Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Green Party, I am very glad to contribute to these statements on agriculture. I want to broaden the debate to the use of our land as well as the stewardship of our seas, which the Minister addressed. Looking after our environment will be good for the farming and agricultural community and the wider rural communities who will manage our forests, peatland, biodiversity and our seas. There is sometimes a misunderstanding or misperception that sees a hostility or natural divide between the environmental and farming movements when the opposite is the case. That point was made very convincingly by Roger Schulte, an executive with Teagasc. He did some fairly extensive research on best farming practice and most profitable use of our land and saw a correlation between that and the use of the land which caused least environmental damage. We in the green, environmental movement need to get that point across. We need to work with people who are responsible for our land to make sure we look after our own environment effectively and well.

A small example, which is a useful precedent, is the Burrenbeo organisation in West Clare. It is a community-based organisation working with local farming communities to manage the land in a way that brings a range of benefits. It is an unusual case of land management because of the Burren karst limestone landscape but it provides a good lesson in how the role of the farming community is much wider than just the production of agricultural output for markets. It has a role in maintaining, managing, enhancing and developing our environment. Rather than establish policy on the basis of a range of punitive laws to stop people damaging the environment, it switches the model towards incentivising things that improve and help it.

I will use that approach to consider our use not just of agricultural crop and pasture land, but also uplands, boglands and forestry lands that need to be integrated in an entire managed system. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is developing a national spatial plan. It is critical to have a proper land use plan for the country within that to integrate spatial development planning with land use planning. We need that because of the increased flooding and because we have to meet certain targets under our climate change obligations. We have to change the way we use our land, including the way we do agriculture to get the whole approach right. One piece of land cannot be taken out and treated in a different way.

The boglands are a significant natural environment, in terms of protection of biodiversity, storage of carbon, water and prevention of flooding. It is deeply ironic to see advertisements in the newspaper today by Bord na Móna saying what a champion it is of protecting the natural world when in truth the plans promoted by the outgoing Government are to extract down to the last sod whatever is left of the big midland peat bogs. There is no word of that changing in any of the negotiations taking place. It is impossible for Bord na Móna or the State to present themselves as protectors of the environment, or this as a strong green country, when we are burning our peat reserves below the levels at which they could recover. That incredible store of carbon, water and biodiversity will be lost. That has to change. If we present ourselves as an origin green country, as the great example of good natural protection, or if Bord na Móna wants to present itself in that light, we cannot keep burning our remaining peat resources. We have to protect and support communities, landowners and farmers who see the value of that bog resource and start to protect it.

The value of forestry land in this State is half that of typical agricultural land because we have some inherent reluctance to tie land up or we see forestry as an inferior option, something that is not as skilled or honourable. That needs to change. We also need to change the nature of our forestry. We cannot keep continuing with this clear felling system of planting sitka spruce and pine and other crops, see it grow for 40 years, clear fell the entire crop and then start the same process again. In the long term, that process degrades our soil, leads to run off water pollution problems in our rivers and delivers a very low value crop. It will be increasingly low value as the soil is unable to keep churning that unnatural cycle. It would be far more intelligent, economic and environmentally beneficial to switch to a form of continuous cover forestry. We could take the plantations planted in the 1990s and retrofit continuous cover forestry to them by felling a certain number of trees on the inside to create areas where the next generation growth can rise. The output of the thinnings provides an ongoing income for the forester. It is very labour intensive, much better for storage of carbon, and we would end up with much higher value forestry. The Germans and Swiss adopt this system and get a multiple of the price we get for the wood. The biodiversity is much more valuable. The environment for local communities to use is much more attractive. Every which way it is a winner but there is no sign of it changing or of Government policy realising it.

If we are facing a real difficulty in European negotiations, rather than digging in our heels and saying we will not do anything, change or provide leadership on climate, we could make a switch and start dealing with peat boglands, forestry and agriculture in a different way that not only would help us address the climate change crisis we face, but also would improve the quality of our natural local environment.

There is an ongoing debate on the possible use of the forestry crop for biomass to burn in peat or coal-fired power stations. People may be aware of a recent controversy in Belgium which is considering a similar proposal. It realised it would cost billions and involve having to import wood from native woodland forests in America, South Africa and Vietnam. It is an insane response to the challenges we face and it would be a terrible pity if we went down the road of large mass plantations of short rotation coppice willow or other crops.

There are significant opportunities for the farming community in this country in terms of anaerobic digestion, where waste is turned into an energy crop. I agree with the use of forestry thinnings and new biomass wood crops for heating in the food and other industries which are off the gas network. I also agree with using solar and wind power in a community-owned way, where farming communities benefit.

There are major opportunities for Irish farming in the green energy revolution that is taking place. Solutions should be community-owned. We have to be careful around planning and development, but it is a future that provides a viable constant income that is not subject to the vagaries of some of the international food market prices on which our farmers are reliant. We should jump at it and we in the Green Party look to work with the farming community to help to make that happen.

Our real concern is that at the same time as we are not doing the right thing in forestry and peat boglands, in other crucial areas of agriculture we want to double output in certain areas and enter international dairy markets to compete with New Zealand and other countries. That is a problem for a number of different reasons, one of which is climate. There is a fundamental mismatch between what we have to commit to internationally and our ability to increase the dairy herd because of the clear connection between it and methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. It is not a case of tackling the agricultural community, rather it is that no one thinks about the trade-offs. If we decide to increase the dairy herd, our transport, business and domestic sectors have to change significantly and increase their ambition, possibly at real cost. That is part of the debate we do not have. It is not a matter of Ireland versus the rest of the world. Instead, we need to decide internally on how we manage our resources and play our part.

I refer to the major intensification of agriculture required to deliver the sort of output increases the Government seems to want. New Zealand is a similar country to Ireland and we should heed its lessons, namely, that one can trash the environment in the pursuit of short-term growth in output. New Zealand doubled its dairy output, dramatically increased its herd size and exported billions of euro in dairy products. However, academic research there has shown that the cost to its environment, such as the fouling of its water, the compaction of its soil and the leaking of heavy metals into the soil, is beyond any revenues received from the increase in dairy output. We are following that model, and we miss that reality and stark lesson to our cost. Let us not trash our country for the sake of achieving short-term profits on international markets which, since the dairy quota system has come to an end, are increasingly uncertain and volatile.

Instead, let us start to open up changes in the nature of farming to bring the power back to farmers. We find that following discussions at IFA and other meetings farmers tell us we are right because they understand there has been a fundamental shift in the power balance. Farmers are price takers and have no control over marketing arrangements. Profits go to processors and retailers. Farmers have realised that we need to change the agricultural distribution model or else they will forever be, to use a metaphor, sucking from the hind teat.

We need to change the nature of the distribution system and open up our domestic markers in order that farmers have a direct connection with consumers and can start to get better prices and have some control over the marketing of their produce rather than being subject to international forces which they have no power to control.

We should have models such as the English Market in Cork or the Milk Market in Limerick, which are local, covered, high-quality markets, on every high street in every town. We should work with our co-operative strengths in order that farmers can become involved in connecting directly with consumers and achieving better prices. That is the green way to go.

I heard none of that in the Minister's contribution. He referred to many lists of international agreements and European and other subsidy supports, but there was no realisation that the fundamental nature of agriculture has to change to empower farmers and protect our soil, water and air quality. If we do not do that in the long run, we will not have produce or the secure natural system on which we all rely to be able to develop.

I am very conscious of time. I have not considered fisheries, a subject I might leave for another day.

This is not an issue involving a rural and urban divide. I am an urban dweller and a consumer. Consumers are important in this process. They want better, more organic and natural Irish food produce. They want to know where it comes from and to have a connection with where it is coming from. They own the system of production as much as farmers. In protecting our land and nature and having access to nature it is important that we share the process. Land should not be privatised, parcelled off and closed down.

A recent story gave me a certain level of hope. I refer to the Great Western Greenway in Mayo. The project involved building a road from Achill to Westport. It was built because farmers along the route realised it would improve their access to their neighbours, allow their children to travel safely from one farm to the next and improve their area. It is fantastic for visitors and local people. We need to engender and share that sort of pride and connection to the land which will result in a more organic, greener and locally connected farming system, which is what we need to move to.

See this speech in context