Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1676. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken and the contributions he has made at the recent EU Agriculture Ministers meeting following moves by the European Parliament’s environment committee to make it more difficult to use forests and grasslands to offset emissions cuts under the EU's draft 2030 plan. [28447/17]

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The challenge of feeding an increasing world population, which is set to grow by 2 billion by 2050, in a sustainable manner whilst reducing GHG emissions has been recognised as uniquely challenging for the Agricultural sector.

There must be a coherent approach to the twin challenges of climate change and food security that does not force us to reduce our sustainable production of food. Such an approach is clearly recognised in the EU Council Conclusions of October 2014 and in the Paris Agreement which outlines that efforts to limit global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees and to pursue 1.5 degrees must do so in a manner that does not threaten food production. From the forestry perspective of land use, the Paris Agreement includes a strong recognition of the role of forests in mitigating climate change and the need to account for both emissions and removals.

These objectives are in line also with the Government’s stated long-term ambition for the sector-an approach to carbon neutrality which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production.

Therefore, maintaining the current Commission proposal, which allows Ireland the potential to use up to a cap equivalent to 5.6% of 2005 emissions (2.7 Mt CO2eq per annum) from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) from the 280mt EU flexibility in order to meet its emission reduction requirements, is of major importance to Ireland.  This flexibility is based on a combined contribution of net afforestation and cropland and grassland management activities.

We continue to emphasise that the flexibility from the land use sector should not be seen as an offsetting proposal but rather as an effort to broaden the “toolbox” of abatement options available to achieve targets. This is particularly the case for Member States where existing abatement measures are costly and action in the LULUCF sector, that encourages removals and limits emissions, may present a more cost effective option.

Likewise, the starting point is critical to the achievement of a cost efficient burden which reflects the reality of our end-point in 2020 and not the assumption that we have reached our -20% target.