Mr. Trevor Donnellan:

The issue of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture is not as considerable in other member states. Having said that, we were quite active in the period before the milk quota was eliminated in emphasising to policymakers elsewhere in Europe that agricultural emissions in Ireland were going to increase in the short term because we knew that the dairy sector was going to expand considerably after the milk quota was removed. The difficulty was that policymakers elsewhere in Europe were a little circumspect about it. They did not believe expansion to the extent that it occurred was feasible. They had a very poor picture of the dairy sector in Ireland from a competitiveness point of view, but we did as much as we could to put them right on the issue.

There was a question about carbon sequestration. The main mechanism we have identified is forestry or afforestation. It dwarfs all other carbon sequestration measures we have identified.

Carbon budgeting is a difficult issue. I mentioned that there were 140,000 farms in Ireland. How could we ever measure with certainty, by which I mean with 100% certainty, to the level of a breathalyser test or a blood test to measure alcohol levels, the level of emissions a farm was producing? We can approximate the level of emissions it is producing based on the number of animals, fertiliser usage and so on. We do this as part of the national farm survey. However, we can never tell with 100% certainty what the level of emissions will be. When we are talking about trying to reduce emissions, being 100% certain about the level of emissions being produced on a farm and in determining whether they have gone down is challenging and rather expensive. It would have to be done for every farm in the country. I suggest that, as a mechanism to address emissions, it could be prohibitively expensive.

It could also be difficult, given that the science is evolving all the time. I could claim today that the emissions from farm X in 2015 were X amount. However, if the science evolves, we might get a more accurate picture of what we believe the emissions were. When that happens, it leads to a complete revision of all of the estimates made historically and we could have a revision of the calculations for a farm. A revision could suggest the emissions from a farm in year X were actually higher than estimated. That would be rather contentious for farmers. We may have to say to them we figured the emissions were X amount but the science is telling us that they are X amount plus 5% and that they will have to work even harder to reduce them in the future. That could be counterproductive from the perspective of creating trust and a buy-in if we want to reduce emissions. It could be counterproductive to try to assess the level of emissions produced on each individual farm to that level of detail. Expense and controversy are relevant in that respect.

Some people like organic farming. It can deliver environmental benefits, but I contest the view that it actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, it means that there are lower emissions from a farm, but there is also lower output from it. It is producing lower emissions, but it is also producing less food. When we factor that in, ultimately, we may find that it is actually producing higher emissions per unit of output. An organic farm potentially has a bigger carbon footprint – I trust committee members understand what I am saying – than a conventional farm. Organic farming is not a silver bullet, but certainly it has a place. That brings me back to my earlier comment that we need to think in an holistic way, not only on the single issue of climate change but also about what we want agriculture to deliver for the economy as a whole. Organic farming is relevant, but seeing it as something we should pursue uniquely to address greenhouse gas emissions could be misplaced.