Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 2018

Climate Change Issues specific to the Agriculture, Food and Marine Sectors: Discussion

Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to please make sure their mobile telephones are completely turned off. We are here today to discuss climate change and issues specific to the agriculture, food and marine sectors. I welcome from the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, Mr. Joe Healy, president, and Mr. Thomas Cooney, environment chairman, and from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, Mr. Pat McCormack, president, and Mr. John Enright, general secretary. I wish Mr. McCormack every success in his new role, as this is his first visit to the committee in this role. I also welcome from the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, Mr. Martin Keane, president and Mr. Eamonn Farrell, agrifood policy executive, and from Macra na Feirme, Mr. Thomas Duffy, vice chairman, and Ms Jennifer Keegan, agricultural policy adviser. I thank them for coming before the committee today to discuss the specific issues concerning climate change and its impact on agriculture, food and the marine sectors.

As you are aware this is a very topical issue at present and the committee considered it as a priority of our work programme for this particular year. I also thank you for your written submissions provided today. Before we begin, I wish to raise the issue of privilege. I bring to your attention that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official either by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The procedure for today is that I will ask different groups for their presentations and then we will take questions from different members. I begin by asking Mr. Healy for his opening statement, please.

Mr. Joe Healy

I thank the Chairman. I am joined by Mr. Thomas Cooney and by Mr. Thomas Ryan, our environmental secretary. As the Chairman is aware, the agrifood sector is Ireland’s largest indigenous productive sector, exporting food, drink and forest products worth over €13.5 billion in 2017 and providing employment to more than 300,000 people directly and indirectly. It has been a key driver in Ireland’s economic recovery and is the backbone of economic activity across rural Ireland. Last month I spoke with the elected officers of the IFA at the association’s annual general meeting in the Irish Farm Centre and I referred to 2018 as being a defining year for farming. Never before have such major challenges as Brexit, the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget, Mercosur and climate change converged on farm families in a single year. Today while we turn our attention to climate change, I know that members of this committee are well aware of the impact of the other challenges, the most pressing of which is Mercosur. It is unacceptable to IFA and the thousands of livestock farmers who we represent to see the clear contradiction at EU level. EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, continues to push for a Mercosur deal with Brazil and other countries, while choosing to ignore the rampant deforestation and associated carbon losses in the Mercosur region, in order to export less sustainable beef to Europe. This is all taking place while the European Union's Commissioners responsible for agriculture, the environment and climate demand that EU farmers do more to address the climate challenge.

Even more worrying is the talk of the EU being prepared to concede extra market access for beef to Mercosur countries in order to reach agreement, about which we learned in recent days. We simply cannot have a deal which sells out Ireland’s vital national asset, the Irish suckler cow sector. No deal is better than a bad deal. These trade talks really highlight the need for joined-up thinking at European and international levels when it comes to trade and climate policy.

However, European and international leaders speak with one voice when it comes to agriculture’s response to the climate change. For example, paragraph 2.14 of the European Union's agreed pre-Paris position states that when deciding on climate plans, regard should be had to the multiple objectives of the agriculture sector as food, fuel and energy producers, as well as the environmental enhancement and lower climate mitigation potential of the sector. Article 2 of the international Paris Agreement reiterates the European position and reaffirms that food production must not be threatened when addressing the climate challenge.

This policy position is important in an Irish context because at a time of increasing international population, changing dietary habits and demand for protein foods, such as dairy and beef continuing to grow, research completed by the European Commission’s science and knowledge service, the joint research centre, confirms that Ireland has an emission efficient model of food production. Ireland’s dairy farmers have the lowest carbon footprint in the EU for milk production and our beef farmers are in the top five. This is not surprising given our natural grass-based model of food production and our temperate climate, with 90% of our agricultural lands being carbon sequestering grasslands. Therefore, the ask on Ireland’s agrifood sector must be considered in the context of our sustainable model of food production and the need to ensure that sustainable food production is not compromised, as set out at EU and international level. These sustainability facts, as set out in the joint research council’s research, are welcomed, however, they provide no room for complacency. We need to build on our delivery to date. Since the established base year of 1990, agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 3.5%, while our national emissions have increased by 10.4%, driven mainly by the transport sector, where emissions have increased by 139%.

Key policy measures are assisting this. For example, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is targeting European funding through the Common Agriculture Policy to areas that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the sector. Almost 90% of the measures in Ireland’s rural development programme have climate reducing elements. These measures include the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, which promotes the retention of soil carbon stocks through the encouragement of climate friendly agricultural practices such as minimum tillage, green-cover establishment and low-emission manure spreading techniques. The GLAS programme is oversubscribed, with a high level of farmer interest in participating. I strongly encourage the Government to reopen the scheme and allow for maximum participation. Other programmes include the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, and the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, which assist farmers to reduce emissions and increase productive efficiency.

In addition, Ireland is the only country in the world that monitors, measures and manages carbon from farm to fork. Some 90% of beef exports are now in an audit and carbon foot print programme; 100% of our milk production is entering into a carbon auditing cycle; and over 137,000 carbon assessments have been completed on farms to date as part of Bord Bia’s Origin Green sustainability programme. In IFA, we are leading a voluntary initiative called Smart Farming with the Environmental Protection Agency, which aims to address the dual challenges of improving farm incomes while reducing the environmental impact. In 2017, the average cost savings identified by participating farmers was €8,700 with average emissions reductions of 10%.

Ireland’s future climate policy refers to an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, which does not compromise the capacity for sustainable food production. This approach requires careful consideration. It was first proposed by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, in 2012, without any regulatory impact assessment. NESC itself readily acknowledged at the time that a technical or scientific silver-bullet does not exist to decarbonise the sector. Teagasc’s subsequent report, which looked at carbon neutrality as a horizon point for Irish agriculture, clearly stated that carbon-neutrality, even as a horizon point, is an ambitious target that cannot be achieved over any short time period. However, the same report acknowledges the role of carbon sequestration and fossil fuel displacement to reduce the impact of agriculture and land use on greenhouse gas emissions. This is where farmers can do more.

Under the Renewable Energy Directive, Ireland has a mandatory target to produce at least 16% of all energy consumed by 2020 from renewable sources. This is being met by 40% from renewable electricity, 12% from renewable heat and 10% from the renewable transport sector. Agencies, such as the Institute of International and European Affairs, estimate that Ireland is likely to be hit with a compliance bill of up to €610 million by 2020 for breaching its current targets.

IFA believes that this money should instead be diverted into a climate activation programme, focused on policy measures, including the reopening of the GLAS scheme which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 65,000 tonnes each year and the announcement of a farm-based and community electricity tariff for renewable projects, with a specific export tariff for roof mounted projects. This should be used over time to displace electricity production from gas, which accounts for 35% of greenhouse gasses emitted when generating electricity. The funding for this could come from a ring-fencing of 20% of the current electricity tax, called the public service obligation levy, which is paid by homeowners across the country and currently goes to large scale multinational energy corporations. I mention the scaling up of on-farm emission reduction programmes identified in the national mitigation plan, such as smart farming, Origin Green and the carbon navigator, and the development of a national network of producer organisations to support the mobilisation of the private forest resource.

It is national policy to increase forest cover from the current 11% to 18% by 2050. In 2017, the planting programme was the lowest in over 60 years with fewer than 5,500 ha of new forest established, 25% below the 7,400 ha target in the forestry programme. Last year we launched a plan to revitalise the farm forestry sector, which sought the reintroduction of the farmer premium differential to optimise the benefit to the rural economy. We also proposed that farmers would be properly compensated for loss of premium and future timber earnings on lands they are obligated to set aside for environmental enhancement and that restrictions on planting productive marginal would be removed.

In 2016 the Council on Forest Research and Development, COFORD, identified nearly 180,000 ha of productive marginal land that has the productive capacity to grow commercial timber, which is outside of environmental designation and that is excluded from the scheme. Over the period 2021 to 2030, afforestation since 1990 will remove an estimated net 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere per annum. Forest sinks must be included as part of the measurement of emission reductions in the agriculture sector. Currently, carbon credits from carbon sinks are not attributed to agriculture. Ireland has the highest level of carbon sequestering permanent pastures in Europe, which when combined with the opportunity to expand the forestry cover can promote a substantial national carbon sink. CO2 emission reductions achieved through natural carbon sinks, such as forests and permanent pastures, must be included in the overall measurement of the contribution of the agriculture sector to emission reductions.

The bioeconomy offers huge opportunities to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels while still achieving economic growth, however a sustainable and profitable farming sector is required to underpin the investment and innovation required to successfully deliver a strategy for the bioeconomy.

However, a sustainable and profitable farming sector is required to underpin the necessary investment and innovation to successfully deliver a strategy for the bio-economy.

Farmers will not invest in energy crops until they have confidence that a viable market exists for their product. We welcomed the recent announcement that a renewable heat support scheme would be introduced this year. It is vital that the scheme is properly funded and embedded in the local economy, to optimise the economic benefits by creating a new revenue stream for farmers and valuable new job and business opportunities in rural areas, where job opportunities are limited.

On renewable electricity, Ireland needs a better mix of energy sources. Ireland can no longer rely on big wind exclusively. This flawed policy has divided communities, created a concerning impact on the landscape and led to a transfer of millions of euro from Ireland’s citizens to large multinationals each year through the public service obligation, PSO, levy. There are alternatives. The cost of other technologies continues to decrease. Solar energy is now the cheapest form of renewable energy after onshore wind power. Ireland’s late-mover status in solar provides an opportunity to learn from others and develop a role in this industry for farmers, landowners and communities.

Ongoing delays and lack of certainty regarding grid access and prices are having a negative effect on farmers’ involvement. The IFA has sought to progress policy in this area, making submissions to the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment on the design of a new renewable electricity support scheme, RESS, and to the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities, CRU, on grid access policy.

If Ireland is to develop a citizen-centred renewable policy, as envisaged in the energy White Paper, the Government must act on its own recommendations. These include community feasibility grants, provision of loans, ring fencing grid access and the use of trusted intermediaries for community projects. The proposal for a tariff premium for wind energy production up to 6 MW must also be extended to other technologies, including solar energy.

The IFA is concerned by proposals to rely exclusively on an auction-based pricing model. For community, roof-top and farmer-led projects, the IFA supports a feed-in tariff model. This gives certainty and security of revenue, which is important for farmer-led projects as they are stand-alone and individually financed.

Grid access is one of the most important consents in any renewable project, and is vital for farm scale or community projects to proceed. Regarding the proposed policy measures put forward by the CRU in their recent consultation, the IFA supports the discontinuation of grid relocation, an increase in the capacity process and the requirement for planning permissions to be in place before grid access is granted.

The day of speculative trading of the grid, which developers have secured from farmers for less than €1,000, must be brought to an end. It must be replaced with a grid access policy which leaves no room for the speculator, but instead supports farmers and communities across the country to develop their own energy solutions.

Community renewable projects have been a goal of the Government since the White Paper was published. Since then we have seen large developers, foreign equity funds, pension funds and venture capital firms sign up large areas of Irish farmland. What we have not seen is clear Government policy to deliver on the ambition of the energy White Paper.

We call for greater clarity on crowdfunding legislation and platforms, to allow communities to finance community projects; the introduction of the necessary financial, taxation and pension instruments that would allow farmers and communities the opportunity to invest and benefit from the wealth created; clarity on grid access policy, grid which is affordable and defined and allows farmer-led and community projects to move forward with their projects; and the introduction of green bonds, low cost loans and feed-in tariffs, which would give farm families and households a fair and even chance to compete in the renewable energy production.

More than 25,000 acres of farm land are currently locked down in some form of a solar contract. This should not just be a conduit for profitability for foreign equity pension or vulture funds. It should be a means for creating opportunity and wealth for farm families right across the country. It really is time to make good on the promises of citizen and farmer involvement in the next phase of renewable energy roll-out.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan spoke in December at a conference in Dublin organised by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Commissioner said, “Ireland needs to wake up, and fast, to the reality that we are part of a European Union that has assumed the role of global leader in the climate challenge.” Within the agrifood sector, the IFA believes that the measures in this presentation around biomass, the bio-economy, farm-scale, roof-top and community-based renewable projects provide real and tangible ways to deliver on both our renewable and climate targets.

Mr. Pat McCormack

I thank the Chairman for his kind opening remarks. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I am joined by our general secretary, Mr. John Enright. We will address the committee on climate change issues related to agriculture. During my term as president of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, this will be one of the biggest challenges for our industry and our members. Obviously the Mercosur deal and Brexit provide their own challenges, and income volatility is an ongoing challenge.

Not that many years ago, faced with the abolition of quotas, we set out an ambition in Food Harvest 2020 to increase production by 50%. We have virtually delivered that by 2017. We then progressed to the Foodwise 2025 targets. They include: an ambition to increase the value of agrifood exports by 85% to €19 billion; to increase the value-added by 70% to €13 billion; to increase the value of primary production by 65%; and to create 23,000 jobs in the indigenous agrifood industry, spread across every community and parish in the country. This ambition is realistic when a 50% increase in the global population is anticipated between 2013 and 2050. No more land is becoming available for agricultural production. With the demand represented by roads, housing and forestry, land is a dwindling resource.

The issue is climate change. That is the challenge we are here to discuss. As I am the second horse out of the gallops, Mr. Healy has already covered a lot of the ground. The reality is that we have the best dairy production in Europe from a climate perspective. As Mr. Healy said, our beef industry is the fifth best within Europe. As such, we are in a good place to sell Irish agriculture in the context of global climate concerns.

The challenge arises from the fact that we export 90% of our output. A lot of our footprint is generated in feeding other populations around the globe. The way those emissions calculations are calculated and distributed needs to be assessed. I refer in particular to the distribution of that carbon footprint. Why put a squeeze on the diary industry in the most efficient place in Europe for dairy production, only to move production to somewhere that is less efficient than the Irish dairy farmer? Globally, we all live under the one bubble from an environmental point of view. That has to be borne in mind. Regardless of facts and figures, any suggestion that we produce in a less efficient manner raises serious questions.

Farmers have invested a lot in climate conditions. There have been almost 12,000 applications to the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, for low-emission slurry spreading. That is one of the areas where there can be a climate benefit for commercial farming. Farmers have become very aware of minimising nitrogen surpluses and nitrogen losses. I refer to greater utilisation of clover. Mr. Healy mentioned mini-tilled cultivation and better manure and slurry storage facilities. During the last six months, when returns from dairy produce increased, right across the rural construction industry there was a drive by agriculture to put facilities in place to improve farm working conditions and protect the environment.

Farmers have invested significant sums of money in the economic breeding index, EBI, from a dairy perspective, to increase efficiency and capability around the production of the quantities of milk solids that are needed and others in more challenging terrain have planted forestry to the betterment of the environment. From a renewable energy perspective, we believe there should be greater emphasis on farm families. The network is in place but grid connection needs to be practical and affordable. In terms of renewable energy generation, the installation of solar panels on the roofs of sheds would be to the benefit of the environment and also to the farm families that are trying to remain in farming and make a viable income in rural Ireland. There would be no additional visual impact, environmentally, because the infrastructure already exists.

Another challenge in terms of the climatic footprint is distribution and this will need to be assessed to a greater extent. We are equipped to produce food for the global market but the environmental challenges around distribution need to be addressed. I referred earlier to the need for greater use of farm sheds in respect of renewable energy generation. The bio-economy needs to be driven through farm-scale incentivisation and also incentivisation from a tax perspective.

In regard to the environmental schemes, I agree with Mr. Healy that the GLAS scheme needs to be opened up to the commercial farmer. Only 10% of our soil is at the optimum pH level. Time and again we have made submissions seeking that the use of lime be covered under the GLAS schemes. In the past, GLAS has been very restrictive on the commercial farmer. If it was a requirement of GLAS that a farmer increase the pH level of the soil so there would be greater and more efficient utilisation of the chemical fertiliser that would be spread and this, in turn, would benefit our water courses in a very short timeframe. It would also provide a bang for the buck for the farmer.

There is no denying that there are challenges presenting in terms of climate change but there will also be benefits for rural economies and rural farm families. As president of the ICMSA I have a responsibility, as have all elected people, to ensure that commercial farming is in a position to continue when climate change is put to bed. We need to sell ourselves well. The key issue going forward will be the footprint in terms of distribution.

I thank Mr. McCormack for his opening remarks and I now invite Mr. Martin Keane to make the opening statement on behalf of the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS.

Mr. Martin Keane

I thank the committee for this opportunity to share with it the views of the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, on the issue of climate change with particular reference to agriculture. In the first instance, it is important to recognise that there are three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. All three are interwoven and without equal emphasis on each pillar we will not have sustainable employment, sustainable communities or sustainable natural resources. The foundation of the agriculture industry is the family farm model, and together with co-operative ownership, it fundamentally underlines our sustainability credentials. The dairy sector and the broader agrifood sector are facing unprecedented challenges. These include: extreme market volatility; CAP reform and how it will be funded, because the continuation of a well-funded CAP is essential; the availability of skilled labour; and the consequences of Brexit. In addition, environmental sustainability is a key strategic challenge for the industry. At dairy processing level, we have made significant investments in green technologies, state of the art processing equipment and lean manufacturing to drive energy efficiencies. The dairy sector was an early adaptor of combined heat and power and it is committed to continuous improvements in energy usage, water usage and waste management.

On 24 January, ICOS published a report on climate change following work undertaken by a working group, including personnel from the environment and farm services teams in dairy processing co-operatives. The ICOS report entitled Positive Steps Towards a Low Carbon Future for the Irish Dairy Sector forms the basis of our submission to this committee and looks at actions and recommendations for dairy farmers and the wider industry supporting farmers. I apologise if there is any overlap with previous speakers but as we are 99.99% the same gene pool there is bound to be some.

Our core recommendation is that the effective and widespread sharing of solutions that generate efficiencies at farm level and benefits to the environment is the biggest challenge to be addressed. There are a range of technical and cost-effective mitigation options that ICOS believes should be incorporated into a structured knowledge sharing programme on climate change mitigation. These include: measures around grassland management; the inclusion of clover in swards; manure management; nutrient management planning; improved EBI; sexed semen; reducing the age at first calving; nutrition; animal health and energy efficiency on farms.

The report also points out that the farming community can positively address the issue of climate change with appropriate support. For example, individual farmers and groups of farmers working through co-operatives can further mitigate against climate change through the uptake of agro-forestry using native trees and renewable energy technologies such as biogas from anaerobic digestion and solar panels on farm buildings. Ultimately, agriculture systems throughout the world will have to provide extra food to feed a growing population, which is expected to exceed 11 billion by the end of this century. We must produce more food, while conserving available land, water and energy resources. For this reason, the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly in November 2017 to impose a carbon tax on Irish agriculture is deeply flawed. This proposal, if implemented, would damage the competitiveness of Irish agrifood exports and benefit the environment little. In reality, it would be counterproductive and there would be a possibility of carbon leakage. Furthermore, the continuation of a well-resourced and strong CAP budget post 2020, which supports active farmers is absolutely essential. Expenditure cuts to the CAP budget will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the agricultural sector to adopt climate change mitigation measures.

It is important to acknowledge that the European Commission’s joint research centre has independently assessed Irish dairy as the most carbon efficient in Europe, with our beef sector also performing way above the EU average. Furthermore, the sustainable dairy assurance scheme, SDAS, has enabled Ireland to position itself as a partner of choice globally for sustainably produced and quality assured milk and dairy products. Our co-ops have invested significant resources in making SDAS a real success. Farmers, too, have recognised that as an industry we are only as strong as our weakest link and understand the strong emphasis international customers are placing on sustainability and quality assurance. The inclusion of the carbon navigator tool makes SDAS unique. It provides the average carbon figure for production on the farm and also indicates where the greatest potential saving can be made in both carbon emissions but also very importantly in financial savings. In doing so, it has mainstreamed the message that carbon efficiency goes hand in hand with economic efficiency.

Dairy co-ops have also developed several joint programmes with Teagasc to provide technical support and advice for farmers in order to enable them to develop their farm businesses sustainably and profitably. The recent establishment of Dairy Sustainability Ireland and the sustainability support and advisory programme to address water quality challenges is a further demonstration of our commitment to achieving environmental sustainability.

The dairy sector exports to a multiple of Ireland's national population a highly nutritious food source recognised as the most carbon efficient in Europe. This is because Ireland's temperate climate is perfect for growing grass, with a long grazing season. This enables superior animal welfare conditions on Irish farms. Globally, 80% of milk is produced in confinement-based production systems in contrast to Ireland where cows are on grass for up to 300 days a year.

Ours is an industry that strives for excellence across a range of parameters, be it milk quality, grassland management, breeding or sustainability. We can play our part in addressing climate change by continuing to improve on what we do well. We recognise that the dairy industry has a responsibility to develop in the post-quota era in a manner that protects the environment. As an industry, we fully adhere to the principles of sustainable intensification.

With those few introductory remarks, I look forward to the discussion.

I thank Mr. Keane. Next Mr. Duffy will make a presentation on behalf of Macra na Feirme. Before I call him, I understand he was due to be joined by Mr. Derry Dillon, but he has a super sub with him instead. Unfortunately, Mr. Dillon was involved in an accident today. On behalf of the joint committee, I wish him well. I hope everything will work out all right for him.

Mr. Thomas Duffy

We will all be glad to know that Mr. Dillon did not sustain an injury. He is a little shaken after the accident.

I wish everyone a good evening. Macra na Feirme welcomes the opportunity to represent to the joint committee the views of young trained farmers on the complicated issue of climate change. I am vice-chairperson of Macra na Feirme's national agricultural affairs committee and joined by Ms Jennifer Keegan, staff member in our agricultural affairs section. Since our presentation and Mr. Keane's address many similar issues, I will try to move across them, but a number of key issues have still not been covered.

Young farmers are acutely aware of our interdependence with the natural environment. They are establishing their farm businesses in the context of Ireland as a world leader in the area of sustainable auditing and carbon footprinting under the Origin Green programme. The targets set in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025 shape the future of agriculture in terms of production levels and the environment. Macra na Feirme believes many of the targets within the plans can be met by focusing resources and supports in order to achieve greater efficiency at farm level, resulting in a win-win for both farmers and the environment.

The multifunctional role and multiplier effect of farming mean that, with food production and as the Environmental Protection Agency stated in 2016, farmers and farming can provide valuable ecosystem services for society such as safe and clean water, the regulation of nutrient cycles, the control of disease, crop pollination and enhancement of biodiversity, as well as cultural, spiritual and recreational benefits.

Farmers are the custodians of the countryside - in essence, the real environmentalists. While the historic Paris Agreement recognises the effort to limit global temperature increases to less than 2o and pursue a target of 1.5o, it must be achieved in a manner that will not threaten food production and, thus, the sustainability of farmers. Vitally, when discussing the contribution agriculture makes to total Irish greenhouse gas emissions, it should be remembered that Ireland has a very small cohort of industrial contributors of emissions compared with the rest of Europe, therefore disproportionately exaggerating agriculture's output.

Numerous issues have been identified by Macra na Feirme. Unfortunately, farmers have often viewed the greenhouse gas reduction policies in various EU and national strategies as a threat. In their view, emission reduction targets were set without taking into account the technical capacity of the sector to reduce emissions. It, therefore, appeared that emission reductions could only be achieved by reducing their farming activity, which would impact negatively on their livelihoods. This type of messaging is incorrect and needs to be stopped. The farm advisory service, the knowledge transfer scheme, the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, and so on have all helped to encourage farmers in a positive way and benefited emission reduction levels. Education, training and innovative industry projects have also played a significant role. Under Skillsnet, for example, Macra na Feirme runs a successful young beef farmer sustainability programme that focuses on many of the farm practices that contribute positively to addressing climate change.

Solutions have been identified for the climate change issues affecting the sector. Irish agriculture is exploring and developing proactive approaches to decreasing climate change impacts. They include feeding strategies that maximise the efficiency of grass-based systems such as the extension of grazing and the inclusion of clover; ICT in agriculture to aid the development of sustainable intensification; improvements to animal health and welfare; and sustainable land management that contributes to climate change mitigation and the sustainable management of soil and forest carbon sinks.

In terms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Macra na Feirme favours a move towards a combination of results-based and management-based payments as part of an environmental and climate measure. Results-based payments have many benefits, including directly linking payments with outcomes, reaching more specific goals and creating a common goal between farmers and environmentalists or conservationists. It would be beneficial if future CAP measures were to focus more on outcomes than being input driven and thus rewarded productive and lower greenhouse gas-intensive farms.

The BDGP is an example of a measure that is directly targeted at the climate emissions of beef farms. Its objective is to lower the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions by improving the quality and efficiency of the national beef herd by aiming to achieve a 4.5% greater carbon efficiency level per animal by 2020. The BDGP not only improves the environmental sustainability of beef production, it also brings economic benefits directly to the farmer.

Another example is the carbon navigator tool which helps to reduce carbon emissions per unit of output. To date, three Bord Bia quality assurance schemes have incorporated sustainability criteria, each of which has received accreditation from the Irish National Accreditation Board, INAB, and aids with the quality and accuracy of the information inputted, which gives a better picture of greenhouse gas emissions at farm level.

Knowledge transfer has a significant role to play in peer to peer learning among farmers as regards how to achieve win-win solutions in terms of farm efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Within the dairy knowledge transfer programme, a focus on animal health and management, profitability and financial management, grassland management plans, CellCheck farmer workshops, the carbon navigator and a breeding plan are beneficial in achieving greenhouse gas reductions on farms. When farmers achieve improvements under these elements, it means that their production becomes more carbon efficient. The carbon navigator is a key tool in informing farmers of their performance and indicating changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lead to improved outcomes.

Another example is the low-emissions slurry spreading scheme under TAMS, which is an important measure in seeking to reduce ammonia emissions directly. The tillage capital investment scheme will also contribute to reducing emissions, as it supports innovative technologies such as GPS to improve the accuracy of fertiliser spreaders and steering controls.

Schemes should aim to improve grass growth and utilisation potential nationally, given that only 10% of farms have optimum pH, phosphorus and potash levels in soils and only 50% of farms are reaching their grass growth potential. Macra na Feirme proposes a grazing infrastructure scheme under TAMS to aid farmers in utilising more grass. All of these schemes would only further benefit from Ireland becoming a climate change mitigation leader.

Supporting and resourcing the provision of anaerobic digestion in a strategic manner need further consideration. Using agricultural products such as slurry and silage, both grass and maize, can produce biogas in a renewable capacity, with the added benefit of producing good quality fertiliser from the digestate in a lower carbon producing manner. The products going into the anaerobic digestion chambers should originate from animal waste, with supplementation by energy crops, when required.

External to the farm gate, Macra na Feirme encourages further research into the manufacturing process of fertilisers associated with nitrous oxide emissions in an effort to yield more innovative products such as protected urea which has been shown to decrease nitrous oxide emissions compared with more mainstream fertilisers that improve nutrient efficiency.

Young farmers are the new environmentalists who are ready to take on the challenge of climate change through innovations and farm initiatives that benefit both farmers and the climate change agenda. Research has shown that both methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced through a range of targeted innovations such as soil and grassland management, animal genetics, breeding and technology. Continued support of these practical initiatives through policy and financial instruments such as the CAP and the national budget is paramount for our large industry to prosper and add value to farmers and the economy.

I thank Mr. Duffy and the other delegates for their very informative presentations. I will now take questions from members. I will take three questioners at a time and then go back to the panel. Deputy Charlie McConalogue is first and will be followed by Senators Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Michelle Mulherin.

I thank the delegates for their very comprehensive presentations. I apologise in advance as I will have to leave a little early. This discussion is timely. A number of the delegates were also before the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment recently to discuss the same topic.

There is no doubt that climate change and our carbon footprint will be key considerations of agriculture policy in the future and that we have to be particularly proactive about them. At the same time, we must allow the agriculture sector to grow and meet the targets set. The delegates have touched on the key policy objectives and initiatives that they believe will be necessary to aid the achievement of our objectives and ensure agriculture will be able to contribute more in energy generation, in particular.

The international objectives can be quite blunt in the way they are imposed, as a number of delegates indicated. Ireland's is very much a carbon-friendly agriculture sector. Internationally, it is results-based in terms of how carbon-friendly are different types of production. We do not want to have a scenario where Irish agriculture has to cut down production, while other countries do not and could potentially increase it. We are unique because the agriculture sector here plays such a big part in the economy and also creates such a high proportion of our emissions, at around 30%. Only in New Zealand does agriculture contribute a higher proportion of overall emissions. From the delegates' engagement with their international counterparts, do they believe we can make more progress in gaining better recognition of the position of Irish agriculture in global production? Might we, therefore, be allowed to continue to maintain that potential? Might we receive credit for being able to increase our production, given the fact that the sector here is particularly carbon-friendly and, therefore, able to contribute to the overall reduction of the carbon footprint?

On the role of forestry, it was outlined how we were not meeting our targets and that we were a long way from doing so. We would have to move from 11% forest cover to 18% in 2050. In particular, I highlight the resistance in some counties where forestry is happening on a larger scale. There is a difficulty in that it is too heavy in some areas and perhaps not being taken up as much in others. Are there particular initiatives the delegates believe could be taken to try to speak to this and ensure farmers will embrace forestry alongside their other farming enterprises?

On the potential to improve our grassland model of production and try to ensure it will be efficient, a couple of speakers mentioned that just 10% of our soil is at the optimum pH level. What initiatives could be taken promptly to address that issue and, in so doing, make agricultural production a lot more carbon efficient? What do the delegates believe we could do to ensure farmers will make quick progress?

We have heard four very strong presentations. Mr. Duffy of Macra na Feirme stated farmers were the custodians of the countryside and, in essence, the real environmentalists. That is a very pertinent point to make in response to the critics of the farming sector on all of these issues.

My first question is to Mr. Healy of the IFA. He made a really strong point about Mercosur. We are being asked - arguably rightly so - by a European Commissioner to address our responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon emissions. At the same time, however, another European Commissioner is negotiating with countries and a region that clearly are not meeting these standards. We are asking farmers on this island and elsewhere in Europe to step up and meet standards that the other countries are not being asked to meet. I know that Mr. Healy has been involved in significant negotiations in that respect. What are the European Commissioners saying in response to the very valid criticism that there are clear double standards at play? What is their response whenever the IFA raises these issues?

My next question is also directed at Mr. Healy.

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but he may not be aware that there is a vote in the Seanad. Does he want to pair with his colleague, Senator Michelle Mulherin?

I will. I thank the Chairman for bringing the matter to my attention.

That is co-operation.

It is new politics.

We will say no more about it for now.

My next question is also for Joe. We are very formal here; we have to say Mr. This and Mr. That, but I would prefer to say Joe. It is about the excellent point he made about the White Paper on energy. He outlined a number of issues in respect of the crowd-funding legislation. I really appreciated his focus on local communities and farmers availing of access to funding for renewables. One of the issues for me when I look at wind farms throughout the country is that there are a lot of industry insiders and people who made a fortune from the new buzz that was renewable energy and wind farms. Communities could have benefited from them. If local communities could have seen a financial return from the investment in wind farms, we would not see anything near the level of opposition we see. That was a really strong point and I would like to hear more about the IFA's engagement with the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and the Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, in that regard.

My final question is for Pat from the ICMSA. It was an excellent presentation in which a really strong point was made about how we exported 90% of our beef. Whenever we look at the level of greenhouse gases or carbon emissions, surely we should spread that information to consumer countries. It was a logical point. Has the ICMSA had any engagement with Ministers in Ireland or anyone at European level to discuss this proposition and, if so, what responses were given?

I welcome the representatives of the farming organisations. This is one of the most critical issues facing us. We talk about the CAP and Mercosur. It was really brought home to me when I was part of a delegation from the joint committee to Brussels in early December to discuss the new Common Agricultureal Policy and Mercosur when there was also talk about Brexit.

The delegation met the Agriculture Commissioner, Members of the European Parliament and some representatives of the farming organisations. I was struck by the fact that farming organisations had made only 7% of the submissions in the consultation process on one element of the Common Agricultural Policy. The majority of submissions had been made by what I would describe as the green lobby.

No one can dispute the points made by the delegates. Everything a farmer does to qualify for a payment is interwoven with environmental considerations, requirements, rules and laws. The message from the green lobby on the CAP is the same as the one we heard from the Citizens' Assembly, namely, that there is a problem with farming. The joint committee has debated this issue with officials from the Department who deal with climate change and representatives of Bord Bia. When I asked them whether they had been invited to make a submission to the Citizens' Assembly, I was told that they had not. The Citizens' Assembly was not given a fair picture. A number of the farming organisations issued statements in response to the proposal that a carbon tax be imposed on farming. It should be borne in mind that there are generations of people who are divorced from the countryside. That farmers must have their finger on the pulse is lost on them. Farmers have to understand the environment and their animals. They must also use technology and work in the most efficient way possible to try to make some money. Farmers in my local area tell me that their only income is the farm payment because they do not make anything from farming.

One of Ireland's selling points is its grassland which allows grazing for 300 days each year. That is not the case in County Mayo, especially in the past year. As the delegates will be aware, the north and the north west are experiencing problems with fodder supplies.

Mr. McCormack referred to a shift in the way we accounted. This is a critical issue because we are told that the new Common Agriculture Policy will impose more environmental requirements on farmers and that this will generate costs. Urban dwellers need to understand farmers. Perhaps the organisations might need to improve their communications. We heard a former President state people should not eat meat. These messages grow legs. While I understand we all have the same ambition in respect of the Paris Agreement, a farmer who is doing his or her best may disengage if he or she hears a constant barrage of bad press about farmers and sees the finger of blame being pointed at farming. Farmers do a great deal of good work, as the delegates described, and this aspect of the debate should be pushed forward in the general media, as opposed to media that are focused on farming issues.

As has been pointed out, transport is a bigger offender than farming producing in carbon emissions. None of the members of the Citizens' Assembly volunteered to switch to an electric car, which people can do easily. Bearing in mind that these lobbies create their own momentum, I am concerned that farmers will not get a fair deal under the new CAP.

What is the expected uptake among farmers of the renewable heat support scheme? How have members of the farming organisations responded to the new scheme?

On forestry, one of the members of this committee repeatedly cites complaints from local people in County Leitrim about the masses of forestry being planted where people once lived. Obviously, these forests could not have been planted if people had not left the area. Rural depopulation is a problem. How can we add value to forestry and develop the biomass industry in the regions? In my local area, for example, Coillte exports the vast majority of its timber, which was loaded onto trains to Waterford. As a result, the local area does not derive any added value from local forestry. Spin-off jobs and investment could be created in the local economy. We must find a way to pull people together, create economies of scale and secure fair prices for farmers who become involved in forestry or growing biomass crops. What can the co-operative movement do in that regard?

Previous speakers referred to the White Paper on energy and micro-generation, which is a very good idea. Mr. Healy referred to getting involved in what he described as "big wind". There is nothing wrong with wind energy companies. The challenge is to produce community benefits from the money and technological know-how of the big companies. It does not matter what tariffs are available if local communities do not have the wherewithal and the money to become involved in renewable energy projects. These projects require people to take a gamble and are not necessarily a cash cow, although those who speculate on renewable energy projects tend to make money. Communities must be brought along and big wind and solar energy projects must be more integrated into communities.

Many of those who try to get involved in micro-generation experience great difficulty in obtaining import-export meters from the ESB. Have the organisations raised this matter with it? Apart from incentives and support for those who decide to install a small wind turbine or engage in other forms of micro-generation, this appears to be an issue that has not been addressed. Must micro-generated electricity be supplied to the grid?

I thank the four organisations for their excellent presentations. My former colleague, Mr. McCormack, spoke about putting climate change to bed. I do not believe we will ever put it to bed. While we can meet the challenges it presents, we will face climate change challenges for as long as we are around.

My conclusion, having listened to the four presentations, is that we can find solutions to the climate change challenges facing the country. Mercosur and Brexit are out of our control, but we can do many things that will put us in an advantageous position in dealing with climate change.

Great emphasis was placed on the efficiency of Ireland's dairy sector. We are the best in the business in producing milk in a sustainable manner. None of the delegates addressed the sustainability of steer beef production from the perspective of climate change. Ireland has a steer producing beef sector. How sustainable is our method of producing beef?

Most of the delegates referred to forestry.

There are a number of things that can be done. To plant 20 ha of unenclosed land one has to have 80 ha of enclosed land to match it. There is a lack of logic in this as there is a lot of land lying idle that could be a carbon sink for us. There is a blanket ban on forestry in designated areas, such as hen harrier areas, which also shows a lack of logic as there are opportunities to improve sustainability in this regard.

What role can Bord na Móna play in the future of biomass? It has vast tracts of land lying idle and not making any contribution to our carbon footprint challenge. What can be done in this respect? We see digesters on European farms and there is much more advanced technology in European farmyards that we have. The headline in the farming section of the Irish Independent deals with slurry spreading but we have ways to overcome it. We have to look at what Europe and even Northern Ireland are doing but we can do a lot ourselves to put ourselves on a higher plane than the rest of Europe.

We have renegotiated our derogation and it is imperative for our dairy industry that we hold onto it. It is the one challenge the dairy industry will have, going forward, and it could become the new quota for us. The quality assurance scheme is going to be tied in to food sustainability and it is a good progression as it will strengthen our case for any future derogations.

I would like to explore the issues of grid availability and a price tariff. We can talk about alternative energy production, such as solar energy and wind farms, but the backlog for access to the grid is a huge challenge. If we are serious about alternative energy use, we have to have certainty on the price of energy in order that we know it will be economical to get it from alternative sources. The vast majority of waste and the vast majority of energy crops can be used in the production of alternative energy, whether it be for gas, electricity or heating, the last of which is probably the most economical. We are behind the rest of Europe in this area and all four presentations hinted at that. There has to be a far greater focus on this.

We also have to focus on the farmers who have spent huge amounts of money on slurry storage and this comes back to municipal districts and county councils. We have a lot of population centres which still have no wastewater treatment plants and there is no point in one side doing everything it can to improve our position when municipal authorities fall down on water quality as this hampers our arguments for derogations.

A lot of things have to be put in place but the presentations show that we have the ammunition to show that we can be more sustainable food producers than most of the rest of Europe. What are witnesses' views on steer beef production and how sustainable that can be? None of the presentations addressed this. How are we going to get around our problems with unenclosed land? What about ash dieback? Land is lying idle which could be planted to meet our targets. A lot of other countries have more to fear from climate change than we have. We have made a lot of progress and, with a few commonsense decisions, we could turn climate change to our advantage. Mr. Healy spoke about Mercosur but if the Commission was serious about climate change it would look at the issue of importing beef from South America.

A lot of investment was put into the storage of slurry and now, perhaps because of climate change, the land is too wet to spread it and it is overflowing. This has been an issue for a long time and will be an issue into the future. If we continue getting the wet summers we have seen, with rain at the beginning of August and not stopping until after Christmas, we will not be able to keep storing slurry so there has to be some other method. We see biogas anaerobic digestion plants in many countries. Could they be part of a solution, with the agreement of the communities living near to where they are proposed?

There is a peat-burning station in Lanesborough and the ambition is to turn it into a biomass station and to import biomass from America for this purpose. That seems to be a flawed way of looking to the future. Surely we should be trying to do it some other way. Farmers are not going to start to grow biomass unless they know there is a market that pays them well for it. What are the witnesses' views on that?

On the question of afforestation, we have a lot of forestry in our part of the world, mainly Sitka spruce trees growing very fast on poorish land. This does things as regards carbon that are fine but it has a detrimental effect on communities and society. In most parts of Leitrim we have vast monocultural afforestation with one mass-produced type of tree which requires minimal related labour activity. It has a devastating effect on everything that happens in the community. Are there any alternatives? We have to be realistic as we will not be able to stop people doing what they want to do with their own land. If there are grants which promote this type of afforestation, that is the way people are going to go. Are there any other solutions, rather than promote a crop which is just left there for 40 years before anybody has to come back to cut it? There is no need for a human being to even look at these trees so is there anything which requires a bit of work, so that people can stay in the vicinity and communities can prosper from it? Foreign companies often are getting the benefit from this ultimately.

Deputy Cahill raised the big issue of how our beef was being produced and the number of bovines we have. We are a country that produces a lot of high-quality beef and a lot of milk and we do it very sustainably. Is there going to be pressure on us in the future to cut back? Will there be pressures to find alternatives? There are various schemes in place, such as the beef data genomics scheme, but will European directives put any pressure on us in this area? Is that the direction in which this is going?

It is very scary when we think about it. We could be in a position in maybe not so many years to come when people will say they used to produce beef in Ireland and trees in Latin America but now they produce beef in Latin America and trees in Ireland. It is a dangerous route. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

Mr. Thomas Duffy

There are three questions we can address directly, with the first being mentioned in virtually every contribution. As the Deputies might be aware, we had quite a strong representation on forestry that led us to produce an afforestation policy, as distinct from a forestry policy. The loudest voices were probably from Leitrim but very quickly we discovered this was an issue spreading across all counties, including counties we had not expected. I remember reading in the Farmers' Journal that the highest rate of afforestation last year was in Meath, which would not necessarily have been expected. Coming down to it, the issues people were having were not with farmers afforesting some of their land. It was not farmers taking parts of their land that were unproductive and making them more productive through afforestation. The representation to us was from young farmers who were feeling they were being pushed out of the land market by external forces, and in some cases with international companies purchasing land. In some cases it was national companies or people outside the community coming in to purchase land and driving up the price of what we would consider to be middling to marginal land. This was generally the lower quality land but, importantly, would still be quite productive agricultural land. Trouble was caused for people trying to get into the land market in the first place.

From that, Macra suggested that grant aid should be based on a land assessment of the crop beforehand. This would mean that for less productive land, going towards marginal land, there would be incentives but land that was highly productive in an agricultural sense would not. In areas with predominantly marginal land, farmers might see land that would be ideal grazing ground going under trees while they were stuck trying to improve very poor ground. We also believe there should have been incentives particularly aimed towards farmers, as opposed to landowners, and the controlling of foreign investment into land, which was driving land speculation.

Such actions are key to increasing the afforestation rate. As long as people view afforestation as a threat, as they commonly do in Leitrim, they will not consider it for any of their property. Macra views as a solution a large number of farmers taking a percentage of their farm and turning it into a carbon-positive activity, particularly native forestry, as opposed to Sitka spruce, which affects soil and drainage.

The other matter we can address directly is biogas and slurry storage. The question was asked as to whether there is an alternative to getting into the grid for energy production. After several field trips and research, we saw that co-production is key to the farmers in Northern Ireland. This involves the production of biogas that could enter the gas network while also producing energy. To highlight the underinvestment in Ireland, there are approximately 4,500 on-farm anaerobic digester, AD, plants in Germany. According to the Engineers Journal, Ireland has one of the lowest pay-in tariffs for electricity produced by anaerobic digestion at 13 cent to 15 cent per kW. In countries with that level of tariff, there is essentially no investment in AD. Macra recommends that AD plants should be encouraged by increasing the pay-in tariff. This goes back to the question of an auction-type system versus a feed-in tariff. We see nothing but benefits in reducing methane associated with manure management and in reducing the slurry that must be produced, because digestate is lower. This makes it a more productive fertiliser and helps to offset some of our fossil fuel emissions.

The other question relates to the utilisation of grass and the nature of our beef production. These are two separate matters and relate to how we can improve pH and phosphoros and potassium levels. This comes back to the question of a grazing infrastructure scheme under the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS. There is no faster way to get farmers to recognise how valuable grass is to them and improve soil and productive growing conditions than by getting them out to start herds grazing grass. If a farmer cannot allow grazing until the first day in May, he or she will not focus on grass as much as sheds and slurry storage. Macra proposes that certain investments, such as farm roadways, water and fencing - fairly minor elements that could see easy and ready investment under TAMS - would be far more beneficial than investing in sheds and buildings. It would mean farmers could get out 20, 30 or 40 days sooner and have the infrastructure on the farms to avoid damage to the soil. That would increase the productivity of the grassland.

Mr. Martin Keane

I apologise to my colleague, Mr. Farrell, for failing to introduce him earlier. He is the agri-executive with the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society. There was some very interesting commentary and I do not disagree with much of it. The international objectives can be very crude and have blanket approval. That is why we must demonstrate quite clearly that the carbon footprint of food production should be measured against units of production. It is about how much of an impact we are making per unit of production, relative to the rest of the world. The European Union has acknowledged that our production methodology is such that we are probably 40% more efficient than average across Europe with milk and we are rated very highly with beef as well, where we are probably in fourth or fifth place per unit of production. The point was very well made about the proportionality of the agricultural impact in Ireland because of the absence of other industry. Agricultural activity as a result leaves a huge footprint on the Irish landscape but we might have an eighth of the impact of the UK agricultural footprint on its emissions. This comes down to its industrial and transport sectors etc. having such a big impact. We must concentrate our energy on demonstrating how we should be measured per unit of production rather than the proportionality of our impact overall.

The question was asked as to how to demonstrate on the international stage that Ireland can be seen as a place of destiny for food production and a partner of choice. We are clearly doing that on a daily basis. We export to approximately 160 countries and they demonstrate through action that they recognise the provenance, sustainability and quality assurance of the Irish product as second to none. The customers are selling the product and message for us in that regard.

Members mentioned colleagues in the agricultural community in Europe in forums such as Copa-Cogeca very much align their thinking on the likes of the challenge of Mercosur. Some people would sing the benefits of having a new market opened, with agriculture as one portion. We know that getting licences for exports and meeting veterinary responsibilities etc. could take years. Somebody might dress it up as an opportunity for one sector but it is a major disadvantage for another. It will be a detrimental move from the perspective of those countries that produce food, especially with respect to provenance, traceability and other standards that we should and have to live up to.

Our customers dictate that they need safety, quality, etc. Our view is that anyone who has access to that market, and to those precious customers, should live up to the same standards of production and quality that we do.

Deputy Cahill mentioned the role of bio-digesters in Europe. It has been observed that the current indoor systems are more factory farming type operations, which facilitated the advancement of the technology. We must learn from that. Due to the family farm structure here, and rural Ireland in particular, and the depth that it goes into rural communities, the co-operatives must play a function and role in some collaborative endeavour to develop the sector. The size of farms in this country probably dictate that it is probably uneconomic to use such technology on a single unit basis. That situation is to our advantage because, as we have said, the family farm methodology here is a strength. We need to find a mechanism that will bring a number of family farms together, under some type of co-operative structure, and have an anaerobic digester in common usage in an area. A lot of work needs to be done in this sector and we must learn from the mistakes made by other people.

In terms of derogation and the water framework, the Deputy is on the money and I agree with him that it is essential that we continue. The dairy Ireland forum has been established and comprises all of the major players in the industry, including the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, farm organisations, the farming industry, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The aim is to have their representatives meet in the one room and they share the one objective to improve and do better at what we are doing. There is a big job of work to be done. The initial engagement with the farming community has to be positive and be a collaborative approach. First, we must identify the challenging areas and then find a solution rather than simply try to find a culprit.

I concur with what Deputy said about the municipal authorities. There is a huge amount of discharge that is not up to international standards and, therefore, a lot of money is required to improve the situation. We also have citizens in rural Ireland who have septic tanks. People would be very mistaken if they thought the problem was confined to agricultural activities. It is a matter for society too. The initial engagement is critical. I welcome the approach that has been taken.

In terms of the governance structure and how to bring the various agencies together, such as the co-operatives, Teagasc, the EPA and local authorities, the way that body of people is facilitated and managed will be critical. We must ensure that the message delivered and approach adopted is consistent. The initiative is a very good start and is one that we must encourage. ICOS needs to be at the core of decision-making process to ensure that it works. The demonstration of a successful collaborative approach was the success of the sustainable dairy assurance scheme, SDAS. Earlier, it was mentioned, that almost all of the beef and dairy products that are produced here are quality assured to a very high standard.

With the permission of the Chairman, I ask my colleague, Mr. Farrell, to talk about afforestation and some of the blockages to that industry.

That is no problem. I thank Mr. Keane for his comments.

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

One of our recommendations in a report that we published last month was around the promotion of agri-forestry. One of our co-operatives has rolled out a scheme that comprises up to 1,500 suppliers and each supplier was provided with 20 native trees to grow on their land. Forestry can be promoted in many areas, in particular the use of native trees. For example, commercial livestock and dairy farmers can be encouraged to increase their forestry. The replanting obligation was also identified in our report as a particular blockage in terms of farming communities and their willingness to engage in forestry.

Deputy McConalogue mentioned that the current policy is a blunt instrument. Emissions here are 19.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which equates to 32% of the national economy emissions. By comparison, Germany produces up to 66 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture but it only accounts for 8% of emissions by the German economy. That inequality should be analysed.

Senator Mulherin asked whether co-operatives had a role to play in forestry. I think they have. ICOS can help to organise and provide structure and governance to communities that wish to get involved in co-operatives. In recent weeks we have recruited a new staff member to work in this area and one of their key challenges will be to work with people to add value. ICOS may not have specific expertise in forestry but it can offer its expertise gained from working with communities, farming organisations and enterprise organisations.

Does any member of the ICOS have a view on the beef issue that has been raised?

Mr. Martin Keane

Yes.

It is a topical issue.

Mr. Martin Keane

It is a challenge. A lot of work is being done with Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, on the genomic improvement of the national herd. Parts of the beef industry, in some areas of the country, tend to be people involved in part-time farming. We need a substantial knowledge transfer programme to ensure that these people move into the area of cattle breeding, etc. and get the most profitable breed crosses that will convert into protein. Such work will be challenging. We are not here to sound the death knell of the Irish beef sector. The sector makes a huge financial contribution to the local economy and provides huge employment in rural towns where employment is fairly scarce. The quality of our beef products is recognised worldwide so we must ensure that we become efficient. This country is at the very top end of European efficiency in terms of emissions per kilo of beef produced. We could convince ourselves that we are not great but the fact is that we are very near the top of Europe in terms of performance. The metric applied is per unit of production, which must be at the centre of what we do. In terms of the beef genomic programme, a huge emphasis must be placed on knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer in order to bring the bottom quartile or third up to the top quartile performance, which is extremely profitable. I apologise to the Chairman for forgetting to answer his question earlier.

Mr. Eamonn Farrell

I will list two initiatives that can be undertaken. First, we need technology that predetermines the gender of a calf, in particular sexed semen, due to the potential to maximise dairy calf heifer numbers, and we must facilitate an increased usage of quality beef bulls. The industry, together with support from the National Dairy Research Institute is funding a new research trial into this area. Ultimately, we need a permanent laboratory located in Ireland so that the industry can have better access to the highest quality bulls.

Second, it would be beneficial if the ICBF developed a dairy beef index.

Mr. Pat McCormack

I shall deal with some of the issues that have been raised and my colleague, Mr. Enright, will deal with some as well. Deputy McConalogue is absent but earlier he mentioned the carbon footprint, that the international objectives are very blunt and that Ireland is vulnerable due to having 30% emissions.

The first point he made was that Irish agriculture had made more progress than it gets credit for. Mr. Martin Keane said we sell into 160 countries, which is a credit in itself to this little island off the coast of Europe. It shows the confidence that is out there in Irish agricultural produce. He also asked about improving grassland pH. In a nutshell, it should be a specific measure in a reopened GLAS to bring up the 10% statistic. Obviously, a specific measure would mean a direct payment for spreading lime. Ultimately, that is what will deliver efficient fertiliser use which will benefit the wider environment.

Senator Mac Lochlainn highlighted the double standard in the Mercosur deal in environmental terms. We export 90% of our produce from the island and the big issue is that policy change has not been accepted. There is a disconnect between climate and food production. It was noted by Senator Mulherin that in terms of the footprint we have here, we suffer a great deal from a climatic perspective because we are an exporting nation. It should be driven in some way towards the consumers of the products and the countries in which they reside. Obviously, the SDAS scheme was alluded to by numerous speakers. Origin Green is a great image for us.

As regards the environment, I would say to Deputy Cahill that I would not be so foolish as to think it would be put to bed and sleep forever. Certainly, sleeping giants can be easier to deal with. From an environmental point of view, we will hopefully bring it under control and make it commercially viable for farmers to go about their business in an environmental way. The Deputy mentioned beef production. We said at the outset that we were first in Europe in dairy production, that is No. 1 of 28. We lie in fifth place for beef production. In excess of 50% of beef is produced from the dairy herd. Mr. Farrell of ICOS mentioned just there that sexed semen may be something that could be used positively going forward. If the science delivers in comparison to conventional semen, there may be greater than 50% beef production from the dairy herd and significantly more. Obviously, the dairy herd is growing. The best kept secret in this country's beef industry is that the environmental footprint from the dairy herd is half of that of the suckler herd. As dairy beef production increases, we may see our place in Europe improve from fifth.

Certainly, I agree with Mr. Keane as to local authorities. Everyone needs to play a part right across rural Ireland if we are to see a significant improvement. Investments must be made by local authorities in waste water treatment systems which are up to specification. There is no point in farmers building an industry across rural Ireland if everyone does not play their part. I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. John Enright, to discuss biomass and forestry.

Mr. John Enright

I have a couple of points on forestry and what Deputy Cahill said. There are vast areas of this country we cannot plant, whether it is because of environmental designations or whatever. The Deputy mentioned hen harrier areas. A hen harrier threat response plan was supposed to be published looking at all these issues, including forestry plantations, but it has not happened. There are a lot of farmers in those areas who want to plant their land but they cannot do so. Certainly, it is an issue which needs to be addressed.

As to biomass, we must look at recent history, which has not been good for farmers. Farmers who got involved in miscanthus had a very bad experience. They were badly let down to be fair to them. If we are to encourage biomass production going forward, we will have to look at what happened with miscanthus. Farmers will have to get better guarantees that if they go into this enterprise, commitments will be delivered.

I have two points on biogas and solar power. Mr. Cooney mentioned the feed-in tariff. These projects will have to be made economically viable for people who get involved in them. Commitments must be made to those who get involved in those projects. We are concerned that there will be a focus on industrial scale projects as opposed to farm-based ones. We have visited farms in different parts of Europe where we have seen bio-digesters and solar panels on farm sheds operating very successfully where farmers have been incentivised. That is what we favour in Ireland as opposed to industrial scale projects. Public policy will have to move in that direction. Not only would it have a climate change benefit, it would also have a rural development benefit. It is much better to have ten farmers with solar panels on their roofs than one major industrial project in terms of buy-back for rural communities. A lot of our members are involved in renewables and the big blockage we have seen involves grid connections, which must be addressed. There are delays in getting grid connections and it costs money. There is a concern that the cost of grid connections will increase further. If we are to promote these projects, the grid connection blockage will have to be addressed.

Mr. Joe Healy

I will share the response to the substantive issues with Mr. Cooney. I refer to Deputy McConalogue's contribution. The EU pre-Paris position and the international Paris Agreement refer, while highlighting the need to meet the challenge of climate change, to the fact that we must keep the multiple roles of agriculture very much to the forefront. Those multiple roles include food, fuel and energy production as well as the climate enhancement and climate mitigation potential of the sector. The Paris Agreement reiterates that European position and reaffirms that food production must not be threatened when addressing the climate challenge. Some five or six years ago, France and Italy proposed a carbon border tax as part of trade talks to penalise countries we trade with which are not as efficient as we are. That might have to be revisited.

Deputy McConalogue asked about improving the grassland model. Our smart-farming initiative comes in here. We saw it as a win-win situation as the average profit for the farms which took part in the initiative increased by €8,700 while their emissions were reduced by an average of 10% across the board. Soil sampling has a huge role to play as does the allocation of lime and so on.

Senator Mac Lochlainn referred to Mercosur. I have mentioned a few times the frustration we feel when we hear European politicians talk about climate change and the fact that Irish and European farmers need to wake up fast. We are wide awake to the challenges but what frustrates us is that a lot of the same European Commissioners are very anxious to push forward a trade deal with Mercosur countries, including Brazil, which produces 80 kg of CO2 to produce 1 kg of beef. The average across Europe is 19 kg of CO2 to produce 1 kg of beef. My colleague, Mr. Keane, referred to the number of kilogrammes of CO2 required to produce a kilogramme of food. There is a clear double standard there.

In Brazil we see large tracts of land on which there has been deforestation and that are being created to increase its output of beef.

Senator Michelle Mulherin referred to the Citizens' Assembly and the mention of a second carbon tax. I know the Mayo team came to Galway last Sunday with more of the stick in mind than the carrot to frighten the Galway lads-----

I hope we will get on better than that.

Mr. Joe Healy

We prefer the carrot approach. The first carbon tax has not worked. We have seen a carbon increase across the country in spite of it. It is important to highlight the fact that since 1990 our agricultural output has increased by 40%, while our CO2 emissions have fallen by 3.5%. We need to see the Common Agricultural Policy continue and not turn into a common environment policy. The environment will play a part in that regard, but it can only be a part. We can never lose sight of what the CAP was introduced for - the production of an adequate amount of high quality food at affordable prices and that is what it has done. When it was introduced in the 1960s, 30% of average household income was being spent on food. Today in Ireland the figure is less than 10%, while across Europe it is somewhere between 10% and 12%.

Forestry also came up as an issue. We included it in our document that we launched at the ploughing championships. It is safe to say that in Deputy Martin Kenny's part of the country there would be a very negative attitude to forestry. I have mentioned that we are at a figure of 11% and want to get it to 18%. In County Leitrim - the Deputy will correct me if I am wrong - they are already at a figure of 26%. They see that they are being priced out of the market if they want to buy some land to increase their farm size. Farmers no longer view forestry as a safe investment. Last year the level of planting fell to 5,500 ha, 25% down on the really modest figure of 7,400 ha that was the target. It is the lowest figure in 60 years. We have listed five points that we think would help forestry: removing the restrictions on planting productive marginal land; the reintroduction of the farmer forest premium differential; compensating farmers for all lands they are obligated to set aside for environmental enhancements; reducing the red tape under the forest road scheme; and the provision of funding to establish a national network of forest producer groups.

Deputy Jackie Cahill mentioned climate change. I have already said we can embrace it and that we are in a good position to do so. We have proved that we are the most efficient producers of dairy products in Europe from a carbon footprint point of view. We are in the top five - there is really not much between the top five - in beef production. The Deputy's question was about the sustainability of steer production. I come back to the multiple roles of suckler cow and steer production in parts of the country that are not really suitable for tillage or dairy farming. The multiple roles involve keeping rural Ireland alive in terms of the money being spent there. Professor Alan Renwick's analysis a number of years ago showed that every euro given in support given to those sectors gave rise to a multiplier of 4.28 in the local economy. We need to do this. That is why we are driving on in our lobbying campaign to have a figure of €200 per cow which would create that multiplier at local level. We need to use technology, research and genetic improvements to bring the bottom and middle thirds in the sector up to the efficiency level of the top one third.

My colleague, Mr. Cooney, will cover some of the other areas mentioned.

Mr. Thomas Cooney

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked about the White Paper on energy. We cannot make the same mistakes in the case of solar as we did in the case of wind energy. There is a need for legislation to incentivise community participation. This must be done by providing for an increased tariff where there is community participation.

Senator Michelle Mulherin asked about the uptake of the renewable heat support scheme. We need to create a market for it. The Government may need to introduce a mandatory use obligation in public buildings - a requirement to use indigenously produced materials for biomass.

The Senator also mentioned microgeneration. The reality is that public policy has not taken it seriously. There is a great opportunity to engage in microgeneration, in the first instance, to offset our energy use in homes and on farms. It can also be done by combining battery storage with microgeneration. However, we need supports. We will need a refit and possibly grants for battery storage also That, in turn, will reduce our overall emissions and consumption of energy.

Deputy Martin Kenny asked if anaerobic digestion would be of benefit. Mr. Keane touched on it also. Anaerobic digestion, combined with separation, would help to reduce the amount of waste that would have to be spread on land. It is wrong, however, to call it waste as it is a valuable nutrient. The problem is getting it. Again, we need incentives in that regard. As Mr. Keane said, there is an also opportunity to engage in community-based activity, but there is a need for incentives, grant aid and tariff supports.

Deputy Jackie Cahill spoke about grid availability. At this stage all of our submissions to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities in Ireland, CRU, have been made and it now needs to deliver on its proposals. We need to discontinue grid trading by developers and provide for grid preference for farm-scale and community projects. That ties in with what I said previously. We also have to ensure planning permission is in place before granting grid access.

On the other questions about the beef sector and all the rest, almost 90% of the measures included in the current rural development plan are carbon reducing measures. We need proper recognition for carbon sequestration on grassland. We need to call on Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Authority to combine and carry out more research to the sequestration on our grassland and in our forestry recognised. As the president of the IFA, Mr. Healy, said, farm-scale forestry needs to be developed. We should be promoting agri-forestry rather than the large tracts of monoculture described by Deputy Martin Kenny. There should be incentives to engage in agri-forestry.

Coming from the heart of rural Ireland, climate change is probably the biggest issue of our time. We talk about the CAP and Brexit, but this is an issue that is not going to go away and we have to deal with it. Agriculture has played a huge part in improving the position in the past while, but it is not getting the credit for it. We have four farming organisations represented today that are stating more or less the same thing. However, there is a group that sees agriculture and the farming sector as having a detrimental effect on the environment. Do the delegates agree that it is now time to have a common agricultural strategy to include all farm organisations and industries involved in agriculture, with a view to promoting what is good and what has been done efficiently in the past few years?

It has been the good news story. We talk about GLAS and TAMS. They have been very beneficial in recent times but many people do not appreciate or accept that and still point the finger back at agriculture as being the root cause of the difficulties we face. There is a huge selling job to be done - this is a personal opinion and the witnesses might disagree with me - to promote what has been efficient and beneficial for agriculture in recent times. Do the witnesses accept it is now time for a common agricultural strategy in this regard?

Mr. Joe Healy

Absolutely, but we need a media to accept what the Chairman says. We saw the amount of coverage given to the Citizens' Assembly, for example, at which the arguments put were, at the very best, biased and it was almost considered that its recommendations should be incorporated into law straight away. We saw one national paper refer sometime last year to the suckler cow as akin to a weapon of mass destruction. When we have this kind of hysteria, it is more difficult to sell the message. Agriculture has a very good message. How often have members seen any of the mainstream media highlight the fact that we are the most efficient producer of dairy product in Europe? If they did not hear it from the farm organisations, they would have to go searching for it and this is the problem. We need the media to be fair-minded and willing to take the two sides. In addition, certain biased sectors or organisations talk about the 33% of emissions in Ireland for which agriculture is responsible. It has been mentioned already that climate change is not just an Irish issue but a global issue, yet those who proclaim to be experts in the field of climate change talk about reducing the dairy herd or suckler cow numbers. We have a growing population. These people know that this growing population must be fed. In the next 25 years we expect it to grow from 7 billion to 9 billion. This population will have to be fed. There is a growing middle class that will be in the market for protein products - for example, dairy and beef - but some of our own people still say we should reduce dairy and beef production, even though we are among the top producers in the world from a carbon footprint point of view. It is a paradox in a way. It behoves us as farm organisations to try to keep getting that message out there but a little more help from the media would be welcome.

Mr. Pat McCormack

I concur with what Mr. Healy said about the media and getting the story out there. There was much mention today of the sustainable dairy assurance scheme, SDAS, and there is also the beef and lamb scheme. These fall under the umbrella of Origin Green, which is our very own tricolour. We mentioned the footprint of 30% or 33% of total emissions that agriculture creates. All this does is highlight the importance of agriculture to this economy and to rural Ireland. This is another point that needs to be driven out there. We are tops in dairy and right up in the top five across Europe when it comes to beef. If anything, we as Irish farmers are perhaps a little shy in promoting the very positive story that is out there. I hope Origin Green is only gaining momentum and that it will be what will drive us forward and prove what we have, which is very much a grass-based, environmentally friendly and compatible food production process in agriculture.

Mr. Martin Keane

I think the Chairman is absolutely right. We need a strategy of communication to the broader public. The farming press in general is fine. It is very tuned into the reality. Senator Mulherin mentioned earlier the Citizens' Assembly, the disconnect and lack of understanding of the reality of what is happening out there and the idea that an immediate imposition of a tax or something would solve everyone's problems. This is a very narrow focus and a very narrow way of looking at things. The reality, and this is a challenge for all of us, is that a scientific argument is fine for scientists and those who have an understanding of the industry or the activity involved but science will very rarely win a debate when it is challenged by sentiment, and sentiment is very hard to change because there is nothing substantial behind it other than a belief. We all believe in various religions and so on. It is what it is-----

Mr. Martin Keane

-----and it is very hard to apply science to. The Chairman is absolutely right that we have a big challenge out there to communicate. All of us have a job of work to do to communicate what it is we do. Very few people understand that over the past four or five years, we have increased our agricultural exports by 35% or 36%, we have reduced our dependency on the UK market, and Ireland Inc. has come from a position of nearly 60% of exports going into the European and UK market to, I believe, below 50% in 2017. We are doing a huge job of work on the international stage with international customers to make known the provenance and excellence of what we do here, yet on our doorstep there is that lack of understanding, which is a challenge for us to address. I do not have the answer right here and now, but we will certainly have to be way more proactive in trying to deepen the broader community's understanding of what it is agricultural and food production does. All of us in the room, including my colleague behind me, Mr. Healy, and Mr. McCormack, have emphasised the multifactorial effect that agriculture has right across society and the community. It is not just about food production, but also about the rural sustainability of villages and towns, the employment that is there and the mitigation of some of the migration of people from rural areas into centres of population and all the problems that come with that. We have a message to get across that it is not just about food production, but about many other things. It is about the economic sustainability of rural Ireland and the social sustainability of its fabric. That disconnect and lack of understanding is there. Sometimes one would fail to understand why people would not connect the reality of jobs in local areas and rural communities to the reasons Mary and Johnny have to go to New York. There is a very tight connection between that rural activity and economic activity and food production and the availability of sustainable social and economic activity and employment for people in rural areas. We have a job to do.

Mr. Thomas Duffy

I will respond to those comments by saying there are probably two separate sections when it comes to communication and messaging. The first is on the public's side. Senator Mulherin is completely right that there is a body out there that sees agriculture as nothing but negative, but it can be further broken down, in my experience, into two separate cohorts. Among the first cohort, these views are born of ignorance; it is a simple disconnect from the awareness of agriculture. These people are generally quite educated about the environmental impacts but unaware of why we have those impacts. They do not understand the principles of agriculture. We would not expect them to any more than we might expect someone to have experience of rocket science. Agriculture is completely outside of their day-to-day lives. We can make a connection with these people and explain things to them. They can understand our message and are the kind of people with whom, external to the country, things like Origin Green have really succeeded in connecting. Then there is the cohort of people who are driven by ideology. These people cannot be connected with and there is no point in trying to do so. Sadly, they are also the people who are creating many of the messages that are reaching those people we want to inform. While I am acutely aware of my age here in that I am perhaps younger than the average age of those in the room, the media-----

Mr. Duffy recovered well there.

Mr. Thomas Duffy

I did. The media may be a concern but compare the messaging appearing on traditional media with that appearing on social media, in particular some of the documentaries accessed by many of my generation.

The level of miseducation that is being presented to people is terrifying and it is difficult to change that. We must focus on messaging and perhaps it is time we had an internal Origin Green. Great efforts are being made, by Agri Aware and others, to reconnect. We are very lucky because the degree of separation is much lower than in the UK or the US and we can connect with people by speaking to them about their uncle, grand uncle or grand aunt who lived down the country and had cattle. Messaging has improved but it is very important to explain to farmers what their exact emissions are and how they can reduce them. We need to put numbers on it, like the carbon navigator has done, and set targets for farmers to reduce their emissions further. This must involve meeting the carbon footprint of soya milk, which is at 0.8 kg per kg and 20% off what Ireland is producing, which is 1 kg per kilogramme. This is higher than the level of what the top 20% of dairy farmers are producing, at 0.65 or 0.67.

We need to educate farmers about getting to this level. We spoke about moving the bottom and middle thirds up but as we get to that we can then say we are better than the alternatives which people buy in the supermarket, and people will respond to that message as we have seen in the recovery in sales of butter. The public's image of butter has been completely changed around and we are now reaching 40-year highs in the price.

I thank all the witnesses. This is the beginning of a very important body of work and the witnesses are the first we have invited in to discuss climate change. The environmental groups will be in next week and another group will be in the following week. At the end of the process we hope to do a report, which we hope will get some media attention. We will keep let the witnesses know how the process is moving on.

The joint committee adjourned until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2018.
Top
Share