Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: " 'biogenic methane' means all methane greenhouse gases produced from the agriculture sector;"

The amendment is self-explanatory. We are looking for a reflection of what the Climate Change Advisory Council has recommended, which is that in terms of targets biogenic methane coming from agriculture should be dealt with separately to other methane and carbon emissions. The argument has been put forward by the Climate Change Advisory Council that it should be dealt with separately because carbon and methane coming from agriculture are part of an overall cycle. As the Minister knows, the issue is the increase in the amount of methane coming from the agricultural sector rather than methane per se. As the Minister knows, it is part of a cycle. Methane emitted from animals goes into the atmosphere and converts into carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is then sequestered in the soil and grass and some of it is consumed by animals and goes back into the cycle again.

We are in a unique situation in Ireland in that we have substantial amounts of marginal land that is unsuitable for tillage. Globally, there is a big push to move a lot of agricultural land into other types of protein crops where there is not the same scale of emissions, particularly with regard to methane. If we look at many parts of Ireland where we have marginal land that is completely unsuitable for tillage, producing protein for humans from cattle is the only way the land can be productively used. It is part of a sustainable process. As the Minister knows, in the past we had a situation in the Burren where cattle were removed and had to be reintroduced because of the detrimental impact it had on biodiversity. We had the same with sheep in many upland and mountainous areas along the west coast of Ireland. A number of animals are required on land to be able to maintain it from an environmental and biodiversity perspective. The same is the case in many areas of marginal land throughout the country.

I accept that agriculture has to do its bit to meet the overall climate targets but my concern is that agriculture emissions are the soft option. The Minister knows from being in the Department, and from having been in the Department with responsibility for energy previously, how difficult it can be at times to get people to move and take the type of actions needed. I have given the example already of electric buses. We have to wait until 2023 for the first double-decker electric bus to be on the streets of Dublin even though the Cabinet took the decision in January 2018 to progress along this route and no longer buy fossil fuel buses. My concern is that when we start to meet the thresholds for 2025 and 2030, and when we have not retrofitted 500,000 homes by 2030 and do not have 1 million electric vehicles on our roads, in order to meet these targets the squeeze will be put on the most vulnerable sector in agriculture, which is our indigenous suckler beef sector. It produces very carbon-efficient beef on marginal land.

It produces protein for humans on land that is not suitable for any other form of protein production and carries out a vital role in biodiversity. The evidence is already there in relation to that. It is not just me putting forward this argument. The Climate Change Advisory Council, in its 2020 report, strongly advocated that biogenic methane should be separated out, should be accounted for separately, and should have its own dedicated ring-fenced targets so that agriculture improves and reduces its emissions per kilogram and its emissions per hectare.

At long last we can see work ongoing, which is building on work I was involved with in respect of smart farming, to improve grassland management and to improve soil sequestration of carbon. There is an awful lot that can be done in that regard. There is no point in the agricultural sector carrying its burden, so to speak, on the 2030 targets and on targets beyond that date, if it all is to be nullified, come the eve of 2025 or the eve of 2030, when another scheme is introduced, effectively to reduce overall numbers of suckler cows in Ireland, as we have already seen in the reliefs and supports that have been put in place with Brexit. It is about putting in place a fair and transparent balance.

The amendment I put forward here clearly reflects the goal, objective and intention of the Climate Change Advisory Council. The Minister has already cited our international targets and what we have signed up to internationally. The committee will be aware that all of these were drafted by industrialised countries. These are the countries that set the agendas and targets on it. Yes, they are challenging targets to achieve, but when one considers a country such as Ireland, where we do not have the heavy industry and where 37% of our population lives in isolated rural areas, our geography and our emissions profile is very different to that of other European countries. That needs to be reflected in how we actually design our targets here. Personally, I believe that our targets for biogenic methane emissions should be on a European Union level because the policy is developed in the context of CAP.

The reality is that the vast majority of food products we produce are consumed outside of Ireland. This should be reflected in the emissions profile of the countries where this food is consumed, and not where it is produced. This will cause a huge problem further down the road in the way the current system is structured. We have a perverse situation where the targets, as they are currently designed, will force the wind-down of beef exports from Ireland, where we are the most carbon-efficient beef exporter within the European Union. This will be replaced with beef coming from South America as part of the overall trade agreements we have. That beef, coming from the Amazon basin in Brazil, has a carbon footprint 35 times higher than the beef produced here in Ireland. Yet, in theory, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense. It makes sense from the point of view of reducing Ireland's emissions profile, which it will do, but it will compound the problem for our atmosphere, our climate and the planet as a whole. We will be replacing relatively carbon-efficient beef production in Ireland with beef production from South America that is disastrous for the environment and disastrous for the climate. While that is okay for the accounting mechanism under the agreements that are currently there for the climate targets we have set for ourselves at EU level, it is imperative that we do not go down the same road given the mistakes that are being made with European and global targets, or that we do the same thing here in Ireland. We should have a very separate and distinct target set for the agricultural sector.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not talking about agriculture getting a free ride on this. There is a substantial amount of work that the agricultural sector can do. The Minister of State, Senator Pippa Hackett, has a huge body of work to do around land use and land use change, which will be key to achieving our overall climate objective targets, and especially in the agricultural sector. It is imperative that this work is done within a sector specific area because biogenic methane is very different to the carbon dioxide used anywhere else in society and in the economy.

It is not just the Climate Change Advisory Council. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland have a very similar structure in agriculture that is also taking the separate approach to biogenic methane. The Climate Change Committee there has specifically stated that there should be a different target for biogenic methane emissions in Northern Ireland, and that this should be offset against carbon sinks in other parts of the UK. Members will be aware that New Zealand has also taken a very similar approach on this. New Zealand has a very similar emissions profile to Ireland's, and it faces similar challenges to us. They have separated biogenic methane from other forms of methane and other carbon dioxide emissions. New Zealand has set separate targets on that. New Zealand is our direct competitor in dairy production and sheep farming. If we are serious about being fair to all sectors, and if we talk about taking the advice of the Climate Change Advisory Council and the scientists who are experts in this area, every single one of them, to a man and woman, has said there needs to be a separate mechanism to calculate biogenic methane and that it should be treated in a different manner. That is why I have tabled this amendment.

I hope the Minister will look at this fairly and reasonably. I have listened intently to what the Minister said earlier, and that there is broad agreement on the Bill. I accept that the Minister has gone through a tortuous process in securing the agreement on the Bill that he has already secured. I can understand the Minister's logic for not being willing to budge any further on this and in having to try to go back to the Cabinet to try to get agreement on further changes on it. I put it to the Minister, however, that we still live in a democracy. Under our parliamentary procedures the first step is in carrying out amendments to the legislation. We will also deal with it at a later stage in my amendments where I believe the way it is currently drafted is anti-democratic. It is important that if the Minister is giving such a role to the Climate Change Advisory Council, which will be enshrined in this legislation and put on a statutory basis, then this key recommendation in the council's report needs to be adopted, included and incorporated into the legislation.