Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to second amendment No. 92. I support both amendments, which are important on several levels. These amendments have been worked on in conjunction with representatives of the farming organisations and farmers generally. The outcome, therefore, is a culmination of the to and fro between the industry, namely, the farmers side of it, and the Oireachtas. As others have said, if we are serious about addressing climate change, and most Members are, then we cannot do it without the support of carbon emitting sectors. The agriculture sector has for a long time recognised, as I see it from my vantage point, the role it plays in carbon emissions and it wants to play its role in reducing them. I come from a part of the country where the farms are small and the land is bad. Quite frankly, there is a battle between heather on one side and rushes on the other. I was brought up on one such small farm and I fully understand the role that the use of land can play.

The predominant approach to agriculture in the past 20 to 30 years has been to maximise production to the nth degree. It has been about making every square metre of land viable and productive. I do not know if that has entirely served the agricultural sector terribly well either. The overproduction that resulted in many cases has led to a reduction in prices paid to farmers. Prices have improved in the past year, however, and that is welcome. However, we must manage our land much better. We should not force farmers into a position where they must continue to produce more and get paid less to just stand still. There may be an improvement this year, but up to last year the prices farmers were receiving for beef and milk was probably comparable with 20 years ago in per unit terms, whether that was per kilogram of beef or per litre of milk. The truth of the situation is that the cost of living has inflated considerably in those 20 years. Farmers, to educate their kids and to just live, had to increase production. Often, that was to the detriment of the environment, but that was not their fault. It was the strategy laid out at a national level.

We must focus far more aggressively now on managing farms in a sustainable way. However, we must support farmers in doing that. We cannot have an increase in production to allow incomes to stand still while at the same time talk about reducing carbon emissions. We must work far more collaboratively with the farming community. I refer to farm representatives, the co-operatives and the production sector as well. Agriculture plays such an important part in our economic activity. It is often forgotten the extent to which the jobs are created in the production side of our output. However, it is not lost on the communities that those factories and production facilities serve. There is recognition and greater acceptance among farmers in that regard, quite frankly. I hate this notion of an urban-rural divide, but farmers often feel a little bit slighted by some of the commentary from certain sections of the media. I refer to those outlets that seem to just look at the entirety of the carbon emissions from agriculture and take a lazy approach to the resolution of this problem by then suggesting the simple approach of cutting the national herd, without understanding fully the associated implications. I am often taken by people who make comments such as that. They might be surprised if they were to look at how they manage their own lives, the kinds of unnecessarily large cars they drive and the way they live their lives in the context of carbon emissions. Therefore, all sectors of society must work within their own spaces to reduce their carbon footprints to the greatest extent possible.

The farming community is more focused on that aspect than many of the people I meet on my weekly trips to Dublin and who live in the commuter belts and the urban part of the country. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to accept both amendments. They seem logical and fair. He has generally indicated that the sentiment encapsulated in these amendments is how he hopes to proceed in the application of the legislation. It would do a great deal for the agricultural sector and the farming community to know the provision is enshrined in legislation. From my interactions with the Minister over the years, I know that he has been a strong proponent of carbon budgeting. Others would have sought to get out of that implication in the legislation if they could do so. In recognition of the legislation covering carbon budgets and that it is going to put significant burdens on all sectors, we should also enshrine the obvious benefits of carbon sequestration and its resulting impact on our overall carbon output. It would recognise how this approach can act as a catalyst for engagement with farmers, which is already there in any regard. In addition, however, it would demonstrate goodwill and clearly indicate that we are going to accept as genuine the bona fides of farmers concerning their desire to participate effectively in neutralising carbon emissions in our climate. It would also recognise, though, that they will do so with the tools they have available to them. I state that because this notion of cutting the national herd might sound good, but it is simplistic and does not show an understanding of the wider benefits of agricultural output to this country.