Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I sincerely thank all the Members who have taken time to contribute to this important debate. I sometimes think we would probably be well served by some kind of forum or agency that would establish the facts on our achievements and problems as accepted by all parties. I am not looking for a free pass for agriculture in this debate. Far from it. I accept that we in the sector have a lot of work to do in this regard. I am equally adamant, however, that it be recognised that the agricultural community has also achieved an awful lot, something that has very often been lost in the debate. Senator Paul Daly made reference to some of those achievements in agriculture. We in Ireland are the most carbon-efficient in the world when it comes to dairy production, for example, and we are also the fifth-most carbon-efficient overall in Europe. These achievements are not in themselves reason enough to say that neither our dairy nor beef sectors need to do any more. That is far from the case, in fact, and this has been recognised by my Department, which is spending substantial amounts of money on further improving those sectors. In the area of beef, for example, we have a beef data and genomics programme and have genotyped almost a million cattle. This is something that might not be recognised by people from outside the farming world but we know more about individual cattle in the country than we do about citizens. We know all about their movements and their genotypes and so forth and we have a phenomenal database on this, which is the envy of the world and to which there is substantial inbound traffic from other states to see how we are doing these things.

We are spending more than €100 million a year on the Department's forestry programme. Next year we will be spending €104 million on this programme, which covers areas such as afforestation and building roads to help with extraction. We are harvesting huge volumes of biomass, though I take Senator Mac Lochlainn's point that we need an awful lot more of it. If we need more biomass, however, we as public representatives need to change the narrative around forestry. It is not good enough for us to come in here and talk about biomass in an abstract sense and then go out into the community and speak out against afforestation as an unnecessary evil that is killing communities. Communities can live side by side with afforestation and there is income and employment to be had from it. The Department is undertaking a review of our afforestation programme and there is some concern that some of the targets we had set on the hectarage we are planting may be slipping somewhat. Also of concern is the fact that our level of tree cover in this country is substantially lower than the European average. We are looking at how we might change the forestry crop to some faster-growing, quicker-harvested alternative to assist the biomass sector, particularly as this is an area in which we can contribute to breaking down existing prejudices against forestry . At the same time this would allow us to bring faster to market a renewable crop that would meet the growing potential of the biomass sector as a means of reducing our reliance on imported, non-renewable fossil fuels. This is important. What we cannot do, however, is indulge in the luxury of speaking out of both sides of our mouth when it comes to biomass and afforestation. They are the same issue and we need to take this seriously. We need to develop a new narrative around forestry. County Wicklow, for example, the county neighbouring this one, is widely accepted as a pristine county and yet it has the highest level of afforestation of any county in the country.It manages to sell that as a positive, by and large. I do not hear the same negative commentary about afforestation in that county as I do about afforestation along much of the western seaboard in particular. In some areas, it is seen as a threat to existing agricultural practices, many of which do not deliver the same income levels as forestry can deliver. I accept that we all have work to do to package this message better. That is important.

I assure Senator Grace O'Sullivan that we believe we have the best beef industry. Senator Humphreys suggested that "Ireland is never going to feed the world", but I remind him that Ireland is the largest exporter of beef in the northern hemisphere and the sixth largest exporter of beef in the world. Our beef industry is of global scale. Some people talk against the bovine industry - beef or dairy - when they are discussing climate change as a global phenomenon. Unless one believes in social engineering to an extent that I consider neither practical nor possible, one will agree it is better to have a beef industry in which Ireland is capable of being the best and most climate-friendly and carbon-efficient producer than to have a beef industry that is contingent on clearing vast swathes of the Amazonian rain forest. That is what the industry in South America is doing to enable it to export its beef under a potential trade deal with Europe, thereby displacing our product, which is far more carbon-efficient. We need to be conscious of these issues when we talk down our industry.

I accept that more than 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the agriculture sector but I stress this is because we have not traditionally had a heavy industrial base. Agriculture will always account for a disproportionately high proportion of our emissions. Ireland and New Zealand share a similar profile in this context because we have had similar experiences. Ireland's industrial revolution, if it ever happened, was in the era of information technology, etc. That is our industrial base. It is not heavy engineering, by any means. Our profile is skewed in that sense, which is what gives agriculture a bad name. Within our agriculture sector, we are quite good at what we do. That does not mean we are looking for a free pass.

We have been told that after 2020, as a country we will have greater flexibility with regard to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. We sometimes like to say that the bad aspects of the CAP are all the fault of Brussels. We have an opportunity to use the greater flexibility that is now envisaged to tailor the CAP for our purposes. This will be a difficult challenge. We all say we are in favour of greater autonomy in devising CAP, but I suggest that when it comes to doing the work, there will be raised voices about what we should do. It is my firm intention to avail of this opportunity to address further the need to meet our climate change obligations and challenges. That is as it should be. Based on my engagement with farm organisations, it seems to me that farmers recognise this necessity. The journey will be difficult but there is an acceptance that it is the right thing to do for all the reasons that have been articulated. We are not climate change deniers by any means. In my view, this industry is visionary and progressive. It knows where it fits into the overall global scenario. It wants to play to its strengths. We are blessed with a climate that facilitates a sustainable agricultural base.

Senator Paul Daly referred to what is happening in the Netherlands. The Dutch agricultural industry is reaping the consequences of having rapid expansion without paying due respect to sustainability issues. I understand that up to 250,000 cattle are being slaughtered in the Netherlands to meet the requirements of its nitrates action plan, although I stand to be corrected in that regard. We recently negotiated a successful renewal of our nitrates action programme with the Commission, which recognises that we are on a sustainability journey. We have not arrived but we are committed to doing new things as part of the journey we are on. The Commission wants to work with us. We like to think the approach being taken involves the carrot rather than the stick. The Commission recognises many of the progressive things we have been doing.

Senator Grace O'Sullivan referred to the organics scheme. Most of the schemes under the rural development programme are closed. The organics scheme is one such scheme. The level of funding that has been committed to the organics scheme this time around is almost twice the level of finding that was committed last time around. It is still at a low base. I recognise that market demand is growing in this area. I suspect that the greatest level of demand in organics now is on the dairy side. If we had sufficient numbers of dairy producers with organic certification, I note there is an almost insatiable global demand for organic dairy products. There is a ceiling on the level of funding available under the rural development programme. The organics scheme is closed. There has been a significant change in the number of people participating in it.

Senator Higgins referred to the conclusions of the Citizens' Assembly. I do not want to say they are ill-informed about the broader detail, so I will say they reflect a concern. I do not believe we should penalise our farmers, who are more carbon-efficient than people in many other sectors. They are on a journey and they recognise they still have a distance to travel. We should not tax them out of existence. I suggest that the conclusions of the Citizens' Assembly reflect the fact that broader society wants the agriculture sector to continue to accelerate its journey towards carbon neutrality.

A number of Senators spoke about the challenges that undoubtedly are being faced in the tillage sector. I had an interesting experience during the summer on an organic tillage farm in the midlands. The yields on such farms are comparable with anything that is available in conventional tillage. Prices are probably three times higher per tonne. We are importing substantial quantities of organic oats because we are unable to meet the demand for this product nationally. I appreciate that there are many challenges for the mainstream tillage sector, not least because much of this crop is grown on rented land. That is an option, in that the substantial level of demand in the aforementioned market can give some people in the sector an opportunity to ensure their future viability.

Senator Mulherin made the important point that a cohort of farmers will feel particularly challenged by this debate. This is especially true of farmers whose viability is marginal in any event. I will return to her point about the fodder crisis. We need to find a form of language that enables us to communicate our plans in a way that does not threaten farmers but instead enables us to bring them with us. Farmers are the guardians of the countryside. They have done a phenomenal job. They are part of what has made the island of Ireland globally recognised as a green island. Our credentials in that regard are being increasingly questioned at international level. When we put a sticker on the label, we need to be able to stand it up to scrutiny. Organisations like Bord Bia, through its Origin Green initiative, are working to prove our green credentials. We need to be able to bring the farming community with us. I refer particularly to sections of that community that already feel financially threatened.

I will conclude by responding to Senator Mulherin's point about the fodder crisis. I have met people from farm organisations in recent days. I have also spoken to others who have an interest in this matter. I will convene a wider stakeholder forum to monitor this in the coming weeks. Representatives of farm organisations, officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, people from Teagasc who already have been dealing with this matter on the ground and representatives of various co-operatives and livestock marts will participate in that forum in order that we have a comprehensive picture of what is happening on the ground. I will continue to monitor their feedback on the best and most appropriate things to do.