Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Climate change and how we deal with it is the defining issue of our generation, an issue that will impact forever, at least in human terms, on future generations. While we recognise and accept individual responsibility, as we must, we must also look to our Government to put systems and structures in place to facilitate us as citizens to play our role, not to absolve us from responsibility but to facilitate our engagement as mothers and grandmothers of the generations to come.

The climate action plan promises much but delivery is still very much in question. We need clarity on how we can play our part. One of the issues that really concerns me in all of this is the narrative of urban versus rural. In terms of context, Ireland did not have an industrial revolution and therefore agricultural production, which sustains much of rural Ireland, makes a proportionately higher contribution to greenhouse gas emissions than in most other countries. We also conveniently forget that Harvest 2020, stated Government policy, promoted higher levels of production and, consequently, a significant increase in the national herd. All of this finger-pointing is getting us nowhere.

Too many people, especially in rural Ireland, feel left out, not of the debate which they are right in the middle of, but of shaping the solutions and of playing a meaningful, positive and realistic role in mitigating climate change. That role includes sustainable food production and Ireland and the EU recognising, for example, that we need to look again at the Mercosur agreement and all of its implications. The role also includes payment for carbon farming. The most crucial aspect involves individuals and communities coming to the fore in areas like, for example, microgeneration projects rather than the huge, towering wind turbines planned for places like Croagh and Dough Mountain in County Leitrim. I refer to projects involving solar panels and small turbines because that is where we get community support, community buy-in and positive outcomes. We need to see agro-forestry that sequesters carbon, provides income, protects biodiversity and provides areas where people, animals and plans can interact in positive ways instead of the community-destroying Sitka spruce we have marching across the landscape.

The debate around the national herd is fraught. It is crucial to point out that suckler herd numbers are decreasing year on year. Slowly and quietly, a sector that underpins many rural counties along the west coast and elsewhere is fading. In the next CAP the target for sucklers is 385,000 and the kicker is that just 20,000 farmers take part in the beef genomics scheme. Nobody is talking about this or taking the bull by the horns. We need an honest, robust debate about the future of the suckler herd. Platitudes are useless. A recent report from KPMG showed that if agricultural emissions are to fall by 30%, then farm profitability will also fall by 30%. Is there a just transition? If this plan is to work, and we want it to work, then we must engage with rural communities.

See this speech in context