Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As a colleague mentioned, we are discussing agriculture in the climate committee. We are hearing the many good ideas and strong commitments from across that sector and especially from young farmers. We heard from Macra na Feirme and others. They are looking to do things differently and want a different policy context around them which supports and rewards them for approaching their practices differently, such as the move towards organic and away from fertiliser, because Ireland cannot forever have a derogation from the nitrates directive.

With regard to the focus on that work of guardianship and wanting to be supported and allowed to maintain areas of biodiversity within their farms, they deserve a better policy context which recognises, rewards and pays them for doing that work. They deserve that, not only at a national level, but at an EU level and they deserve better from the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, negotiations and Ireland's representation at those negotiations in terms of supporting small farmers and those who are seeking to lead in environmental transition. With regard to just transition, farming is one of the key areas. It needs just transition.

We should be giving financial and policy support, but these amendments and this Bill relate to something wider, which is the amount of emissions being produced at a core level. It is not about what practices are rewarded, but it is about what emissions are being produced. It is in the context of a global crisis in which the world is on fire and we are facing absolutely devastating consequences. We need to be doing everything we can to try to avert or limit the damage done by climate change. Ireland is coming very late to that race against time. We need to do everything we can and I support positive policies on sequestration and removals. However, I support them in addition to our emission reductions.

In EU climate law, there are separate targets for emission reductions and removals. We need to do both things. The reason it is important those elements are separated in the EU climate law is because there is something none of us can afford, which is this being addressed as a matter of accounting. When we talk about dealing with climate change, no amount of moving figures around on a page, beautiful narrative or a story about ourselves will deal with the blunt fact of emissions and increase in global temperature. The science is what matters.

There is a danger of double counting when you blend and muddy the waters around what part of this budget is removals and what part is emissions reduction. We have seen that in other countries. We need to reduce emissions and many of the actions such as re-wetting will be needed to reduce emissions. However, we cannot count it twice. Planting the same tree cannot be counted twice, as reducing emissions and representing a removal. That is a danger, if we are not clear.

On the question of proceeding in this way, I will wait to see what approach the Minister is taking. If we do not choose to treat these things separately, I worry we will blend and lose that 51%. When we talk about enshrining things legislation, I greatly regret the 51% emission-reduction commitment is not enshrined in legislation. It is only a proposal of the advisory council.

The approach of including removals has been taken in countries such as the UK. If the proposers and the Minister are engaging between now and Report stage, they will need to be clear about what approach is taken to removals and what is meant by it. A relatively new section was added to the Scottish Act which clarified the amount of Scottish emissions and removals of a greenhouse gas for a period must be determined, insofar as reasonably practical, consistent with current international carbon reporting practices or, for the purposes of assessing and reporting, target-relevant international carbon-reporting practice.

If we were to count removals, we need to be clear about how we are counting them. Is it in line with the best international practice? Scotland included emissions and it has similar concerns, issues and climate to us. Scotland made sure it copper-fastened it so that if removals were to be there, they would be done under clear and consistent guidelines. In the UK and Scotland Acts in terms of removals - maybe the Minister may confirm if this is his understanding - when removals have been calculated it is with regard to changes in land use, land use change or forestry. Those are the areas in which removals have been considered and scientifically measured.

It is important to note if you were measuring removals with regard to land use, land use change and forestry, you need to measure all the emissions in those sectors. As a reminder or reality check of where we are, forestry is a net emitter. We may be planting trees but the forestry area in Ireland is emitting more carbon emissions than it is sequestering. We need to be clear in terms of what the implications may be in the first two budgets, if we are properly and fully calculating land use, land use change and forestry in considering removals. We need to balance that with emissions. There is a question of how that may intersect with the 51%.

There is a credible case for having a policy and possibly a target on removals. It will become quite complicated if there is an attempt to blend it with the emission reduction targets. If it is to happen, it needs to be based on clear measurements and we need to follow the international practice. I have huge respect for Senator Daly and we have worked on many of these issues before but Ireland has a slightly difficult situation because some of the areas we measure removals may not be in the agriculture sector. Peatland restoration on Bord na Móna land will not necessarily be within the agriculture sector. There is a question of where removals are made and where they would be counted.

Probably one of the longest and most intense debates we had in the last Seanad - I think it lasted 25 hours or so - was on hedgerows. Some of the same people who are talking about hedgerows now argued to remove the accounting on hedgerows. I had multiple amendments, which were rejected by the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Senators at the time, in which I said let us measure. I pointed out if we did the kinds of changes proposed there, such as individual landowners individually interpreting the road safety Act and not even having to tell the council what they had cut, we move to a position in which we will not have clean, credible records in terms of what hedgerows and measurements of the hedgerows we have and how we can count them when we are considering. That is another factor and problem.

It has been noted that especially grasslands, hedgerows and trees are notoriously difficult to measure. This is an area which needs serious unpacking if it is to be approached. Ultimately, these work and all of the ideas within the removals are all really important good ideas. They should be rewarded. Farmers should be paid for doing these things, but we need to be careful we do not allow them to skew the reduction in emissions we need to avert catastrophic climate change.