that warming oceans will result in species migrating from our waters to the north as waters warm and species from further south migrating in our direction. Species change and migration may not be reconciled with the maintenance of marine feeding systems.

There are also serious worries that new forms of exploitation of the marine ecosystem for marine protein could further cut into and endanger the stability of the marine ecosystem. These include the pursuit of deeper fish such as boarfish and blue whiting, as has been proposed in Deputy Pringle's constituency. Marine life, including marine organisms and marine fish species, sequester carbon. We need to be careful, therefore, about the ecological and carbon balance within the marine ecosystem if we are to maintain its stability.

The potential for offseting methane in bovine agriculture through the use of marine protein is still very much at the research stage. If this idea were to proceed further, the environmental impact of the scale of potential extraction of marine protein that might arise would need to be quantified as the issue has not yet been addressed. There is also serious ecological conflict and capacity issues with Irish aquaculture in our coastal waters, including with regard to the sustainability of finfish farming given the ecological footprint of the marine feeding of farmed fish relative to output.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Many questions were raised and I tried to track most of them. I will try to answer those that have not been addressed. I live in a farming community in north County Roscommon and I come from a family that has been farming for many generations. Most of the people who live around me have at least two jobs, with some having three or four jobs. The reason is that their farms are not economic in the system that has been imposed on them. They were encouraged to get into debt in the past to intensify beef production, stock cattle and so on. The types of things they are encouraged to do in terms of slatted sheds and slurry spread and so forth did not fit then, do not fit now and will not fit in future because of the intensification of rain incidence in the west and so on.

What do we do about this? Farms west of the Shannon are generally extensive. In terms of farming land, these farms cover approximately half the country, yet farmers in the region receive the least income from the CAP. These farmers should be encouraged to protect our nature value land in terms of biodiversity, climate and protecting soils. We have declining soil quality and quantities in this country and these factors, which are not being tracked, will impact greatly on us in the future. We need to encourage these people to be the carers for the land and this involves financial encouragement.

As many speakers noted, there is a movement away from the land. Senator Mac Lochlainn provided some startling statistics on the movement of young and older people away from the land and farm abandonment. These are serious problems which will worsen if we do not do something about them and look after those who are looking after the land.

Where do we go with this? We need to examine the Common Agricultural Policy as this is one mechanism where we can find the finances to support people who are looking after farms and preserving biodiversity. Why are average farm incomes in Ireland €15,000 when they are €30,000 in Germany? Why are farmers east of the Shannon receiving much larger incomes from farming per acre than farmers west of the Shannon? The reason is the focus in Ireland on intensive farming. In Germany, the focus is on factory farming. Those are the background scenarios, if one likes.

We need the polluter to pay for the pollution he or she creates. The polluter pays principle is enshrined in European law in any case. It means people must pay for pollution they create on their farms or through the use of cars and so on. This needs to be borne in mind when we visualise the issue.

Change is always difficult. Coming from a farming background, I know people are traditional and stuck in their ways. However, the tried and trusted mechanisms they have used throughout their lives will not work in future for a variety of reasons, including climate change.

I ask the Chairman to excuse me for a rambling a little. I am trying to find the right responses to the questions asked.

In terms of protein production, it is inaccurate to state protein cannot be produced in this country by any means other than ruminants of one sort or another. It is perfectly possible to grow field beans and other forms of beans, which are high protein sources, in this country and to do it quite productively. There are other ways of going about it, and these are plant proteins. I know we do not do it in this country, but in intensive agriculture it takes 20 pounds of vegetable protein to produce one pound of beef. Does this make any sense in terms of a starving planet? It does not. I want to make sure I have covered everything that has been asked.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have Food Harvest 2025 targets.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Yes, that is the question I was-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How, in Mr. Ewing's opinion, can we reach these targets in conjunction with a transfer of income under the CAP?

Mr. Michael Ewing:

I do not think we can. Food Wise 2025 is a pathway to serious problems for the future. I do not think it is possible. We can achieve it, but it will cost us big time both financially and environmentally. It will have a cost for the water quality in Ireland and for biodiversity. We have had a decline in farmland birds of between 70% and 90% over the past 30 years. This is enormous. There are reasons for this, and many of them relate to the way in which we farm now compared to how we farmed before. People spoke about the size of farms and stated that people were living hand to mouth to a degree in farming, and I totally accept this, but we should allow for the fact that an aspect of farming is about our culture, our rural environment and our rural communities. I live in a small rural community, and these issues are very important to individual people and communities. We need to recognise this and provide for these people to continue to be on their farms and to live in vibrant communities. Leitrim is probably the extreme case. Pension funds are coming in and buying up land to grow forestry and basically closing down farms and communities. This is not a good thing for the future.

I do not know whether committee members can see the little badge I am wearing. It represents the sustainable development goals, of which there are 17. We should be thinking in holistic terms with regard to agriculture. It is not isolated. It is part of a bigger picture of our society. We should be thinking in these terms and in terms of the 17 goals and how we can achieve them all together as one thing. Dr. Crowe spoke about at the very beginning about the conversations we need to have. These are realistic conversations between farmers who are part of our community and environmentalists who are part of our community. It is about every aspect of our community speaking together about bringing all of these goals into the one picture and not people just picking off little bits and stating they want to make money as farmers. Farmers deserve to make money. They are custodians of 75% to 80% of our land surface and they should be supported in what they do, but they should also realise that what they do is important to everybody else also. This is not just with regard to food production but protection of our natural wealth.

I will come back very briefly, if I may, to an aspect of the marine sector, which is shell fisheries. This is very unregulated in this country and the way in which licensing and shell fisheries are conducted is a very serious issue for us. They will impact on climate change in due course, perhaps not at the moment but they will in terms of a number of factors.

Deputy Kenny spoke about the issue of consumption and production, and I totally agree with every word he said in terms of the throwaway society we have created. This is a major part of the problem in terms of climate change. We produce far more than we actually need and we produce it in a way that will not last. All of these aspects of our economic system contribute to the issues we now face in terms of climate change. I could go on and on about this but I think the Deputy understands and his point was well made.

Dr. Matthew Crowe:

I will refer to the submission in some places.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A few specific questions have been asked, including one on local authorities.

Dr. Matthew Crowe:

I will deal with them first. Deputy Mulherin asked about the role of local authorities in dealing with climate change. They have a major role to play. New regional climate offices are being established in Dublin, Mayo, Cork and Kildare. This was announced before Christmas, in tandem with the publication of the national adaptation framework. Not surprisingly, these climate offices will probably focus more on adaptation than mitigation. The local authorities know a lot about adaptation, flood management and dealing with the risks that climate change is bringing upon us. They will have a very big role, and I imagine that as the climate dialogue evolves local government will get more and more involved. It is interesting to see the word "climate" beginning to appear more in the administrative language of local government, even in terms of some of the directors of service now having climate as part of their brief. This would not have been the case ten years ago.

Deputy Pringle asked two specific questions, one on the accounting. As was advised earlier, the agricultural figures are mainly for methane and nitrous oxide, which are from the animals and the fertiliser. The processing plants are accounted for elsewhere in the statistics. A broader climate point on this is that bar the agriculture bit that deals with methane and nitrous oxide everything else is carbon dioxide. This is the driving force in terms of climate change from all of the other sectors, whereas with agriculture it is different as it is predominantly methane from the animals and nitrous oxide mostly from fertiliser use.

The Deputy also asked about Origin Green. I take a slightly different perspective on it than has been said. There is no doubt it is a marketing tool. Many companies and farmers are involved in it and it includes farm sustainability audits and sustainability plans for food businesses. Anything like this is a good thing because it helps to drive behaviour change, particularly with small companies involved in the food sector. I live in Wexford, and I can see it with some of the local butchers who are branding themselves as being green. They are doing things and they want to make a difference. They are not just doing it for marketing purposes. Little things like this can really help in terms of encouraging businesses to think a little differently about their behaviour and move it along in the right direction.

Many members asked about the global issue. On page 11 of the submission there is some text on the international context. It includes a reference to the two special reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, decided it would have done after the big meeting in Paris. One of these is on climate change and land. The point is that it is a global issue. It does not just affect Ireland. The IPCC acknowledged at that time that more research and work had to be done to look at the whole question of global food production from a climate perspective. This work is happening at present, and the report will be completed in late 2019. This will be a very important report in terms of informing what happens next in how the world deals with the food issue. No doubt it will have some ramifications for Ireland also.

Deputy McConalogue asked about Food Wise 2025 and learnings from other countries. Again, I take a slightly different perspective on Food Wise. The Deputy specifically asked whether it should continue and I would say that the answer is that it should, but there are serious environmental constraints in relation to it. Food Wise acknowledges the fact that food production and expansion in Ireland cannot happen at the expense of the environment.

What is important now is how it happens and how the environmental issues are factored in. Food Wise 2025 is about much more than the beef and dairy industry. It covers areas as diverse as brewing and aquaculture. Pretty much all of the food-producing businesses in the country are in some way connected to Food Wise 2025 but the bit that gets the most attention is the part concerning animal numbers. When Food Harvest 2020 was developed, and subsequently in designing Food Wise 2025, a big part of the plan was that with the end of quotas, dairy would start to expand. At time it was expected that the overall number of animals would not go up. It was anticipated that if the number of dairy cattle went up, the number of beef cattle would go down. However, that is not what has happened. The number of beef cattle is holding up. That is where the environmental constraints issue will become more important.

It does not just concern climate change. It also concerns water in the case of the nitrates directive and the national emissions ceiling directive, which includes a ceiling on the amount of ammonia that the country can produce. Pretty much all of that is produced by agriculture. It is a complicated picture, but overall, as a food producing nation, it is far better for us to have a plan like Food Wise 2025, which acknowledges the environmental constraints, than to go without one. This plan can involve the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and other authorities watching it, reporting on it, assessing, monitoring and carrying out research.

There is a huge amount we can learn from other countries. In particular, I will mention the initiatives I referred to at the very start, which were included in the national development plan. The first of these is the town-scale pilot projects converting food and agricultural waste in agricultural catchments to biogas to supply local networks. I refer here to anaerobic digestion. Other countries have managed to do much more with anaerobic digestion than Ireland. Wexford, to refer to my home county, is now being networked for gas. A question linked to the future-proofing of a town like Wexford is where gas is going to come from in 40 years. It is in an agricultural catchment and there is plenty of agricultural and food waste produced there. That could be used to produce gas of a suitable quality to supply the town network. The farmers would then get a much more stable fertiliser product at the end of the day. It is good to see that thinking of this kind is in the national development plan.

The second initiative which was mentioned was the idea that houses and farms could be their own power plants through the use of renewable technologies like solar power and heat pumps. The technology is getting to the point where it is possible for houses and farms to produce enough electricity for themselves and to sell some excess electricity into the grid. That will require a lot of change. The grid will probably need to change for that to happen. However, piloting climate-smart countryside projects is in the national development plan. This type of thing has happened in other countries. Ireland can learn from what has happened elsewhere to speed up the implementation of these projects.

Senator Mac Lochlainn mentioned the regional issue. There are some interesting maps of the country on pages 12 and 13 of the EPA submission. They show that certain environmental issues, particularly water and nature, vary from one part of the country to another. The maps on page 12 deal with water quality. One can see that most of the water quality problems are in the east of the country, that is, the north east, the east and the south east. There are more people living in those areas and more intensive agriculture. The second map shows the most pristine waters remaining in Ireland. Most of them are in the west, where there are fewer people and less intensive agriculture.

On page 13 there is a map of what is called high nature value farming. That map shows the parts of the country that are more suitable for high nature value farming. Again, they are mainly in the west, north west and south west of the country. When it comes to reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and designing the next version of it, the EPA would like to see more ways of incentivising the best type of farming for a given location. Again, this must be done in a manner which works for farmers. If it does not work for the farmer, it will not work. There are some really good examples of such projects. The Burren Life Programme is a high nature value farming project that works really well for the farmers in the Burren, in a way that was not happening 15 or 20 years ago.

Deputy Kenny had some questions on the forestry issue. If Ireland is to move towards carbon neutrality, which is the stated aim of Ireland's policy position for climate change for 2050, we have to figure out ways in which more trees can be grown in the country. I think the target in the national forestry strategy is to reach 18% of land cover. That figure is about 11% at the moment. This raises the question of who plants the trees. The planting is mostly done by farmers. If there are barriers which prevent that from happening, they need to discussed in collaboration with the people who are actually doing the work. Ways to remove these barriers must be figured out. I imagine that will be part of the discussion as the CAP starts to evolve.

Slurry storage was also mentioned. A potential solution to help with that is anaerobic digestion. This is the same thing I spoke about earlier when I raised the possibility of projects at scale for gas production. Such projects will not totally solve the problem, but would be an alternative to simply storing slurry on farms.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

I notice that Senator Mulherin has joined us again, and I did not respond to her question on local government. Clearly local government has a very important role in adaptation. It is also important in mitigation. It comes back to the question of how we get people talk and engage together. As members are aware, for the last three years we have had a new model of local engagement with communities called the poly-participation networks. They now beginning to develop a vision for the well-being of their communities for this and future generations. We are running a series of pilots to enable communities to work together to come up with these visions for well-being. Thankfully, these pilots are funded by the EPA. This covers all aspects of their lives, including food production, health, education, etc. Everything about their community is involved. It is a visioning exercise, designed to develop ideas and policy at a local level for action. There is potential for these questions to be examined at very local level.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today.

That concludes the first part of today's meeting. We will suspend for a few minutes for a break and to allow the next group of witnesses to come in. The current witnesses are more than welcome to stay with us by sitting the Gallery while the next group is before us.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From Dairy Industry Ireland I welcome to this part of the meeting Mr. Conor Mulvihill, director, and Dr. Miriam Ryan, executive with responsibility for specialised nutrition and regulatory affairs. From the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association I welcome Ms Gillian Westbrook, CEO, and Mr. John McHugh, dairy farmer. From Teagasc, I welcome Professor Frank O'Mara, director of research, and Dr. Trevor Donnellan, research officer. From the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association I welcome Mr. Patrick Kent, national president, and Ms Nessa Fitzgibbon, press and communications officer. I thank the delegates for coming before the committee to discuss specific issues concerning climate change and its impact on agriculture and the food sector. I also thank them for their written submissions which I circulated to members earlier. To move things on, I ask them to summarise their opening statements as much as possible.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Mr. Mulvihill to make his opening statement.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

I thank members for the invitation to attend. They will have received our submission.

Dairy Industry Ireland represents the primary and secondary dairy manufacturers, including the specialised nutrition sector. I am director and with me is our head of regulatory affairs, Dr. Miriam Ryan. Our current CEO is Mr. Jim Woulfe of Dairygold. We have four team members to represent the entire industrial dairy manufacturing base in Ireland.

The dairy processing industry is a key component of the economy on the island, providing much needed employment spread across rural areas into every parish. The industry processes across 30 sites over 7.5 billion litres of milk which is supplied by 18,000 family farms, many of which are the owners of primary businesses. The industry has an all-island presence. Since the abolition of quotas, we have been driving to be a global leader in the development of a high value, environmentally sustainable dairy industry based on an extensive grass based dairy system. Dairy companies have invested hundreds of millions of euro in recent years to prepare for this opportunity which resulted in us achieving almost €5 billion worth of exports of dairy products, ingredients and nutritionals in 2017. These exports have found their way to over 155 markets worldwide, with international markets beyond the European Union becoming increasingly important. In 2018 these international markets are projected to take over 50% of Irish dairy exports for the first time. Ireland remains in a strong position, with the primary dairies continuing to be 100% Irish owned entities, while the quality of our produce is reflected in the fact that three of the world's major specialised nutrition companies have chosen to base key secondary processing sites in Ireland.

Having gone through that introduction, I will move quickly to discuss what we have come to deal with in terms of an action based approach to sustainability and climate change. To put the seriousness of climate change for the industry into context, I note that the environment and sustainability are the first and second agenda items when our CEOs meet as a board. To put it in further context, Brexit is the third item. Dairy Industry Ireland has long been working with Bord Bia at processor level to drive the completion of the sustainable dairy quality assurance scheme, SDAS. Its members have supported this process wholeheartedly and funded the audit process on behalf of their farmer members. This has been very arduous but worthwhile and as of now the finish line is in sight for phase 1, with nearly all 18,00 dairy farmers included. The industry recognises that resting on its laurels is not enough, as Mr. Matt Crowe of the EPA has pointed out, and that more must be done to support the SDAS in driving best practice at dairy farm level. In that vein, the dairy industry established Dairy Sustainability Ireland in 2016 to provide industry leadership on the issue of sustainable dairy practices that would help the climate change agenda in a positive manner.

Dairy Sustainability Ireland is a proactive, industry-led, whole-of-sector and whole-of-government partnership which is working to develop and implement new approaches to dairy farm sustainability at both economic and environmental levels. A Dairy Sustainability Ireland board has been established containing all 14 members of Ireland's dairy processing industry, including the specialised nutrition companies. They were joined by all of the main dairy associated farm organisations, including the IFA, the ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme. I acknowledge that the ICSA is not represented here but we focused on the dairy sector. These groups were then augmented by the key agencies of the State, including the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government on foot of its responsibility for water services, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bord Bia, Teagasc, the representatives of which will make their own presentation, and the local authorities. The board meets quarterly, with the most recent meeting having taken place in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 1 February. The next meeting will take place in the Customs House on 2 May. Specific task forces are constantly meeting to develop and implement the strategy agreed to by the board at company and farm level. There is an organogram in the material circulated to the committee for the information of members.

What we seek to engender from the Government through the industry down to farms is a rationale for positive climate change measures. It is clear that the discourse on climate change and sustainability has caused a disconnect between stakeholders, as we have seen today in some of the exchanges. Negative messaging and forced environmental and climate change actions have increasingly been seen pejoratively by the majority of farmers and some key companies. As such, the project set about providing real solutions to show that positive environmental outcomes for all, growth in farmer incomes and overall company sustainability were not mutually exclusive of each other and could work with each other to create win-wins. At the start of 2017 the board set out a plan of action. The chart included in the document shows the three goals we identified. We said we had to start from the start on climate change. As such, water quality and soil issues were identified as the first key goals before moving on to anything else. I am delighted to see representatives of Teagasc here. Teagasc is a key partner in the target to drive nutrient management and a soil fertility improvement plan which builds very much on the science developed by Professor Frank O'Mara and his colleagues over many years. We are also promoting best practice in farmyard waste management, in particular water. The initiative is being implemented, first, through the six biggest Dairy Industry Ireland companies and 30 pilot scheme farms. Members should have received in their packs a copy of the handbook which has been circulated to each company and farm. The handbooks have been localised for individual companies. The idea is that they will go to all 18,000 farmers over the course of 2018.

Dairy Sustainability Ireland had a public launch at the end of 2016. We did detailed technical work, with other stakeholders, to build trust and consult on the science, etc. That occurred over a year-long period and the initiative was then publicly launched in October 2017 by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Michael Creed, and our chairman, Mr. Jim Woulfe. The key issue was the possible loss of our nitrates derogation at the end of last year, as the Chairman of the committee is well aware. The project evolved very quickly. With Ireland needing to react to challenges under the water directives and the possible loss of the nitrates derogation, it was decided at the end of 2017 that the components of Dairy Sustainability Ireland would fully support the Government's establishment of the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, in tandem with the Departments of Housing, Planning and Local Government and Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Our chairman, Mr. Jim Woulfe, launched the initiative with the relevant Ministers, Deputies Eoghan Murphy and Michael Creed, in Government Buildings in December 2017.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a phone interfering with the microphone. Please carry on.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

A governance and action plan is currently being laid out whereby the dairy industry is to commit advisers to work with dedicated Government personnel through Teagasc and the local authorities around the country to achieve on-the-ground solutions. All key stakeholders involved in the dairy sustainability initiative are fully committed to this initiative.

In terms of what has been committed to, all of the processing dairy companies at all levels will fully support this new sustainability drive to achieve improved on-farm sustainability outcomes. This work will be supported up the supply chain by the specialised nutrition Dairy Industry Ireland members. Dairy Industry Ireland members will provide and fund ten full-time sustainability advisors to work within a shared partnership strategy and governance within the new agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP. These sustainability advisers will work cohesively and in an integrated way with the Teagasc teams and staff, and all will be trained with the Teagasc team to the same standard. The sustainability advisers will, in turn, support an internal change programme within the companies as part of this new programme. All dairy industry personnel in direct contact with farmers will be trained in this new approach and there will be work within the partnership to develop a new communications strategy to support on-farm sustainability and climate change best practice. In addition, the co-operatives' communication channels with their suppliers and supplier network structures will be utilised to drive this new strategy.

What we are aiming for in terms of early outcomes is that current company farm pilots for nutrient management programme best practice will be expanded from the current pilot phase of six co-operatives across the 11 processing co-operatives during 2018, so there will be immediate progress. Two new pilots will be established with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency to understand and devise best practice in critical source areas to break nutrient pathways. That refers to the point made by Dr. Matthew Crowe of the EPA on areas where water is declining very rapidly. The processing companies will actively promote the implementation of the new nitrates action programme across those companies and involving all dairy farmers. The co-operatives will seek that all dairy farmers implement best practice in nutrient management practice by 2021 and they will support the development of new approaches and best practice regarding the broader sustainability and climate change agenda.

We see that this is only phase 1. We have heard the issues raised by the earlier contributors in terms of renewable energy but if we do not get water and soil right, we cannot go on to look at the bigger picture of climate change mitigation, be it through solar panels or otherwise. I thank committee members for their time.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I call Ms Westbrook to speak on behalf of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association.

Ms Gillian Westbrook:

On behalf of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association, I thank the Chairman and committee members for asking us to speak here today. Sustainably feeding the growing world population while reducing our impact on climate change are two of the major challenges facing society today. While there is a growing understanding of the complexity of the links between these challenges and of the global degradation of the environment, the contribution of food and farming to climate change mitigation is too often looked at from the single perspective of greenhouse gas emissions per hectare or per kilogram of product. This narrow view fails to take into account the vast array of ways that farming itself makes a contribution to climate change.

Farming is linked to, but considered separately from, food. Industrial food production has farming as a base activity but "food" includes a range of usually upstream impacts in terms of processing, packaging and transportation. For an encompassing sustainability assessment of food production systems, it is crucial to complement efficiency measures with more systemic aspects, that is, sufficiency measures, as well as the role certain resources play in a food systems context, that is, consistency of resource use. Moreover, for effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture production, fluxes occurring outside the agricultural sector need to be taken into account, such as the emissions linked to the production of mineral fertiliser. For livestock production, emissions from land use and land use change linked to concentrate feed, or conversion of forest to pasture or arable crop production, should all be taken into account in life cycle analyses.

Climate change itself is too narrow a factor to consider in isolation. Environmental pollution often feeds back into and exacerbates climatic change and remains a key problem to be tackled at all levels. Working in sustainable way is at the core of organic farming, hence minimising pollution is where organic farming practices score very highly. The impact of agricultural practices, food waste and sustainable diets must all be evaluated if we are to understand how food and farming can positively contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, while simultaneously providing food security. All farming and food production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and, as such, it is vital that we look honestly at the impacts, and that includes indirect emissions which are not accounted for or attributed to agriculture.

We say this not because we wish to see agriculture held responsible but to truly tackle this massive problem. There is little point having Irish farmers dramatically change their approach only to result in insignificant or possibly no impact on a global problem. Indirect emissions from feed production in third countries, mineral fertiliser production and transport must all be part of the overall discussion if we are to get a better picture of the impact of agriculture and the whole food system. Therefore, activities that are required to keep the current agricultural system running should be taken into account. Taken together, one third to half of global greenhouse gas emissions could be linked to food production, processing, transport, distribution and consumption.

Nitrogen is a key nutrient required for fertile soils, yet its use and manufacture are linked to high levels of emissions all along its life cycle. Nitrous oxide emissions account for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland. Emissions generated from the production of mineral nitrogen fertilisers alone, and banned in organic systems, amount to about 1.75% of total EU emissions. Reducing nitrogen fertiliser applications, therefore, is a very effective way of achieving emission reduction.

Methane and nitrous oxide emissions caused by manure management play a significant part. Manure composting is often used in organic systems. This technique alone can reduce nitrous oxide by 50% and methane by 70%. Therefore, much more consideration needs to be given to this technique.

Carbon sequestration offers tangible short-term assistance for mitigation of climate change. However, it is reversible and not permanent, and, as such, cannot be considered to be a real mitigation tool. It will, however, allow for offsetting of emissions and award some more time to implement long-lasting and permanent solutions.

There are many benefits from organic systems and these are outlined in more detail in our submission. These will and do contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and make this specific farming method more resilient to changing weather conditions. To name but a few such benefits, there is higher biodiversity, conservation of soils, reduced eutrophication and water pollution, a ban on mineral fertilisers and composting. Diversified systems are, by definition, geared towards producing diverse outputs, while delivering a range of environmental and social benefits on the farm. This is what organic farming provides. Organic farming has a part to play in climate change mitigation and, as with all sectors, there is room to improve. Organic agriculture empowers farmers by helping them design agronomic systems that are more resilient towards the impacts of climate change and pollution, by enabling them to reduce dependence on external inputs and by promoting the development, rather than the degradation, of the natural resources on which we all depend for food production.

Climate change action comes in many forms and critical to sustainable food production is the need to reduce waste. In tandem with education of the consumer regarding the impact their food choices have on the environment, climate change needs to be a top-down strategic policy approach meeting the major issues head on.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I invite Professor Frank O'Mara of Teagasc to make his presentation.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Teagasc would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to attend to talk about our submission. I will go through my opening statement as quickly as I can.

Food Wise 2025 makes a compelling case for further growth in the agrifood sector but cautions that this growth must take place in a manner that is sustainable in both an economic and environmental sense. It should be noted that climate influences production in agriculture and that the greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture are a contributor to climate change. Climate change will impact on agriculture over the medium term but ongoing intervention to address the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is required, not least to ensure that agriculture is not unduly constrained by national level greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in the period 2021 to 2030.

Solutions are required that will limit the greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions from agriculture but at the same time, allow it to grow where feasible by remaining competitive at an EU and global level. We must realise that these are not mutually exclusive and that we can continue to have growth in our food production and tackle emissions from the sector. Given that Ireland has a low level of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output, that is, a low carbon footprint, there is a need to ensure that climate policy is cognisant of the potential for carbon leakage, which occurs when agricultural products are produced in other countries with high emissions per unit product. Senator Paul Daly mentioned that scenario in the first session of this meeting.

The relatively unique position of Ireland as a major exporter of meat and dairy products - we export about 90% of our butter, beef and dairy products - means that national-level initiatives to curb consumption of meat and dairy products can have little impact on the emissions of our agrifood sector. Therefore, national-level solutions are more likely to come from interventions on the production side, particularly inside the farm gate. Recognising this, over the past 15 years Teagasc has made a substantial commitment in terms of staff and other resources to tackling the issue of GHG emissions at farm level. This commitment encompasses both research on technologies and farm practices to address emissions and knowledge transfer to ensure the effective adoption of these technologies at farm level. All the evidence to date suggests that reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions will be challenging. No single large-scale silver bullet type intervention exists. Therefore, the mitigation of GHG emissions from agriculture will require a wide suite of interventions that can cumulatively deliver a significant level of emissions reduction.

A complication in achieving a reduction in the total GHG emissions generated by agriculture in Ireland is the fact that the total level of agricultural activity is increasing, particularly in the context of the expansion taking place in the dairy sector and the related increase in the cattle population. This means that interventions that reduce emissions per kilogram of milk or per kilogram of beef may be offset to some degree by additional emissions generated due to the overall increase in the amount of product that is produced.

Teagasc has previously identified measures to reduce GHG emissions and has made estimates of the associated cost of each measure and the total amount of greenhouse gas mitigation the measures would deliver. This is called a marginal abatement cost curve, MACC.

We published our first MACC a number of years ago. In light of developments in research, agriculture and policy, there is a periodic need to revise the marginal abatement cost curve to reassess the suite of mitigation options available, including mitigation options not previously considered. We will shortly publish our latest marginal abatement cost curve, which will detail 25 interventions that address agricultural emissions mitigation, land use sequestration and the displacement of fossil fuels emissions via bioenergy production. These are the kind of things discussed by members in the earlier session.

Sustainable consumption is increasingly embedded in the minds of consumers of Irish agrifood products both here and abroad. Origin Green has been discussed. Teagasc will continue to work with the agrifood sector to ensure that it remains at the forefront of progress to address the emissions generated in agrifood production, a key objective in sustainable production. In particular, Teagasc continues to highlight to stakeholders that adherence to more sustainable food production practices can be profit-enhancing for the sector, as well as beneficial to the environment. That is a key point. We must find solutions that work for emissions reduction but do not damage the profitability of the sector, which is low in many commodities.

Recent changes to policy at an EU level now potentially make sequestration by forestry part of the solution to address the emissions generated within agriculture. Heretofore, the sequestration by trees planted by farmers could not be used to offset the emissions generated on the farm. This is no longer the case so the potential now exists to sequester significant amounts of carbon if the rate of afforestation is increased nationally and sustained at a higher level over the next couple of decades. There is, however, considerable opposition to additional forestry in rural communities in some parts of Ireland. These concerns need to be understood and effective communication will be required to illustrate the economic and environmental benefits which increased afforestation would have. There are a number of options for biomaterial and fossil fuels substitution that would offset emissions outside of the farm sector and further incentivisation is required to develop these markets. However, unlike forestry where the benefit of sequestration is included in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sector, it is not clear whether farmers would be credited at a national level for the positive contribution these actions in terms of biomaterials or fossil fuel substitution would make to addressing Ireland's GHG emissions.

Teagasc is also committed to research associated with climate adaptation, that is, changes in agriculture that might be required to cope with the adverse consequences of a changing climate. However, at this time, there are uncertainties with respect to the local level impacts of climate change on agriculture in Ireland, which complicate the provision of accurate advice to farmers in this regard. In particular, it would be unwise to provide advice with respect to climate adaptation which might subsequently require revision as our knowledge of the impact of climate change becomes clearer. Teagasc has highlighted measures that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many of which also save farmers money, and there is a need for greater emphasis on the connection between environmental sustainability and profitability at the farm level. There is an urgent need for farmers to continue reducing absolute emissions through the uptake of these measures and through enhancing carbon sequestration through forestry. Knowledge transfer is key to rolling out these mitigation measures, as are national policies to incentivise farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor O'Mara. I invite Mr. Kent to make his opening statement on behalf of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA.

Mr. Patrick Kent:

I thank the Chairman and other members of this committee for the opportunity to contribute to their deliberations on climate change. The ICSA believes that we have to stop the negative narrative around agriculture and climate change. Instead of being accused of being part of the problem, the ICSA believes that agriculture can be part of the solution. First, let us look at why the negativity around agricultural emissions is misplaced. As a general proposition, we argue that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is fundamentally linked to excessive consumption of fossil fuel energy linked to economic development. The Irish emissions profile is skewed towards agriculture not because we are excessively bad in terms of farming systems but because we did not partake in the industrial revolution. In addition, only measuring emissions tends to paint livestock farming in a bad light while ignoring the carbon sequestration in growing grass and maintaining hedgerows and trees on typical Irish farming systems. We hear far less about the reality that this is fundamentally a problem of energy consumption based on fossil fuels.

The 2017 Carbon Majors report indicates that 71% of global industrial emissions since 1988 can be linked to just 100 producers, almost all of which are companies in the fossil fuel sectors. Moreover, the real culprits can be seen in the fact that Chinese coal production has tripled since the turn of the millennium and Russian coal production has expanded by 70% since the late 1990s. Meanwhile, it is notable that at the COP23 summit in Bonn in November, which was attended by the ICSA, the host country Germany refused to sign up to a declaration of countries pledging to phase out coal.

This is not to deny that there are emissions from agriculture. At a global level, the figure for agriculture and land use emissions is 24% of total greenhouse gas emissions. However, this figure ignores the fact that this is balanced to a considerable degree by land use and agricultural activities acting as a carbon sink, whereas other sectors provide no benefits in terms of sequestration. In any event, people must eat; this is non-negotiable. However, this raises an interesting question. Why are emissions from fossil fuels attributed to the countries where they are consumed whereas food production emissions are attributed to the countries where the food is grown? The ICSA believes that the question of who is held responsible for emissions needs to be revisited. Specifically, Ireland should not shoulder all of the responsibility for food produced which is actually destined for consumption in other countries both within and outside the EU. Demand for food is a given and is unavoidably linked to global population growth. Presumably, the point of saving the planet does not stand above the need to feed the population of the planet in a hierarchy of imperatives for current or future generations. While the question of which markets we supply is constrained by economics, the impact of emissions from food production knows no geographical boundaries. Hence it is utterly futile to displace food production in Ireland to other parts of the globe in order to satisfy EU or COP21 targets. The reality is that those who consume our food create the demand and thereby are essentially responsible for the emissions.

There is flexibility to reduce food demand by reducing food waste, which can be as high as 33%, but this is more under the control of retailers and consumers than primary producers. We are not saying that we cannot use technological advances to reduce emissions or increase sequestration. Interestingly, there is a research project in Denmark in which the addition of a feed supplement, Mootral, can lead to a 58% reduction in methane emissions from livestock.

We must remember that we are already starting from a good position as Irish livestock products such as meat and dairy are among the most efficient in terms of carbon footprint per kilogram of product. There is no logic to reducing Irish meat exports to satisfy European demand for protein and then making up the gap with imports from South America or other countries where the environmental damage is much higher. Schemes under the rural development programme can make a difference but we have to refocus them so that they deliver real income to farmers who go the extra mile to deliver climate change improvement rather than just cover costs or use farmers to circulate money to others. With regard to forestry targets, it is important to understand that the compulsion to re-plant trees on land at clearfell is creating a barrier to some farmers taking the multi-generational decision to get into forestry. However, I now want to say a bit on how agriculture can make a positive contribution to the climate change challenge in the energy sectors.

ICSA believes there is significant potential to integrate agricultural systems of production with decarbonising electricity production. There is evidence that some European farms, which have a higher cost than Irish farms in production for dairying, for example, are nonetheless more profitable because of the integration of farming with anaerobic digestion systems, solar energy or community-based wind farm projects. However, what is missing is a secure investment environment due to uncertainty around Government policy and market stability. ICSA believes we need a stable and viable Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff, REFIT, regime and a commitment to seriously reconsider the detached attitude displayed to date on anaerobic digestion. We should favour solar panels on the roofs of sheds also.

European agriculture has immense potential to provide very substantial gains in the emissions profile of transport energy. For example, European crop-based ethanol is heading towards almost 70% less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels on a whole life-cycle basis. Given that transport energy is well behind electricity and heating and cooling in terms of meeting the EU 27% renewable energy target for 2030, it is incredible to think that the EU clean energy package includes a proposal for a revised renewable energy directive that will undermine the limited progress made to date on transport energy. Ireland should actively oppose the EU proposals to reduce the first generation biofuel mandate from 7% to 3.8% under the revised renewable energy directive. This is now at the trilogue stage in Brussels.

Key crop based biofuels grown by EU farmers represent a win-win for farmers, for declining rural communities and for climate change objectives. In addition, they reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. Ireland should increase biofuel blending rates in conventional combustion engines. In the short term this is likely to be far more effective than trying to buck the market in terms of getting people to buy electric vehicles that they do not want and cannot afford, and having regard to the fact that heavy transport and long distance travel will not use electric vehicles in the short to medium term anyway.

To conclude, I emphasise that the need for food security globally dictates that we should continue to advocate for efficient Irish livestock systems supplying meat, dairy and cereals to affluent consumers in Europe. I notice that some people believe we may be able to grow beans west of the Shannon. At a garden level we may be able to do so but from an agricultural perspective, it is not possible to grow beans more than one year in five in the very best land in the south or south east of the country. Harvesting can be a problem in some years. We are producing premium quality beef and there is no better food than can be eaten than beef cooked in butter from the west of Ireland. It sure beats beans any day and we do not need to use any tomato ketchup. It is hypocritical in the extreme to talk about cutbacks in livestock in Ireland or taxes on livestock farming while at the same time Europe proposes to import more meat from the likes of South America and Canada under trade deals.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all witnesses for their very concise presentations.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Kent was making us hungry at the end of his contribution. I thank all the contributors for coming today, providing the background documentation forwarded to the committee and the succinct presentations. I will start with a question about the sustainable dairy initiative and the potential that might exist for it to reduce emissions. How will the curve go in the next period with regard to the expansion of the dairy industry and the impact it is likely to have on carbon emissions, taking into account what it is hoped to achieve with the sustainable dairy initiative and other measures? The organic sector has a part to play in terms of climate change and increasing the percentage of land under organic farming, as we have discussed at the committee before. What are the key support measures required in this respect?

The thread that came from Teagasc, which I agree with, is that we should push on in trying to achieve the Food Wise 2025 targets, taking into account our obligations and trying to be sustainable. How does Teagasc see the curve going from its current assessment with respect to the carbon footprint of Irish agriculture? I look forward to its updated report on marginal abatement. How much does Teagasc believe we can achieve in reductions over the coming period? I thank the ICSA for its contribution. It made points about trade deals with Mercosur and I concur with those.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for the contributions. I have some questions following on from the discussion we had with people in before the current delegations. What percentage of animal feed and protein used as feed in Ireland is imported? I am wondering about the potential. I am conscious of much of this talk of Origin Green, and is it really Origin Green if we are bringing protein from the far side of the Atlantic to feed the cattle? It does not fit properly but it is something we should look at.

The next issue might be related. My understanding is that in Ireland we do not produce many of our own vegetables and many vegetables in our shops are imported to this country. What percentage of our vegetable market is imported and what potential is there for change? If we are talking about the miles that food must travel to get to a person, as well as the miles that inputs must travel, this is relevant.

The dairy issue is interesting and I have been looking at it for a while. We were told that as the dairy herd expanded, it would not have any real impact as it was expected that others would go down. I have a theory that the big plan was that the dairy herd might expand by 30% over a period and we could, with sex selection, produce replacement dairy animals and a beef calf from the bull calf, and that would almost replace the need for a suckler sector. Is there any truth in that? Many of the suckler farmers around the country are looking for supports. Is there another programme in place that is not being mentioned?

Dr. O'Mara mentioned research into trying to mitigate the emissions from our bovines.

Mr. Kent mentioned a project in Denmark which is looking at various feed changes which, I assume, is about the science of the digestive system of the animal. What is being done in that regard? Is there science which could help to change that and to move that along?

I have what I suppose is a broader question. Food Wise 2025 is about increasing production, mainly in the dairy and beef sectors because those are our two big sectors. If our production is to increase, those are the sectors that will really increase. With the advent of Brexit which will have an impact because we export so much of both our dairy and beef product to Britain and the potential of Food Wise 2025 on which one can say we should plough ahead anyway, are we placing ourselves in a position where we could be back here in three years time sitting around this table talking about the crisis in our dairy and beef sectors because there are not markets for all this production that we ploughed ahead with because we decided that it was the right thing to do regardless of the consequences? I wonder have we thought this through. We all hope for the best from the Brexit negotiations but the reality is the Brexit negotiations are going in a direction which will be detrimental to the Irish food sector. At some stage, we must sit up and take cognisance of that and wonder where it will go.

In regard to the organic sector, Deputy McConalogue is correct. We have on many occasions talked about what can be done and what scheme can be put in place to get more producers into organics. I wonder how much has gone into both the domestic and export markets for organics. There are many niche products. Can we make mainstream some of those sectors so that they can become a possibility for other producers, particularly, I suppose, on the marginal land where one would not conduct intensive farming, as a future for them to sustain the family farm in those areas?

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions overall. Between the dairy sector and the ICSA, as this goes for both groups, given what we heard earlier that even if everything is done right there will still be excess emissions from the existing farming using traditional methods, what are we to do? Should we say that we will have higher emissions and we will sustain that, and put our hands up and say we will take it on the chin and go with it?

In the dairy sector, the matter is at the very early stages. As to whether anything will happen or whether they can achieve that, I wonder is it just trying to be seen to be doing something rather than doing and achieving something.

The organic farmers state there is little point having Irish farmers dramatically change their approach only to result in insignificant, or possibly no, impact on a global problem. I suppose that implies we are insignificant and it does not really matter what we do, and we should do nothing. I wonder about that.

Teagasc referred to forestry's negative impact. The changes that have taken place at an EU level might make forestry more acceptable for individual farmers but there definitely is a problem, in Leitrim and other places, where it is companies that are involved in forestry. I wonder if the witnesses would comment on the possibility of forestry off-set in the context of climate change overall.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my absence due to a vote in the Seanad. The Chairman can tell me if I repeat anything.

A question I was thinking of before I left for the Seanad was to ask the four groups their views on organic farming, as one of the least greenhouse gas emitting sectors, being a solution to this problem. What bonuses could the dairy sector see it giving to dairy farming? Likewise, with a view to the production that we need to keep up from the point of view of profitability, what is Teagasc's outlook on organics? In a situation like this, we all have to take into consideration state aid. The organic sector traditionally probably needs more support. Going forward, what are the opinions of the other groups on organics as a stepping stone in the right direction with regards to climate change?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to get the opportunity to say a few words here to support agriculture in general because, as we all know too well, if agriculture is in decline the country is in decline. It is important to remember, when we are talking about climate change and getting rid of diesel cars and diesel vehicles, that we create €5 billion worth of exports from agriculture. We need to respect that and ensure that we at least retain that amount because farmers are put to the pin of their collars. Farmers have to fight everything, including the weather. It is grand to say now that dairy farmers are prospering but it is only a year and a half since they were in trouble. In 2016, they were not getting for a gallon of milk what it cost them to produce it.

As Mr. Kent stated here, it is important to remember that food comes from the land. It is equally important that it comes from our land. We have a wonderful climate and for the best part, wonderful land to produce cattle, milk and food generally. We are worried, as many farmers are, that we will lose some of our market with Britain leaving the Common Market. Will it be the case that the beef, milk or whatever foods we were supplying to Britain will come from other countries and where will we be? Will it be grand that our production will be reduced then and we will be in trouble?

In the overall context, as I stated here earlier this evening, these are important discussions. That is why I returned here. I watched the proceedings in my office - I was trying to do other things as well as listening to the witnesses. They all, Mr. Mulvihill, Ms Westbrook, Professor O'Mara and Mr. Kent, made valuable points. I did not hear others and if anyone else spoke, I apologise in that regard.

It is important to remember that in the overall context if we in this country were clear of all emissions we would only reduce the emissions of the world by 0.13%. Therefore, 99.8% of emissions are coming from the rest of the world. Agriculture is such a big part of our country. It always has been and, hopefully, it always will be. We must do our best to protect that part of our economy.

People are worried out there. They hear that they have to get rid of diesel cars. It is only a few years since they were told buying diesel cars was the thing to do. That was in 2007. I refer to heavy machinery. I hear commentators saying that carbon tax will have to be increased on diesel and the price of diesel will have to increase but that is what lorries, tractors and agricultural vehicles run on.

Are we going to penalise these people and drive them underground? They are in a bad enough situation as it is and they are worried about Brexit, with Theresa May talking out of the two sides of her mouth, one day saying there will be a soft Border and another that there will be a hard Border. When the UK voted to leave the European Union I suggested in the Dáil that they reconsider and hold another referendum. That would lead to the only result that would help Irish farmers and our small industries, which have already been affected by the decline in the value of sterling.

It is important to remember that our food comes from the land. Many people in the city might think milk is made down the street and comes out of a bottle, without a cow having to be milked, and they could be the very people who say farmers hurt the environment. They drink milk, eat meat and put butter on their bread but then they say we need to do more about climate change. There was climate change before there was a combustion engine or were as many cows as we now have. In the Dáil, the Taoiseach said that the snow of the past few days was the worst event in 70 years but I disagree with him as we have had several such events, such as in 1982 which lasted for three weeks and when, in parts of my county, people did not come out of their houses. My father remembered 1947 and I will tell a story about it.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae can tell his story later. Does he have questions for the witnesses?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How worried are the witnesses about the 2040 plan? Farmers will have to meet these targets by 2030 and we will not be able to cut turf or burn peat. Are the witnesses worried about that? If we have to comply with the Paris Agreement, come hell or high water, will it hurt Irish farmers? I did not vote to accept the Paris Agreement because farmers will pay. The Taoiseach and the Minister have said there will be €22 billion to deal with climate change but we are already paying €0.5 billion and another €0.5 billion will come out of farmers' pockets. I am worried about signing up to these agreements because a lot of things can happen, such as Brexit or the weather, and farmers on the west coast are out of fodder at the moment. Are we going to insist that our farmers go into the red, or out of existence, to comply with these agreements? A lot of farmers are worried because many things can go wrong in farming and create double or triple the trouble. Deputy Martin Kenny referred to sucklers and spoke about getting beef calves from dairy cows. The suckler trade is bad enough without suggesting that. I know farmers in the west who cannot milk cows as their hilly ground is not amenable to it, though they provide good sucklers. We must try to protect the suckler farmer as well as the dairy farmer.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions for the representatives of Teagasc. I attended a trial farm in my part of the country, and I am sure Dr. O.Mara knows where I am talking about. Teagasc has done a considerable amount of work, in conjunction with others, to develop a suckler-type calf from a dairy cow. Can the witnesses give us more information about that? There is a lot of discussion about the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, at the moment. Does Teagasc have any views about which measures could be introduced in a new CAP to address climate change?

Mr. Patrick Kent:

There have been a lot of different contributions by various people, all coming at the issues from different angles, and Deputy Healy-Rae has raised some very valid points. A lot of us will be gone by 2040 but I wish to nail the assertion coming out of the United States that there will be 9 billion people in the world by 2050. Committee members will have to get busy to feed them because we will not be around to do it. There is massive development potential in southern Africa and the main aim of the assertion, which originated in the US and has been repeated by some people in this country, is to get GM produce into the African continent. It is a fallacy. If there is political stability, populations do not increase but remain stable and in Europe they drop at such times, apart from the effect of immigration. In Germany and Italy, populations are falling so it makes no sense to get farmers to produce more and get deeper into debt on a treadmill which they cannot get off, just so that large corporations can profit. Mr. Günther Oettinger, the EU Commissioner for budget and EU resources, stated that the CAP budget would be cut by between 5% and 10%. We cannot invest more if our budget is going to be cut just because the UK is pulling out. We produce food for the UK and it is a very valuable market.

Some 60% of Europeans do not want to eat GMO produce. We are doing some experiments on GMO products in this country and that is compromising the saleability of our food, despite carbon credits, Origin Green and other fancy things. Dr. Crowe said earlier that there had to be behavioural change and Ms Gillian Westbrook will talk about going back to basics in regard to agriculture. Some fancy research is being done on multispecies pasture but that is what farmers have been using for generations as 90% of what we have in Ireland is multispecies pasture. Monoculture farming has only come in recently, to ramp farmers up into being busy fools, and this has to be stopped. Grass-fed beef is a premium product and if one goes into pizza restaurants in Italy one will only get horse or pork. We have a premium-quality product that we are just dumping in the UK market and we are not even marketing it correctly. The EPA wants us to have 80% trees and to wipe out farmers but Teagasc will try to back the agricultural sector to some extent. There are GM experiments being undertaken in Carlow, despite the fact that not one farm in Ireland can grow GM products and nobody has any interest in doing so.

We have to get real and to get income back into rural Ireland. Sequestering carbon comes from proper agriculture, as does rotation of pasture, but there will be no farmers who can do if they do not get a proper income.

We need to address all of these issues.

On consumers' health, earlier someone mentioned that more calories were being imported into Ireland than being exported. That is because we are exporting protein. People are eating too much starch and sugar, which is why there is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and all related conditions. People see the price of protein and end up eating too many carbohydrates. If they were eating protein and fats, they would eat much fewer calories because they would be satisfied. People become obese because they crave nutrition. They eat cardboard-type products such as maize, with the kernel removed, such as cornflakes, which one can eat all day and night but still be hungry two hours later. That is how people get fat. We have to address that issue.

I totally support the production of organic products and so on, but it is not for everybody. They are slightly more expensive to produce because they involves reducing production levels, but as an organisation, we have members who produce organic meat. It is not for everybody, but it is great for the consumers who can afford it. If anyone attended a G8 or G20 summit or a Bilderberg conference meeting, I guarantee that the menus would not include a non-GM or non-organic product. All of the top-level people in Europe or elsewhere in the world will not consume food that is non-GM, but they want others to do so. We want to stop that. If Teagasc wants to conduct research, let it do it in another country, but it should get it out of Carlow and declare the country a GM-free zone with immediate effect.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

My colleague, Dr. Donnellan, and I will respond to members' questions. Dr. Donnellan will return to Deputy Charlie McConalogue's question on where we see the curve going on Ireland's future emissions and carbon footprint.

As Deputy Martin Kenny asked very specific questions, my answers may not be exact. He asked how much of our feed was imported. In the dairy sector concentrated feeds make up approximately 20% of the diet and about half of the concentrates are imported. Therefore, about 10% of the diet of a dairy cow is made up of imported feed. It would be less than that if we looked at it on a fresh weight basis, just counting kilos of grass and silage, but the 10% figure is on a dry matter basis.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we capable of producing that extra 10% ourselves?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Yes. The 10% is mainly the protein part of the diet such as distillers' grains, soya bean meal and rape seed meal to increase protein. We produce some of the starchy feed here such as barley and the by-products. We can grow beans; there is no problem with doing that, but I do not think we have the ability to grow enough beans to meet our protein requirements. It is a crop that must be subsidised to make it profitable. Most of the feed we import goes into the pig and poultry sector, where soya bean is the protein of choice.

I do not know the figures for vegetables. My sense is that we grow most of the staple vegetables we need such as potatoes, carrots, cauliflower, cabbage and so on. Potatoes are nearly all grown locally. Looking at some of the other vegetables, I do not want to use the word "exotic", but it is the only one that comes to mind. Many are imported, with all of the problems the member raised about import miles. Unfortunately, I do not have exact figures beyond that hunch.

On dairy industry expansion, there was a question about whether there was a master plan or programme to increase the size of the dairy herd to increase and reduce the size of the the beef herd. I would not call it a master plan, but there was an expectation that some of the increase in dairy cow numbers would come from farmers getting out of beef production and getting into dairy production. That has happened to an extent, but the beef cow numbers have remained fairly stable. They have reduced somewhat, perhaps by 8% or 10% in the past five to ten years, but it is not a big reduction, whereas the dairy herd has grown by more. I would not say it was a master plan, but people did think there would be more of a decline in the size of the beef cow herd. Obviously, dairy cows produce calves and most of the male calves end up in the beef industry. We did not anticipate any decline in beef output because we expected dairy calves to contribute to beef output. Almost 60% of the steers killed in the country last year were of dairy cow origin. Dr. Donnellan may return to this issue in his remarks about the future footprint.

On science that might help, we are looking at solutions that would help to reduce emissions. They have a significant part to play. Recently, we undertook research into fertiliser types that showed that in using stabilised urea instead of calcium ammonia nitrate that farmers might typically use we could reduce the emissions of nitrous oxide without any affect on grass production. It is the case that there is a lot of research ongoing into feed additives. Teagasc is not involved in it, but we are well linked into the international research in the area. There is evidence that there are feed additives which will significantly reduce methane emissions. There is more work to be done in establishing how long-term the reduction is and whether the cow will eventually return to her normal emissions. There are issues surrounding the safety testing of these additives before they are used on a widespread basis. There is also the cost. These additives are not cheap. There are possible technological solutions, some of which have been developed, while others are being worked on and they all play a part in how we think the sector can contribute to the reduction of emissions.

Deputy Thomas Pringle asked about forestry and its acceptability. There is no doubt that the afforestation targets included the national afforestation plan are a central plank for the country, especially the land use sector in contributing to emission reductions. We are not reaching these targets but undershooting them. It is an issue if we do not achieve the level of carbon sequestration we hope to achieve as it makes the challenge of reducing emissions even bigger. There is an issue surrounding the acceptability of forestry as we have seen in recent months, particularly in County Leitrim, where people are very concerned about large-scale planting. The forestry sector will have to take people's concerns on board. Ultimately, individuals make a decision to plant their land, whether they do so themselves or bring in a forestry company, and it has to be done in a way that is acceptable to the communities around them. It is important that forestry be distributed throughout the country and that it is not all localised in particular areas. That is important from the perspective of public acceptability.

There is also a question about the types of forests which we plant. We are undershooting our targets for broad-leaf planting and need to address that issue. The issue of clear-felling was raised in the earlier session. We need to move more towards continuous cropping and a felling-type system rather than have blanket clear-felling. Much needs to be done on how we communicate the benefits of forestry and help to allay people's concerns in particular locations. The country has a low percentage of its land planted. It is now 11% and when I was in school which was not today or yesterday, it was 4%. Therefore, we have almost tripled the amount of forestry compared to what we it was 40 years ago. The national target is to increase the level to around 18%, which would still be low by European standards but it represents a lot of land that has to be used for forestry.

Senator Paul Daly asked for our view on organics and the role of the organic sector as a solution. We are very supportive of the organic sector. We have dedicated specialists who help farmers involved in organic production systems and no doubt organic farming has a role to play. There is a certain demand for organic produce. The role of agriculture is to meet differing demands for food. Some people want meat and plant-based food, while others want organics. Agriculture has to supply all of these needs. There is a role for organics which has increased as a proportion of our land use in recent years, which is welcome.

If the whole country went organic, I do not think it would be any good for the organic sector because it is a relatively niche market. If the market is flooded, nobody makes anything out of it, so that is not a solution in itself to the climate issue. It should also be borne in mind that the output per hectare on an organic system is lower, and we must be mindful of food security as well as climate change. We need to continue to produce food, as does the rest of the world, in increasing amounts. Organic has its role but will not solve the climate issue of itself.

I agree with Deputy Healy-Rae about the importance of agriculture in rural Ireland. It is really what makes the fabric of rural Ireland. It is the biggest contributor to economic activity in rural Ireland. The Deputy asked how worried are we about the 2030 targets. There is no doubt but that it is a big challenge for the sector to reduce its emissions significantly. There is no target as yet for any sector. For agriculture there has not been a specific target to meet. For agriculture to make a significant contribution to reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions is a big challenge, but there are ways and means of doing it. There are the things we talked about such as fertiliser and improving efficiencies that can make a contribution. Forestry can make a significant contribution, as can biofuels and biomass offsetting. However, these measures will not happen by themselves; they will require a continuous effort in research, knowledge transfer and policy to support their adoption.

The last question I will address was asked by the Chairman and concerned a suckler-type calf from a dairy cow. We are in collaboration with the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, in this regard. Rather than a dairy farmer just picking any Angus or Hereford bull to bull the cows after he or she has finished bulling with a Holstein bull, we recommend he or she pick one that is better for beef than the average. The research has shown that there is a big difference between, say, the worst Angus and the best Angus that one could pick from a beef perspective. Therefore, we are working with the ICBF to develop an index that would show dairy farmers that if they will be selling Angus or Hereford calves, they might as well sell good ones. This would allow them to select the best Angus or Hereford bulls from a beef perspective because they are making up a bigger proportion of our beef industry. As I said, about 60% of our national kill is now from the dairy sector. It will be a very important development that we try to maximise the value of the beef calf coming out of the dairy herd.

There are a number of matters left for Mr. Donnellan to address.

Mr. Trevor Donnellan:

I will mop up a few of the issues my colleague, Dr. O'Mara, has not touched upon.

The first question, I think from Deputy McConalogue, was essentially about where we are going regarding agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. We are working to produce new sets of projections for the Environmental Protection Agency. What I can say at this point is that, certainly in the short term, we expect agricultural emissions to continue to increase. The question is whether over the longer term we will see a stabilisation and a reduction. This is before we take into account anything regarding Brexit or the mitigation measures that exist, so we are talking about what we call our base case view of what will happen to emissions. Certainly in the short term those emissions will increase, and this is largely, or exclusively, due to the fact that the dairy sector is expanding and there are more dairy cows in the system. Most of the drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland can be attributed to the bovine sector because its emissions are the largest component of the overall emissions. Over the longer term whether emissions will stabilise in that base case or maybe even reduce a little depends on how the suckler herd, the other part of the bovine herd, evolves and whether it stays the size it is at present or moves into decline into the future. This question depends on various things, including the level of support that sector will get.

Our new MAC curve which will issue shortly suggests that there are measures which could reduce emissions by up to 6 million tonnes. This is against the level of current emissions from the agriculture sector, which is approximately 20 million tonnes. We need to bear in mind that this may increase in the future. We are looking at a situation in which there is potential to reduce the overall emissions generated by agriculture and land use in the future but we would caution that there is a lot of work to be done to ensure farmers take up, for example, the 25 measures we talked about in this MAC curve that we will issue shortly.

One of the questions Deputy Kenny asked concerned Brexit and if we will be back here in a few years in a crisis situation if Brexit turns out quite badly from the agriculture sector's perspective. Limiting our discussion, given that we are talking about climate change, to the dairy and beef sectors, I think the beef sector at an industry level and a farm level has much more to be concerned about regarding Brexit than dairy. This is not to say dairy does not have concerns about Brexit, but the concerns are much steeper in the case of the beef sector. Looking at the two sectors as they are at present, particularly at the farm level, the economics of the beef sector is much inferior to that of the dairy sector. Profitability in dairy is very high; profitability in the beef sector, when one takes away the support payments it receives at the farm level, is pretty much zero. This situation will worsen under Brexit. A particular concern for the beef sector is that it has very high levels of dependance on exports to the UK, and what is not exported to the UK is generally exported to continental Europe. We have very little in the way of beef exports outside the European Union, and the European Union market is pretty stagnant in terms of beef demand. The demand is not very strong. If one contrasts this with the position of dairy, there is still some growth in dairy demand in Europe - small, admittedly, but it is still there - but more particularly at the international level, outside of Europe, there is strong demand growth for dairy products. This contrasts quite significantly with the position of the beef sector. What I am saying in short is that there are export opportunities for dairy both in continental Europe and globally that do not exist in the case of beef, so there is a difference there. I would also caution that in the dairy sector some dairy processors are more exposed to the effects of Brexit than are others, particularly dairy processors that have a significant production of cheddar cheese going into the UK market. Some processors do not produce cheese at all, so the level of exposure to Brexit from the dairy industry perspective differs across processors. The impact on both sectors, I think, would be negative but I think the dairy sector has a greater potential to power through the difficulties and get beyond it than the beef sector.

Another question, I think from the Chairman, was what we could do with the new CAP that would be beneficial in mitigating climate change. One thing we need to look at in this regard is some of the flexibilities that will potentially be offered under the new CAP to tailor the CAP to our own national needs and objectives. Clearly, since we are here today, the impact of agriculture on climate change is one of those concerns. The previous CAP reform - that is, the current CAP - has been very heavily criticised in all quarters, from the perspectives of farmers and environmentalists and right across Europe, as not having been very effective in its greening measures. As for the greening measures that were introduced, the original proposals were probably more extensive than the final agreement, which watered down the objectives that were set out from the greening measures. However, if we had greening measures under the new CAP which linked payments, for example, to some of the actions which Teagasc has identified and which are actually profit-enhancing for farmers or of relatively low cost to farmers, then we might see greater uptake of some of those measures which are part of our MAC curve and which might help to address some of the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, I think Deputy Healy-Rae asked the question whether we are worried about the hurt that this whole issue is likely to cause farmers. The way to think about that question is that dealing with climate change will have costs across society as a whole.

We need to balance those costs so it does not result in a situation where any sector is disproportionately burdened by addressing the issue. If there were no costs associated with addressing climate change, we would not be here today. We would have arrived at a decision about how to deal with climate change and we would go off and deal with it. If any sectors of society consider themselves to be losers as a result of dealing with climate change, there is a political question about how to deal with the issue of emissions reductions across the economy as a whole.

Ms Gillian Westbrook:

I will take some of the questions. My colleague, who is an organic dairy farmer, will take the others because he has practical experience of this. There was a question about increasing the land used for organic production and how to achieve that. Opening up a new scheme would be a really good start. Our existing target for organics is 5%, yet we only ring fence 2% of land area for organics under the rural development budget. To have a target and allocate finances accordingly would be good. We have not had a scheme open since 2015. How do we increase it? We have a huge waiting list. A scheme would be good. It is probably not such a good idea to open it right now because the demand is in the tillage sector. It will benefit all the other sectors. I hate the term "grow organically"; it is a "Grand Designs" term that keeps being used. It needs to be done from the ground up. More tillage and a more sustainable local supply of feed will benefit existing farmers. Under organic regulations, 60%, and it will soon be 70%, of animal feed has to come from one's own farm. It is built within a regulatory requirement.

Organic offers a real win-win situation. It has a significant impact on climate change in a positive way. A very tangible and market-driven policy is needed. The Minister has put a new strategic group together to look at where we go with organics and it is very much welcomed. It is needed. We have a seat on that panel. It will look at how to grow organics and the infrastructure that is needed, including logistics and distribution requirements. It is fragmented because there has been a stop-start approach. We opened up the scheme in 2012 and then we stopped it for a few years. We opened one in 2015 and then we closed it. It needs to be opened up every year and should include a certain number of people. It might need to be based on criteria but that is down to the market to decide. It needs to be opened up every year to allow people to come through. It will never grow because much of the time it just gets fed scraps. Nothing that gets fed scraps will grow and prosper. There is a huge market we can look at that is evident in the European market. The existing Food Wise strategy does not include organics. It is not even mentioned. What can I say because it is not even there? It would be nice if the new strategy group could get it included in the Food Wise strategy.

Germany is aiming for 20% organic production. Sweden is already at over 15% and Estonia is at 18%. It goes on. These countries are not growing organics for any other reason than that the market is there and it helps them to meet their climate change targets. They are doing it to achieve environmental targets and avoid paying fines. To me, it is a win-win situation. It is not a pre-industrial revolution type of farming system. There is massive innovation in it and much more can be done. A lot more research could be done on organics. Quite a lot needs to happen. Hopefully it will be pooled together by the new strategic group. Around the Paris basin areas, when they are tackling pollution under the Water Framework Directive and specifically in compliance with the Nitrates Directive, they use organics to do it. They are targeting their organics in those areas because they have a problem. In Denmark, 8% of all retail sales are organic. It has grown the organic sector because it had a nitrates problem. That is what started much of the change to organics in the first place and then suddenly it caught on. They asked themselves what was not to like about it and decided to push it even further. Denmark is doing a fantastic job on it now.

Deputy Kenny asked about imported feed. Organics is currently importing 9,000 tonnes of feed a year; it needs 10,000 ha extra just to meet the current demand. It is not all for animal feed; breweries, bakeries, distillers and beer production are also concerned. There is a bigger range of products involved, much of which need feed. The bulk of that feed is not necessarily grown in the UK but is shipped via the UK. Brexit will cause a problem with that so we desperately need tillage here. We are looking at a €700 to €800 gross margin on tillage. In terms of its economic viability, tillage is a very attractive option. We import 55% of our vegetables, most of which are potatoes and cabbages, not only citrus fruits. In organics, the figure is 72%. Our organisation is just about to launch a European innovation partnership, EIP, as the lead partner. It will be the first market orientated EIP that has ever been done, which is great, so hopefully we will succeed. It will look at the supply and demand of vegetables versus retail demand. It is a three-year project that will kick off in June. We are looking to get a collaborative group of organic horticulturists, from Donegal to Wexford, to produce as if they were one farm and to use their different geographical locations. By taking advantage of the difference in soil type and conditions, they can supply the retail demand. There is huge potential there. The Bord Bia figures are accurate but are not broken down into organic and conventional product. We estimate that we are importing somewhere in the region of €26 million worth of products. They are products we can grow here. I am not talking about citrus fruits; I am talking about products we can grow here. There is a massive increase; 46% of organic food is sold through the discounters so it is not a niche market anymore. It is not expensive. It is slightly more expensive. The farmer gets a better farm gate price and he should be applauded for that because it is a viable price.

In terms of the Brexit crisis and the projection for the beef and dairy sectors in three years' time and whether we have thought it through and how we will work and fit within organics, the farming method is recognised but it needs more ranges of products and it certainly needs more processors. There is a monopoly on processors. We will not bring it up here but everybody knows it. In the beef trade, there is one main processor who is earning a lot. I am not saying it is a negative thing but everything needs competition for it to be healthy. We have concentrated an awful lot on just beef. We do not really even have a market for our organic lamb. We need more ranges of products. When there is a bigger range of products, as we are finding now, the retailers will use more products. There is a lovely little organic shop down in Tralee, which the committee might know of, and it does a fantastic range of different products from its own farm. That is what starts to increase sales. If one has a shop only selling beef, not many people will go in, but if it is selling a whole range of products, it will boost the whole sector. There are huge opportunities within the organic sector.

I do not want to get into the science now because I did not refer to it in my submission, but in terms of organics and what happens next, a 90% nitrogen load comes from agriculture into the sea, as was mentioned earlier. It has been reported that the pollution comes from agriculture.

For example, shellfish from class A shellfish water may be exported or otherwise must go through declaration and such processes. As earlier stated, if one can reduce pollution in terms of inputs such as nitrogen fertiliser, which is sometimes not a very efficient use of nitrogen, class A shellfish waters can be maintained. These systems are all interlinked.

There has been over 33% growth in organics in the Irish market in the past 24 months. I accept that it started from a low base but it is improving and the retailers with whom we have discussed this have very ambitious targets for the future. One of the reasons for those ambitious targets is the fact that they are spending a little more. An organic grower does not have to and will not supply below cost price. A processor, packer or anything else of organic products must pay the right price if they want to be able to label a product as organic, and we should strongly encourage that. Growers should stand strong in terms of pricing and should not sell the product if they do not achieve the price they require.

There has been double digit growth in organic products across the EU in recent years and growers cannot keep up with demand. The current EU capacity for organic sales is a little more than €32 billion and has increased tenfold in recent years. Consumers are now far more aware of the virtues of organic foods and their benefits in terms of the environment. What is not to like about organic produce? It is a win-win.

Deputy Pringle made the point that organic farmers state there is little point having Irish farmers dramatically change their approach only to result in insignificant or possibly no impact on a global problem. That is not what we were suggesting. I cut my initial address short and apologise if the point I made in that regard was unclear. We suggest having a whole food system. For example, if there is much emphasis on farmers to reduce emissions, that impacts on agriculture, but if a farmer reduces the amount of fertiliser he or she uses, the contribution goes to the benefit of industry such as manufacturing rather than agriculture. There must be an incentive such that it is worth people's while to reduce emissions because otherwise they will be put at a loss to achieve certain targets. We have exponentially increased our use of plastic packaging over the past ten years and that is rightly getting much media attention. I have the figures in that regard in my office but do not have it with me. If a farmer is going to be forced to destock or take other measures to meet climate change mitigation but the industry keeps wrapping everything in plastic, that mitigates the benefit of the measures taken at an agricultural level. The plastic is of no value because it just goes into landfill and produces methane which we do not attempt to capture. That is the point I was trying to convey in my initial address and I apologise if I was unclear in that regard.

We need a coherent strategy within a food system. That is a big ask and may be somewhat idealistic but we need a far more coherent system in terms of how we look at food. Should agriculture be responsible for all mitigating measures? A farmer can get a contractor to come to his or her farm and, therefore, not have a resultant carbon footprint contribution, but if the farmer uses his or her own machinery to harvest his or her own crops, he or she will be liable for such carbon footprint contribution. That is an example of incentivising in the wrong way and fudging the figures. There must be better encouragement of sustainable farming and also, more importantly, of food and sustainable diets. I am not saying to eat less meat but, rather, to eat better quality meat and pay more for it.

Senator Paul Daly asked about an organic solution to the problem of climate change. Organic produce has a significance in terms of food tourism. It is a high-value product with a very positive image. Some 86% of aquaculture here is organic, and that is used to market those products to the European market. It is interesting that very little of that product is sold in Ireland. There is an awful lot behind an organic label or logo in terms of what it means.

Deputy Healy-Rae asked about diesel vehicles and the use of such machinery. We must encourage more use of the circular economy such as increased use of biogas and such products from anaerobic digestion. There is a large plant in Donegal that will soon produce some interesting results in terms of biogas production. We must foster a circular economy.

As regards how worried we are about the 2040 plan and the targets that must be achieved by 2030, farmers should see it as a golden opportunity. Irish agriculture has an image of producing environmentally friendly produce and farmers should prove that is so and get it right. If a farmer can get a better farm income, slightly destock, reduce fertiliser use etc. and farm within the capacity of his or her farmland, there is the potential for a win-win. The plan need not be viewed in a negative light.

As regards the point made by Dr. O'Mara regarding fertiliser use, there is research on emissions in terms of product per yield gap in terms of per kilo and per hectare product. I mean no disrespect to Teagasc, which does an excellent job, but the argument it has made is part of the problem and is almost a skewing of the figures. If we get rid of mineral fertiliser, that would lead to an 18% reduction in EU agricultural emissions, although that does not account for the yield reduction that would arise. I do not suggest that all farmers should go organic but, rather, am just putting forth a hypothetical scenario. In terms of the EU greenhouse gas emission inventories and targets, such reductions would be accounted for under industries such as the fertiliser industry but not in agriculture. To reduce mineral fertiliser use, the actual use of which is 45% of the total EU nitrogen input, would be to reduce soil-bound nitrous oxide emissions by 45%, or 20% of total EU agricultural emissions. One would have to add in alternative sources such as lagoons for nitrogen fixing and so on. However, it would result in a 10% reduction overnight should that be implemented. I am not suggesting the committee should favour that because it would be bad for our business but if we were genuine about tackling the issue, it could be done.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Westbrook. Does Dr. O'Mara wish to respond?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Ms Westbrook and I are on the same page and are both trying to improve nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture. Teagasc is doing so through measures such as trying to get the maximum value out of slurry and using nitrogen fixing clover where appropriate. We have a big research programme into the incorporation of clover in pastures and the judicious use of nitrogen fertilisers. Nobody wants to waste nitrogen fertilisers because they cost a lot of money and can contribute to environmental issues in terms of both water quality and greenhouse gas emissions. We are looking at how we can reduce the inputs of nitrogen fertilisers into our intensive systems. If one took nitrogen fertiliser out of the equation, it would reduce emissions, although possibly not to the same extent in Ireland as in the EU as a whole, but there would be a dramatic impact on the level of production in the country. It would drop by more than the 18% reduction in emissions, which would affect the carbon footprint. However, Ms Westbrook is not suggesting we do all of that.

Ms Gillian Westbrook:

No. It was a hypothetical scenario.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

We are all trying to work towards getting more efficiency from the nitrogen we use in the system.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Mr. Mulvihill to conclude. Sorry, Mr. McHugh wishes to contribute.

Mr. John McHugh:

I thank the Chair and members. I am a dairy farmer who converted to organic in 2015. I was quite an intensive farmer and using the maximum amount of nitrogen permitted. I started off milking 35 cows in 2004, moved up to 160 cows in 2015 and then decided to go organic because I believe it is a huge step in the right direction in regard to climate change. A big part of the problem in Ireland is that we are far too dependent on the status quo. In the dairy and other sectors of agriculture we are trying to maintain things as they are, but that will not be possible because there will be constant pressure on farmers from outside sources and we will be fighting an uphill battle. We are going against the prevailing energy. The industry is looking at and being driven by CO₂emissions per kilo of food, which is a blinkered approach and takes no account of water pollution, soil degradation or biodiversity loss. Critics will say and are saying that to claim that we are the most efficient dairy or beef producer in this system is akin to saying we have the most efficient coal-producing stations. We are playing into the hands of those who say plant protein is a far more efficient way of producing protein. We are also playing into the hands of producers in North America who say that they are reducing their emissions per kilo of food through the use of hormones.

As mentioned earlier, when considered per euro of food, we are the least efficient. None of these hits the point. We can cherry-pick statistics but, ultimately, we will need to align ourselves with productivity. The last century was all about output. On my farm, we made dramatic increases in output. What is productivity? It is output per unit of input. Biodiversity loss and soil degradation are all real input costs. They are externalities at the moment; farmers are not paying for them. However, we will have to pay for them and we have to align ourselves with this. There is no point in fooling ourselves that it will be otherwise. The more we are aligned with this, the more successful we will be.

What have I done on my farm? Mr. Kent mentioned diverse pastures. In recent years, UCD carried out smart grass trials that produced a 90% reduction in methane emissions. While that has not been greatly publicised, it is absolutely massive. The concept of smart grass was devised over 100 years ago. It is all about putting more carbon into soils because they are deeper rooted plants. We are vastly underestimating the amount of carbon we can sequester into our soils because we are working from a limited point of view in not looking beyond a rye grass monoculture. We are in this box. This is constructive criticism. There is a massive lack of research into organic and biological farming and this is really holding the industry back. Diverse pastures have a huge role to play.

The issue of whether we can produce enough protein came up. I have no doubt that we can do so. It does not all have to be in grains. Dr. O'Mara mentioned that roughly 20% of the dairy diet is in concentrate form and approximately half of that is imported. If a cow eats 5.5 tonnes, more than 1 tonne of it is in concentrates. That can be vastly reduced by using good management practices as developed in Moorepark. It is much lower than that; it can be down at 250 kg or 300 kg. There is scope to produce all our food and become GM free. If we really want to go about this, we can do it.

There is a big misconception - it will be overcome in the next few years - that organic is low-output farming. However, to my mind it is more productive farming. Research on red clover by Teagasc in Grange produced 15 tonnes of dry matter per year over three-year trials. In Moorepark, plot trials on white clover produced over 13 tonnes. All of this was with zero nitrogen inputs. The same applies to smart grass. As a result of the fact that there are a lot of legumes in the sward, nitrogen will limit the production of the sward. We can do much more but, unfortunately, there is a major lack of research into this because there is no industry benefit. No one other than farmers will make money from this.

The real solutions to the issues of climate change lie in management and it will come from farmers. Unfortunately, it is not being promoted. Due to the fact that we are living in a world of information technology and the Internet, it is gathering pace and it will happen despite the lack of research being done and despite all of this. I am very positive that it will happen.

I meet farmers every day. I know many people who are moving towards biological organic farming even though there is no scheme in place. A good analogy is back in the 1990s when the Irish dairy industry was very cow-centred. We had a relative breeding index, RBI, system which rewarded just production or output. Everyone thought of 2,000-gallon cows. The whole system was going that way. I accept that Teagasc was also promoting that system. Eventually, pressure from farmers, including those who had come back from New Zealand and had seen a different, more grass-orientated approach, built up to the point where we changed how we managed dairy farming in Ireland and we took a more grass-centred approach.

An even bigger revolution is happening at the moment. We are taking a step further back and are looking at soil. It will be farmer driven because the research is stuck in a box and cannot see outside that box at the moment. I have no doubt they will come in line in the coming years. Most of the problems lie with nitrogen fertiliser. We can do without it if we start putting the proper research into it.

Slurry was mentioned a few times. On my farm, I am fermenting slurry. It is possible to add humates to slurry. Humates are binding up the nitrogen. It is possible to add humates to nitrogen fertiliser. Not enough is being done in promoting that. A lot of work is being done on nitrate inhibitors. These are all industry motivated; there is money to be made from them. However, the things that do not generate money are not happening. Humates with nitrogen-reduction programmes have been shown to be successful in America and Australia. There is a massive revolution of biological farmers in these countries where they are vastly reducing their nitrogen inputs and still out-producing the conventional farms in those countries.

The same applies to feed additives, in respect of which there is also much research. Again, it has been largely industry motivated. Seaweed minerals have been shown to reduce methane emissions by 100%. This is a natural resource that we have all around our shores. We are ignoring the obvious solutions.

Forestry is being greatly promoted as a way of offsetting. Again, I think this is a flawed approach. While it is not quite monoculture, it will lead to other problems. Trees are all growing at the same stage in close proximity and there is no undergrowth. We have seen phosphorus problems in water because we are just bleeding phosphorus from the soil where there is no understorey and trees at different stages. We are just creating the next problem if we do not take a balanced approach.

Organic farming and a biological approach to farming will be the biggest single biggest factor. It is what we have to do. Agriculture of this century is all about becoming efficient with our inputs while maintaining productivity. I have a very positive outlook if we embrace that.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is considerable food for thought there.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

It is a nice, natural segue from Mr. McHugh. While I do not agree with everything he said, there is much very positive stuff from the industry. Some of the work we are doing in the Dairy Sustainability Ireland initiative goes back to the first principles Mr. McHugh has outlined. Before we even address the climate change issue, we need to go back to the first principles of what is happening in water quality in our land. We have a brilliant story of water quality in our land in our industry, but it is declining. Our reputation is based on getting that back up and the soil is at the heart of that through nutrient management programmes, growing more grass, getting more profitability for farmers and reducing fertiliser inputs. The fundamental piece is behavioural change for farmers and that they get more income. I am lucky enough to be working in the dairy industry. For the record I am also an organic beef farmer; Ms Westbrook can check her organisation's records.

Ms Gillian Westbrook:

I know.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

There is a realisation in terms of where we stand. It is a bit like veganism; each to their own on the organic piece. No one size fits all. Based on the tenets the various witnesses today have espoused it is clear that most of us are working in the right direction. The Dairy Sustainability Ireland initiative is the first involving every individual dairy company, all the farm organisations relevant to dairy and all the State organisations, including the EPA. The EPA is not there for the craic. I appreciate what Deputy Pringle has said in asking if it is green-washing and another version of Origin Green. It cannot be. We are being forced into this. Almost 95% of our dairy produce is exported. If we are to compete after Brexit, the companies - Danone, Wyeth and Nestlé - that will buy those dairy products to go into ingredients need those sustainability credentials and not just talk about them. Without profitable farmers in those 18,000 farms all over the island, we do not have a dairy industry.

Deputy McConalogue asked about mitigation. It will be slow at the start and will look at input management that will have a result in water improvements, etc.

However, leading on to that - and I think Mr. McHugh outlined some of the emerging technologies - if it is successful, then we will move to roll it out among the co-operatives and processors. They are the ones who lead it down into farming. Then we can roll on to solar panels. We have seen what the European Investment Bank is doing in the Netherlands. We are seeing anaerobic digestion technologies and we looked into seaweed technologies. I assure the committee that when I saw the articles about the type of seaweed on the coral reef in Australia, I looked into the matter. It is the only one that works thus far, with only one trial. However, we are certainly looking at technological things that perhaps we can push through Dairy Sustainability Ireland because we have everyone in that.

In respect of Deputy Martin Kenny's question about extra grass instead of feed, that is a fundamental tenet and outcome of this Dairy Sustainability Ireland first phase initiative. We are trying to grow more grass and go for more dry matter per hectare. We are using Teagasc, other partnerships and science to try to drive that on and try to reduce it.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is grass cover measured as a carbon sequester? Is it measured in the way forestry is measured?

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

We do not get credit for that sink. That is a big issue I have in Brussels. Dr. O'Mara might clarify that.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

We understand that our grasslands are sequestering carbon. It is a difficult thing to measure so to count it would be difficult. However, the challenge as to why we do not credit for it is a technical thing. Something has to be done different now than was being done pre-1990 in order to get credit. The grasslands were presumably sequestering carbon in the 1970s and 1980s, so they are only doing similar sequestration now. We would need additional sequestration. That is why forestry is additional sequestration. It is one thing-----

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, go ahead.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

It is a very important point because when we look at the overall sustainability of our system, the fact that our grasses are sequestering carbon is a big plus for Irish dairy, beef and sheep production.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not get credit for it.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

We do not get credit on the accounting system. However, when people do this life cycle assessment of our system-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of the day, the accounting system is what counts, is it not?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

It is what the cheques have to be written for, yes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The carbon for the forestry comes in as it is sequestered in the wood. Can the witness elaborate on how grass sequesters and stores carbon?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

It is part of the dry matter that accumulates. The grass that grows above the ground gets eaten. However, there is as much of the plant underneath the ground so that contributes to a build up of long term carbon-type products in the soil-----

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the root?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

-----that build up the carbon.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the same issue, I call Mr. Kent.

Mr. Patrick Kent:

Dr. O'Mara nailed it in the sense that the opportunity is there for us to do one little thing and that is to add a small amount of clover seed to slurry applications. That should be sufficient to draw down extra funding. It would reduce our nitrogen inputs, increase our outputs and increase the carbon sequestration. A little bit of chicory could be added. I have done it myself very successfully. There is a particular tool attachment for the back of a slurry tank, a Moscha swivel spout. That should be passed for doing low emissions. It is suitable for doing that rather than the trailing shoe systems, which are too far apart to do that.

I would have to award "man of the match" to Mr. McHugh. It is a tremendous performance and a breath of fresh air. This is where farming is going. We have to measure farming not on yield per acre of product. We going to have to have a yield of profit. Some of the most profitable tillage farmers I know now are organic. However, Ms Westbrook is going to have to get more members into the tillage end. There are fantastic returns there. On zero chemical inputs, there are returns from organic oats of €900. Barley is the same story. There are guys spending €400 on chemicals to get a €50 profit - if that - from conventional farming, as we will call it now.

We have to go back to the drawing board with farming. We need more research. As an organisation, we are not pushing farmers to produce more because we have no vested interest in harvesting levies. We just take a membership, so we tell it as it is. The ICSA does not take levies. We are not production oriented. We want farmers to make more profit, we want sustainability and we want to keep farmers on the land. In remote parts, farmers have had a very difficult last week. I have visited farms in mountain areas and in lowland areas. Sheds have fallen down and killed sheep. There is going to have to be funding for some of these people. They are in a vulnerable position. Some people in the glasshouse industry talk about vegetable production. There is a massive one in Wexford. It just shows the vulnerability we have with climate. It might be infrequent timewise but when it happens it is a disaster for the individuals involved.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for cutting across the witness.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

Not at all. I am representing industry here. I come a background as an organic farmer. I do believe that aspect either. However, the farmer has to follow the money and the industry has to follow the money and the profitability. I do a lot of work in Europe. At the weekend I was stranded in Belgium and we saw organic milk in the supermarket. It was about half the category but because it is commoditised, it is cheaper than regular milk.

We had a big debate in Ireland regarding Kerrygold butter from an overall GMO-free perspective. I refer to the cost of getting all the farmers into GMO-free and organic and then seeing what would be the price of Kerrygold. It is €1.70 and organic labels are €1.30.

Mr. Patrick Kent:

I have to address that. The actual product that is GMO-free is not edible. It is a terrible bland white product that could not be spread on bread. We are not comparing like with like. Kerrygold has only 3% GMO addition. It is a fantastic product but we need to get a higher price for it.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

I am not disagreeing with Mr. Kent, I am just saying about if we commoditise it-----

Mr. Patrick Kent:

We are not commoditising. We are declaring this country a GMO-free zone. We are getting better price for all of our farmers.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

We would love it if the industry and farmers got the profit from it.

Mr. Patrick Kent:

Well, 60% of consumers do not want to consume GMO.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

In terms of Deputy Martin Kenny's question on the increase of numbers in the dairy herd versus the increase in the numbers of the suckler herd, I think there was a lot of latent capacity on dairy farms as a result of quotas. At the start of quotas in 1983, our dairy industry was the same size as its counterpart in New Zealand. We were held back for two generations by quotas. We have been making great leaps forwards. In the past three years, we have gone from 5.5 billion litres processed in 2015 to 7.5 billion litres this year. Those extra litres are not commodity litres, they are bringing profits back to farms.

They have been borne out in terms of the work Teagasc has done on actual farm incomes. The farmer with an average dairy herd is earning about €70,000 a year versus what my father earns from an organic beef herd, about €19,000 or €20,000. That is the CAP payment plus a bit of the organic payment. It is a no-brainer. If we want wealth for farming communities in every parish in Ireland, we have a massive advantage here. We are the accredited lowest carbon emitter of dairy per kilogram produced. Regardless of organic or non-organic, that is EU accredited. It is something to be massively proud of, so we have to build on that and use some of Mr. McHugh's ideas across all farms. I refer to the successes on farms and the work of Ms Westbrook and others. We have to drive that on and use some of the lessons Mr. McHugh has highlighted in order to get all farmers - even those who want to go the conventional route - up and running.

In respect of Brexit, what is happening is depressing. We are supposed to be discussing climate change but I am of the view that the Irish dairy industry will ride Brexit out. This year, we are projecting that over 50% of Irish dairy will go beyond the EU and the UK. It will cause us damage but I think we have such a good competitive advantage, because of our grass-based system, we are probably going to ride it out.

Senator Paul Daly asked about the potential for organic dairy. In the industry, we think there is a fabulous organic opportunity for farmers like Mr. McHugh and other farmers around Ireland. One of our members does an organic product and they cannot get the organic skim and organic base. They are gone to Denmark to get it and they are manufacturing it in Ireland and exporting it.

Ms Gillian Westbrook:

That is 4 million litres worth.

Mr. Conor Mulvihill:

To have that, we cannot have an individual such as Mr. McHugh; there has to be a pool. In fairness, Aurivo is making strides in the north west with the organic brand allotted from its An Grianán factory farm. That is its only real factory farm in Ireland. It is an accredited organic farm. However, it will take a cluster of farms to build on Ms Westbrook's piece to see if it is an opportunity for us. I refer especially to higher value. It all about achieving higher value to make sure the money will go back to the farmer.

On Deputy Danny Healy Rae's contribution, I disagree with some of his argumentation, but as a countryman, I agree with a lot of it. As to why we should be taking the sustainability initiative seriously, we are moving to a stage where for every 20 litres of milk we produce on the island, 19 will have to be got off our rock. The Germans, Africans, Chinese and Brazilians who are looking to buy milk in Kenmare, Kilgarvan or Ballinasloe need to have the production certified. They need proof that what we are claiming about our green credentials has been certified as sustainable not only by Dairy Industry Ireland or even Teagasc and Bord Bia but also by third parties. For us to be able to sell to my man in Baghdad, the company needs to see evidence to prove what we are claiming, that it is organic or whatever else, and that it has been certified by third parties.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Mulvihill. This has been an interesting discussion. This has been our third public meeting on the topic of climate change. All of the stakeholders will be involved. We will produce a report in the next few weeks and the delegates will be more than welcome to come back when we launch it. I thank them for coming before the committee and apologise for running so late.