I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and her officials and I thank them for attending. As she will be aware, this is a new committee and to date we have met several of her colleagues, namely, the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Transport and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also a key person in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions. We are interested in hearing her opinion on how her Department can assist in achieving the targets which have been set out for us.
Climate Change Issues: Discussion with Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I thank the committee for the opportunity of meeting it. The challenges posed by climate change and energy security are real and urgent for Ireland as a whole. The EU intends to address them in the post-Kyoto period by means of a very ambitious package. Ireland's share of that effort, particularly the 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions required of us by 2020, will be extremely difficult to deliver.
If I had to condense what I want to say today into a sentence, it would be that the agriculture sector will do its fair share but there are limits to what can be achieved. If a 20% reduction in emissions, or anything even approaching it, is demanded from the agriculture sector, it would place enormous downward pressure on cattle numbers. Apart from the highly damaging consequences of this for rural communities, it would make neither economic nor environmental sense in global terms. It would run counter to a view expressed by the Commission in the CAP health check communication of November 2007 that the primary vocation of European agriculture will continue to be the production of food and feed. There are, however, other actions we can take in the agriculture sector to cut emissions to a lesser degree and we are committed to exploring those. The sector also has much to offer through afforestation and bio-energy crops.
As I said at the outset, Ireland faces major challenges. As the committee will be aware, our Kyoto target for 2008 to 2012 was 13% above 1990 levels. By 2005, however, Ireland's emissions were 25% above 1990 levels. Agriculture had gone against the trend by reducing emissions to 2% below 1990 levels. This was achieved through reductions in sheep and cattle numbers after we decoupled EU farm support payments from production. The reduced and more efficient use of fertiliser also made a contribution.
The market for our produce is changing, however, and in a business as usual scenario we are unlikely to see further reductions in emissions from the agriculture sector. In fact there will probably be a small increase, so we will be closer to 1990 levels by 2020. With milk quotas due to be abolished by 2015, our dairy industry is well placed to flourish in a competitive international market. A higher worldwide demand for beef will keep numbers steady in the suckler herd.
There are predictions that global demand for milk and meat products will more than double over the next 40 years. In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organisation indicates that the world land bank for agricultural production is almost exhausted so that future expansion of production will be achieved either by intensification on existing land or extension into sensitive ecosystems. Ireland is ideally placed to contribute towards meeting those demands and its pasture-based farming system is better suited to doing so in a sustainable way than most others. It would not make environmental sense to curb production here only to have it replaced by production elsewhere which would equal, if not exceed, the greenhouse gas emissions generated by farming in Ireland.
I am not saying that nothing can be done; far from it. Irish farmers have readily adapted to more environmentally friendly ways of farming and they will certainly adapt further if we can identify new methods that contribute to reducing emissions. By the end of 2006 there were nearly 60,000 farmers in the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and we expect numbers to grow beyond that over the next few years. Under REPS we encourage hedgerow and tree planting, the introduction of clover swards and the adoption of minimum tillage. Under other schemes, we promote afforestation and the planting of energy crops. We support organic farming and the programme for Government includes a target of 5% of land area for organic cultivation by 2012. All of these measures contribute to addressing climate change.
Farmers are using less fertiliser more efficiently, which cuts nitrous oxide emissions. Improved efficiencies in animal breeding, which have been researched and supported by Teagasc, have resulted in fewer emissions per unit of production and there are further gains from the perspectives of both competitiveness and climate change to be made.
Other possible abatement options show potential such as increasing the length of the grazing season for dairy cattle, earlier slaughter of beef cattle, the use of the trailing shoe method of slurry spreading and the use of nitrification inhibitors. These options and others are being examined but it is as well to be realistic about them. Farming will play its part, within reason, in dealing with climate change but we should not have to make unjustified sacrifices in our production capacity. The farming and food production sectors have responsibilities which encompass environmental issues but go far beyond these. The supply of quality, wholesome food to meet ever-increasing demand must remain at the core of our mission over the coming decades.
Although current options for abatement are limited, we are fully committed to looking for new and innovative solutions. Research to date, both here and in New Zealand, indicates that there is no possibility of a magic bullet, but there are certain possibilities for some mitigation and these are being pursued vigorously. Teagasc, which receives a significant subvention from my Department, is an active participant in the relevant research. My Department has committed a total of €15.5 million to climate change related research projects under the stimulus fund since 2005, some €7 million of which is dedicated to research into energy crops and agri-energy related projects. In addition, close links have been developed with New Zealand which will allow for ongoing co-operation and exchange of information on research projects related to greenhouse gas abatement.
One of the ways the agriculture sector addresses climate change is by planting trees. The removal of carbon through sequestration by our forests is an important part of our climate change strategy. In this context, I am very concerned at indications from the Commission that this will not be counted as part of Ireland's 20% target for 2020, although it has the ability to deliver more than 4.5 million tonnes of savings on the national target. Forestry also has a significant role to play in meeting our renewable energy targets. These targets too are challenging, with 16% of Ireland's overall energy consumption to come from renewable sources by 2020 and 10% of transport fuels to come from bio-fuels by the same date. It is clear that input from many different sources of renewable energy will be required if we are to work towards achieving these targets. I believe bio-energy encompassing the production of biomass and bio-fuels from agricultural raw materials can play an important role in meeting the challenges that lie ahead.
Biomass, mainly in the form of solid wood, is the largest source of renewable energy in Ireland. It is a renewable energy source which is carbon neutral, sustainable and can be produced locally. The national forest estate now stands at slightly more than 700,000 hectares or 10% of the land area. Projections by COFORD and Sustainable Energy Ireland indicate that this resource has the potential to supply 2 million tonnes of wood biomass for energy purposes by 2020, resulting in emission savings of 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2020.
Energy crops also have a role to play. The main possibilities for growing energy crops in Ireland are oilseed rape, wheat and biomass crops such as willow and miscanthus. In the near future, the feedstock base could be expanded further as new second-generation technologies are developed to convert biomass, such as wood and straw, into liquid bio-fuels. To stimulate the production of energy crops I announced a new energy crop premium, worth €80 per hectare in 2007, to encourage farmers to grow more energy crops. The premium is being paid in addition to the EU premium of up to €45 per hectare available under the EU energy crops scheme. As a further support measure, land planted with energy crops can benefit also from the single farm payment. I also launched a new bio-energy scheme to encourage farmers to grow willow and miscanthus as a renewable source of energy. These crops have considerable potential for heat and electricity generation and we are aiding establishment with grants of up to €1,450 per hectare. There has been a positive response from farmers to these measures.
The area devoted to oilseed rape, which is used to produce liquid bio-fuel, increased from 5,000 hectares in 2006 to 7,500 hectares in 2007. In addition, almost 800 hectares of miscanthus and willow were planted. I have provided sufficient funding in 2008 to support the planting of a further 1,600 hectares of willow and miscanthus. I also introduced the biomass harvesting machinery grant scheme in 2007 which is providing €1.2 million to assist emerging enterprises in the wood chip supply sector.
While the sustainability of bio-fuels continues to generate debate, they are only one of the few practical ways of making a real impact on oil dependence and improving greenhouse gas emissions from transport. At the same time we have to bear in mind the continuing need for cereal crops to feed humans and animals and the preservation of biodiversity. Overall, however, I believe a balance can be found and that we can develop this area for the benefit of the farming community, the environment and economy as a whole.
To sum up, the agriculture sector has much to contribute in the areas of climate change and energy security. Forestry sequesters carbon and produces biomass. Bio-fuel and energy crops have their part to play. New farming practices and methods that can reduce emissions will be promoted as they become available. We will do all we can. However, we should not contemplate the imposition of a crude target that can be achieved only by methods that make little sense in an economic and environmental context, either globally or at home, nor should we fail to take adequate account of developments in world food supply and at the same time act to the detriment of large sections of our rural population.
I welcome the Minister. I appreciate her coming here to address the issue of climate change. Another Minister who came to the committee explained that the problem of climate change came down to "cows and cars". The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, is in charge of the cows. On the Minister's last point about a crude target, while we all appreciate the difficulties, targets have been set at European level. We have not been able to reach the existing targets and have fallen short by a serious degree. New targets have been set and Deputy Coughlan, as a Cabinet Minister, is party to setting targets, such as the 3% reduction per year. Despite this she says that although a very welcome reduction has occurred in agriculture, it looks like the figures are rising again. This is difficult but must be addressed.
The Minister raised many questions and I would like to ask a couple. From what the Minister said on bio-energy, I am not sure what the policy is in agriculture. There is the issue of the contention between land for fuel and land for food. We must keep producing food; there is no argument with that. Does the Minister have a specific approach to the production, for example, of biomass that can be converted to electricity as opposed to what is to be used to create fuel? Is she concentrating on willow and miscanthus and ensuring the production of rapeseed is of lesser importance? I am not clear on this because she bunched everything together. Could the Minister spell that out?
We must create and develop bio-fuels and use them in our public transport fleet. We had a very interesting presentation on the use of grass to produce methane, a process that occurs in other countries, and that seems to be an obvious area of development. I understand the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was funding that project in Cork. Perhaps the Minister could talk more on whether it will be possible to use grass productively to feed into the public transport fleet.
There has been research on the diet of cattle and perhaps the Minister could comment on that. Woodchip supply is a growth area in Ireland and abroad. How far can we take this? The figure of €1.2 million sounds very little if we are developing a new enterprise that will benefit the world as well as ourselves and where there is a growing market.
My last question may seem slightly off but is related. Responsibility for the marine was transferred to the Minister's Department from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It seems to have been split in some way between the Departments of Transport and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Marine includes foreshore legislation. There is a commitment to reform foreshore legislation and it has a particular application to offshore wind development. I am not clear whether the Minister will be responsible for that legislation or whether it will be the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
I thank the Minister for her presentation. I fully concur with what she said about the expectation that the farming community reach its target by 2020, as it is not a realistic target. She said decoupling had helped reduce emissions. While it worked initially, there is a tendency to drift back towards intensification. Is that in line with the intention of decoupling? I fully agree that every farmer should be encouraged to get into REPS as it is a way of reducing emissions and is an example of good practice. As elected representatives, all of us should do what we can to encourage take-up of the scheme.
The Minister said forestry was not being supported by the EU.
It will not allow sequestration to be taken into account as part of our target.
I do not know what can be done to convince the EU otherwise but much of the land in our country is not fit for anything else and forestry is the way to proceed.
The Minister said the target for organic production was 5% by 2012. I hope she is successful and I wish her well in that regard. Organic production is most suitable for medium-size and smaller farms which are not viable for other types of production. Everything possible should be done to encourage and promote organic production. It needs more money because organic production is very limited in terms of the comparative return it yields. I wish the Minister well in that regard.
I was at a meeting yesterday and I learned that it was hoped the Commission's proposals would be adopted before April 2009. It is extraordinary that everybody, including the European Parliament, is being consulted apart from national parliaments, which have not been recognised at all as part of the process. As Deputy Ferris said, all these issues should be brought to the floor of Leinster House, both in the Seanad and the Dáil, to be discussed. The views of national parliaments should be sought on these proposals because if we are to achieve anything we need the co-operation of the public. The idea of the proposals being discussed behind closed doors, and eventually presented to the European Parliament without being discussed on the floor of the Dáil or Seanad, seems extraordinary.
I find it extraordinary that forestry does not count towards our target. It must be allowed to count and the voice of Parliament should support the Minister in her attempts to ensure it does. The Commission has put forward proposals and both national parliaments and governments should adopt positions on them. I ask the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, to bring this to the attention of the Taoiseach and her other colleagues and suggest it be referred to both the Dáil and Seanad for debate. I do not mean that it should be debated on a Friday afternoon when most Members have left but on a Wednesday, when there can be a proper debate and a motion whereby the voice of Parliament can be raised in support of the Government in its efforts to look at the issues comprehensively with a view to adopting proposals we can all support. This is not a party political issue but a matter for all parties and all parliaments throughout the EU. I call on the Minister to take the lead in bringing the proposals before both Houses.
I am delighted the Minister has said it is not feasible to reduce emissions by 20%. I was concerned when the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, talked to us about cars and cows. He said he would look after the cars while the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would look after the cows. I am concerned we will reduce the herd number. It is important for rural Ireland that the agricultural sector be protected and looked after. Bord na Móna has a huge land bank which is not being used for any productive purpose at the moment. In fact, virtually all the bogs have closed down and are scrubland. Why is that land not being developed as forestry, which would be beneficial to all of us?
The REP scheme was a precursor to what we are doing. That scheme did tremendous work in focusing on how farmers could do things in a better way to protect the environment. Some farmers are now part-time but what is their position in regard to the plans? It is very easy for a large farmer, with 400 or 500 acres, to comply with the new regulations but the cost of implementing the new regulations will be very severe for smaller farmers in Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan, who are already struggling to make a living. It will put more of them out of business rather than improve the environment.
I am pleased that the Minister seems to have a more realistic approach than the previous Cabinet Minister to address this committee. The Minister used the word "balance" and that is what we must strike. We must achieve a balance between reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from outside the State and our carbon emissions while, at the same time, making sure we keep our agricultural industry secure, as well as our food supply, with which it goes hand in hand.
We must never get carried away but strive for what is compatible. For example, attention was drawn to our reserve of peatland, which should not be exhausted when it has the potential to produce willow or miscanthus as renewable energy sources which do not interfere with the food production chain. I understand national policy is for wind turbines to be provided on farms where they do not interfere with an acre of land, as has been the case with ESB poles over the years.
Organic production is a lovely concept and a 5% target is realistically attainable. I would not like the target to be higher but I would like traditional, less-intensive farming methods to be made sustainable so that they can provide an income to the individual farmer and the community in which a farm enterprise exists.
It is all about balance. It is too easy to go down one route without having regard to the other. At our last meeting a contribution included a statement to the effect that the solution was a simple matter of reducing the number of cows. However, it has been established, by NUI Maynooth, that bovine emissions can be reduced by 20% by addressing cows' diets and that needs to be explored. That would mean we could immediately reduce the output by 20% while keeping herd numbers and production levels as they are, because addressing the diet does not interfere with production levels either. Those are the practical, sensible steps we need to take. We can shout about having renewables and call for more oilseed rape etc. but we must strike a balance. That is recognised by the more reasonable people on the Government side and I welcome that, as I do the Minister's contribution today.
There is a general thrust in the debate relating to a couple of key messages. First of all, we are very much tied into the bio-energy plan. I alluded to part of this and in tandem with the existing policy, I introduced a number of schemes that would support, in particular, energy crops and afforestation.
Under the implementation of the national bio-energy plan, my Department would have spent €5 million on energy crops. We currently grow approximately 9,000 hectares and we have the potential to grow between 80,000 and 100,000 hectares without damaging the food element. There is plenty of scope for increased capacity.
The big academic issue concerns fuel versus food. This has been spoken and written about for a considerable period of time and when newspapers such as The Economist, The Financial Times, The Sunday Times, The New York Times and The Washington Post debate the issue, it is a very serious policy matter. I must grapple with it because we have an opportunity here, as those on the agriculture committee know. This is pertinent particularly because of the removal of milk quotas by 2015, and we have the capacity this year to increase our quota by 2%.
The next issue, the WTO, may be at the back of my mind today but it is not always so. This has implications for us as a nation and for European agriculture in its entirety.
If Peter Mandelson gets his way we will have no problem as it will all be gone.
I will stick to my guns. To be fair, I know I have the full support of all parties on the matter. It is correct to say this is a big issue which is being debated. A front page article in today's edition of The Financial Times has the headline “Countries rush to restrict trade in basic foods”. Argentina has stopped beef moving out, Saudi Arabia has reduced all its tariffs to access food. I provided €2 million last year to alleviate the desperate position in Chad, giving the money to the FAO in Italy. It could not buy anything on the world food market that week and we had to wait until the following week.
These are very serious issues which we should have very much to the forefront of our minds. With regard to our potential and efficiencies, it would be erroneous of me as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not to afford the opportunity to the agriculture sector to be the food basket for the European community.
Australia is experiencing another drought and we have seen the consequences and ravages of environmental issues and climate change in other parts of the world. We must deal with these issues, including disease. These are the difficulties and despite all that, we have a job to do. We can act on the energy crop side and we have selectively encouraged the sector.
One of the other issues relates to land versus forestry, as many farmers were not necessarily enticed to go into the forestry sector. We have now introduced a new scheme, called the forest environment protection scheme, FEPS. For those not involved in agriculture, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, is targeted at 70,000 farmers at least. It is a good environmental scheme and many farmers take part, although we should encourage more to do so. The scheme did not entice such farmers to go into forestry so now we have a FEPS add-on, meaning a farmer can participate in REPS and forestry. The scheme is only in its infancy.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, signed off on €52 million of premiums for the forestry sector. It is a significant investment by taxpayers and the State, and there are massive opportunities from an employment perspective within bio-energy and bio-fuels.
The €1.2 million referenced by Deputy McManus was just for particular types of machinery which enables our entry into the sector. Woodchip was only produced in Northern Ireland but now we are affording the opportunity for new people to enter the sector, which is very important. County enterprise boards, Enterprise Ireland and the Department are involved in providing greater opportunities for farmers and manufactures within the woodchip sector.
These all run in tandem but what can I realistically do over a certain period of time to be part of the overall action? A big factor will be feed and we have put significant amounts of funds into research. Teagasc and the universities are very much involved with us in that respect. I am not aware of the committee having met a delegation from Alltech but Dr. Pierce Lyons has done a considerable amount of work and research in Kentucky on the transformation of waste product into energy. He has also invested much money in examining foodstuff production and new production methods. We are very much part of that and Deputy Doyle, being involved in farming, would appreciate that this is the nub of the matter.
We are also dealing with greenhouse gas emissions within the tillage sector, with particular reference to examining opportunities in research and development. This relates to technology and animal husbandry, as well as the environmental perspective.
I have put a view, which has been accepted by Cabinet, on the acceptance of forestry as a way in which we can offset carbon emissions. On a previous occasion it was permissible and I believe it will be permissible after 2020. I am examining what can be done in the interim.
Why is it not permissible now?
We are not quite familiar with the reason.
That is completely out of kilter as the certified units from the UN allow forestry to be used. Equally, the EU's own units — I have forgotten the name — also allow forestry to be used. It sounds like one Commissioner is not speaking to another on this as it does not make any sense. It is in conflict with European policy.
Does the Minister know the reason?
It is a unilateral Commission decision, supported mainly by the Germans. The Taoiseach wrote to President Barroso on a number of these issues, as he was asked to. We are following up on this issue.
One of our problems is that developments in the forestry sector here are at an early stage but there is great potential. Others have come to a threshold. The EU average of land coverage by forestry is 33% but the figure in Ireland is 10%. It is similar to many other industries in that we have the potential to increase this figure. We spoke of bogs and poorer quality land but they provide significant opportunities, and farmers are now being enticed to enter this sector through the production of woodchip, thinnings, etc.
Reference was made to part-time farmers some of whom are looking at this issue as an opportunity. We will bring a forestry Bill before the Houses, probably after the summer, which will address some of the concerns of farmers, particularly where there is an absolute necessity to invest in forestry if the land mass is taken out.
The current situation stems from an old policy which stipulated that we had to reduce food production in the European Union. As a consequence land was taken out of food production. There has been a seismic change in thinking and we are now talking at European level about food security. We are reverting to the initial reason the European Union was set up. That is the reason we must always have evolving agricultural policies.
That is the reason our Trade Commissioner is so out of kilter with what is going on.
I would not hesitate to agree.
He must be taken out, whatever way we do it.
We will be pushing the issue. There were and are matters with which difficulties arise. As a backbencher I knew that we had potential in more isolated areas where forestry could reasonably have been encouraged. However, the Commission's view was that we should take good land out of farming and food production in order to offset the ability to work within the forestry sector.
We have had a seismic change in food policy over a very short period of time and it is on that basis that we must consider this in a balanced way. It is not that we should ever resile from our role within the overall policy framework. I have invested heavily in research, animal husbandry and offsets in forestry. We have introduced pilot schemes in my Department to examine waste issues and farmers are familiar with them. There are also new methodologies in the tillage sector in order that we can be part of the overall picture.
This is our difficulty and the Government has accepted that this is one of the areas in which room for manoeuvre is limited. However, we will not back away from our role which is to examine these hugely important matters. These issues affect not only farmers but also everyone in society. We all have a part to play, which is why we have an evolving policy framework that examines opportunities for the sustainability of agriculture and, equally, new opportunities for the farming sector.
The Minister dealt with the main issue I wish to address — forestry. It is important that we clarify that the only globally recognised certified units come from the United Nations and they will use carbon. The contradiction with what is being said is that the Government could spend some of the €270 million allocated in the budget to offset carbon emissions to buy units created by forestry. As far as I know, European units are the same.
Earlier we received an invitation to attend a conference on emissions trading after 2012 due to be held in Brussels next month. Perhaps it is intended to change the system, which would be a disaster for many reasons. This measure must be examined because it contradicts the global policy set by the United Nations, the only world body recognised for certification.
The Government is seeking to offset carbon emissions produced by ministerial travel but the aforementioned €270 million should cover this; it should not be necessary to make two payments. The carbon footprint left by ministerial travel should be included in our total carbon emissions and not treated separately because this is only an effort to supply the media. This scheme means nothing and we should not be sucked into such actions.
I found the Minister's presentation disappointing. That is not meant as a reflection on her or her representatives; I merely mean that what we are trying to achieve in agriculture contradicts what is happening elsewhere. I agree with the Minister that the sooner quotas are removed the better; farmers should be free to do what they have done for centuries, that is, produce more to be better employed and rewarded.
I will come to economists but the reason farmers are not involved in bio-fuel production is that there is no certainty in the sector. In the budget every year the Minister for Finance tells us what the excise duty on bio-fuels will be but that is no good for farmers. We need the Minister to ascertain that for the next ten years the position will not get worse with regard to excise allowances against the production of fuels. This would let farmers see that this is an area into which they can move. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spoke of grants in favour of biomass but there are different grants relating to output and other areas. People will tire of wood pellets as they tired of turf and wood, although I acknowledge I am a lone voice in this regard. If it is necessary to send a person outside to ensure there are enough pellets to burn, I do not think this notion will run. I have already met two people who are changing back from wood pellets to another form of energy. I agree, however, that the biomass issue is important.
The area not covered in the presentation is helping with production; in other words, what we can do if we cannot do more than the Minister has outlined. Around seven years ago I met a number of farmers from either south Wicklow or north Wexford. At the time the Common Agricultural Policy was being reformed again. They wanted to produce wind energy but they are still seeking permission to do so today because they are being blocked everywhere they go. This process could be facilitated by giving farmers priority in smart metering. One does not need planning permission for wind generators less than 12 metres in height but in certain agricultural areas there should be no limit. From now on the Government will be required to pay for the production of wind energy and this measure would suit it in reducing carbon emissions.
The Minister spoke about recycling and the interesting work being done by Professor Pierce Lyons, but methane capture in farming is not being examined. Methane is 25 times more harmful to the environment than carbon. Every tonne of methane saved is the same as 25 tonnes of carbon but we are not doing anything to capture this gas. I cannot say what should be done but the research and development in the Department about which the Minister has spoken should look at this matter in terms of capturing methane where farm waste is collected and other areas.
Regarding miscanthus, elephant grass and so on and the types of soil they need, I read the information in The Economist which is looking at this issue from the perspective of food prices and inflation and what it states is correct. Bio-fuels are displacing the production of cereals such as wheat and other food crops in various areas but is it possible that bio-fuel crops could grow on land not suitable for some of the crops they are displacing? A certainty of agriculture is that farmers and fishermen will always do next year what was good last year. If potatoes sell at high prices this year, everyone will produce them next year and the price will drop. The price of wheat rose last year because farmers changed to the production of bio-fuel crops but I have no doubt there will be an increase in the global production of wheat this year. Farmers will always behave in this way; are there other ways by which we could strike a balance?
I thank the Minister and have some basic questions because I am not familiar with farming.
This is an interesting time to be in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because there are many new opportunities. Senator O'Toole referred to methane capture because we all seem to be preoccupied with carbon emissions; far more damaging gases are produced through agricultural practices. Will the Minister outline how her Department is dealing with this issue?
I have some direct and simple questions on research on diet and breeding and how they can reduce CO2 emissions. Have we moved beyond the research and development stage in universities and onto the farmyard? Will we see the results? What benefits will accrue? My instinct tells me a cow in County Kerry is the same as a cow in Colorado.
That is not the case. Do not insult the cows of County Kerry.
I gather that they are, in fact, not the same and breeding must be local. I feared that our research might duplicate a great deal of that being conducted abroad.
Cows in Colorado have different accents.
They use dollars in the United States. The Minister referred to the slaughter of beef cattle but what would this achieve in terms of CO2 emissions?
I think Deputy Doyle had better answer that question.
I am displaying my ignorance.
The Senator's mother, from Northern Ireland, would be shocked.
I am not from a farming background.
The Deputy's father is from Limerick.
I also have a question about the nitrates directive. This issue was high on the agenda last year, particularly for farmers, and was a problem for them in terms of trying to practise agriculture. Is there any research that shows how it is working one year on? I often wonder what happens to policies that are carried out. We all get bothered about something and then agreement is arrived at, but later on, can we find out what happened? Did the sky fall in? Are farmers managing? Is it working well? I hate to see issues fall off the agenda.
I was at the Bali climate change conference, as was the Chairman, and it opened our eyes to the potential of afforestation. We met a wonderful man from COFORD, Dr. Eugene Hendrick, who had appeared before the committee in the past. He is an excellent individual. The Minister will be glad to hear that Ireland got credit for some of our measures in the area of afforestation. I was glad to hear this because, from a climatic point of view, we are in a good position to do this. I am glad to hear of the new REP scheme which will allow farmers to enter the forestry sector. From my limited exposure to farmers I know this is what they want to do but under the current REP schemes, particularly in the rural west of the country, they are not allowed to touch it. I am glad to see the Minister is moving with the times.
It seems a terrible pity that legislation does not keep up with the facts. Based on my own interest in climate change I know that when we became interested in bio-fuels we could have gone in a particular direction in terms of what the Government was doing — we were encouraged to do that — but we have now had to reverse our position with regard to second-generation bio-fuels. To a certain extent, there is a need to tread cautiously. However, the Commission must be alive to the fact that we are living in an organic environment and that it needs to be able to respond to changes so that we are not held to ransom based on carbon offsetting that is not permitted currently but will clearly be permitted in the near future. It is folly to pursue something in the short term when we can consider what is in our long-term interests.
In yesterday's Irish Independent there was an article about the increasing number of people in the US who are dependent on food stamps. The article showed a picture of George Bush and a slogan that said that America was the home of the free and the land of the hungry. For the last two or three years the politically correct thing to do in America was to push everybody into developing renewable energy and to change the main use of soya and wheat, in particular, from food to energy. That is part of the problem we are addressing today. The one thing we need is stability. We do not need world food prices to be dictated by the commodity futures market in Chicago or anywhere else. If we do that, food prices will go through the roof. If we want farmers globally to produce food and renewables, stability of price is required.
Twelve years ago when the BSE crisis broke out, the price of pigmeat went through the roof, but look at the pig sector today. It is in nobody's interest to have fluctuations such as these. Senator O'Toole mentioned the different systems for production of renewables. All people need to know is that if they go down the road of producing a crop or raising animals, they can plan to have an income from it for the next five or ten years. It is similar to budgeting based on the type of job one should get if one goes to university and gets a degree. Stability is what people need. Matt Dempsey stated in last week's Irish Farmers’ Journal that we handled the intervention system abysmally, which is part of the reason we are where we are today in terms of food security. We need stability. It is common sense. That is why Commissioner Mandelson is so dangerous in many respects. He is lethal. He has dug himself into a hole from which he cannot get out. The message must be stability and balance. Perhaps I am harping on about old clichés, but that is how I feel about it. Farmers cannot plan if they do not have some expectation that they will have an income and that there will be a market for their products, be they food or fuel.
This is an interesting committee in that we have only been up and running since November. We have had some interesting discussions and we are all learning. The one thing that strikes me is that we are setting off and laying out targets for ourselves for the future without giving any thought to what policies should be implemented in the EU.
One of the problems with the US in this regard, and the reason it has been slow to sign up to agreements, is that there are so many different states, each with its own priorities, that it is difficult to get agreement. I am afraid that if the EU goes headlong into setting targets of 20% or 30% the same thing will happen. It is beginning to happen already. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we must protect our interests in terms of promoting forestry. It is important that these targets, before they are set in stone, have general support from the governments. It is essential that this matter be brought before both Houses and be given some sort of solid commitment on an all-party basis. What we need is continuity, irrespective of who is in Government. This is in the interests of farmers, who will know that things will continue even if there is a change of Government. There must be an all-party policy on climate change. We should try to get agreement in both Chambers.
I am confused about bio-fuels. In one breath people say there is a food shortage and that if we produce bio-fuels there will be a bigger food shortage. However, in the next breath they say something different. The Minister commented that she could see room for 100,000 acres of bio-fuels.
I referred to hectares.
We are currently talking about 7,500 hectares. Is this in keeping with a food policy that will leave sufficient land to produce the food we need and to export——
What is on that land at the moment? That is the question I was asking.
That is the whole point. I cannot come to terms with this. If we turn this land over to bio-fuels, surely cows will not be able to graze or foodstuffs cannot be grown. Can the Minister explain this to us? It is important from our point of view so that we know what we are talking about.
There are 30,000 hectares that are no longer in sugar beet. That is one of the major factors.
That is interesting.
The other source of land is setaside land.
Did the Minister say 30,000 acres?
I said "hectares". It is all hectares now. We have no acres any more.
Under the setaside scheme, farmers were paid not to plant on land, to a total of 15,000 hectares. Thus, we are up to 45,000 hectares before we change over any land. The Council of Ministers made an agreement that the setaside scheme is to be abolished. This will achieve two things, namely, it will afford more opportunity to cultivate, and it will allow for bio-fuel production. Previous to the abolition of the scheme, such land was allowed to be used for bio-fuel production. The European Commission has carried out a study on the impact of using 10% of land within the EU for bio-fuel production and found that it would not displace food production. That work has been done and it included Ireland. There would not be such displacement.
I was asked about different types of land and the possibility of producing miscanthus. Miscanthus needs relatively good land and quite a lot of sunshine. Even though we bucked that trend——
It would not be suitable for Donegal anyway.
To be fair, people have done a lot of experimental work in the Finn Valley, and it has worked out that the return on growth is equal to, if not better than, that for Wexford, which is most bizarre.
We knew that.
This is why we have strawberries. Overall, it is not a doomsday scenario. There is potential to develop bio-fuels and alternative energy production without displacement of food here. The problem is that such developments are displacing food crop production in the United States of America. Along with that, there is an increase in the world population and the capacity of the Chinese and the Indians to buy food, creating a ganntanas or scarcity. These are the factors. There is an argument that this was a good political decision but it has had its consequences. For Russia, Ukraine was the food basket of the world. Ukraine has reduced its production considerably and it has had many other issues to deal with. The production of protein in Australia has decreased considerably and these are other factors that create difficulties, not to mention what is happening in the Third World. These are the difficulties of the First World.
Senator O'Toole spoke of the policy framework to encourage farmers into these developments. Farmers approach anything new with trepidation because they are comfortable with what they are accustomed to and where they see the outcomes. We have done much work in the Department and with Teagasc to help manage decoupling and the changes that have taken place. We have developed demonstration farms and the amount of interest shown is significant. There are questions for farmers including how financially viable these crops are and if they will get the same amount of money for growing an energy crop as for wheat at present.
The other issue addressed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan is tax and excise relief which addresses some of the concerns of farmers but there is still some work to be done in this area.
It is year to year now.
It is year to year but we have produced certainty in the targets. We will have €200 million available in excise relief by 2010 and we have public transport obligations too which are set in stone. There was a very good discussion on energy among all Ministers and the committee may have attended that meeting. We now have a more stable policy framework that will entice farmers to move into this sector.
The other issue is methane and the Senator's point is correct. What we have done is — even though it is not necessarily the responsibility of my Department — create a framework to help deal with such issues as nitrates where there has been a financial impact on farmers. I have supported grant aid towards several pilot projects that examine the production of methane and the use of grasses and manure and so on to capture energy. We have soldiered through a difficult time on the EU nitrates directive and there are greater efficiencies in farming as a result. The increased use of fertiliser and particularly non-organic fertiliser has resulted in greater efficiencies now. There is similar progress in much of the other work. The diet project is doing well and there are several feed companies who have seen how that project operates. The KK Club could have done much work in reducing the outputs from cows and the difficulties that they have. A great deal has been done and there is potential there.
On that point, it would be interesting in terms of the experiments including model farms and so on, to see the business model now and the attraction to farmers of growing bio-fuels in the light of the increasing cost of oil. Some five years ago the chances of a successful model was hit and miss. It must be changing now.
It is changing and intensive farmers incur significant energy costs. Anybody milking has to pay a good deal of money. We have not moved to a stage where farmers are energy self-sufficient. We have done some work on poultry. We have grant aided the fluidised bed combustion — that sounds like one is cooking the poor hens — but it is working. In other words, farmers use the waste from hens, including the manure and straw, to create energy and heat which goes back in to the hatcheries. The European model is significantly more advanced than ours. Slurry tanks are used and pig farmers produce enough energy for towns——
There is enough methane coming from County Monaghan to run half the country.
There could be but do not insult the people of County Monaghan. The Senator is correct but it is expensive as a technology and some of the technologies are not yet perfected. This is the reason we are working together——
It is more expensive to retro-install but that is the reason we need to move quickly so that people can develop or change from the beginning.
We have a pig concentration in County Monaghan along with poultry and there is another concentration in the south. Then there are smaller pockets everywhere. Since there is significant capacity abroad and we have only small capacity here, it does not make so much economic sense to develop such technologies. In Denmark they have several million pigs and so they have the capacity to do this, whereas we have only a small number. This is not to say it cannot be done. It is the reason we need to push the boat out from a technology point of view. My Department is linking closely with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan.
There are others resources that we have in abundance, for example we have a good deal of tallow and other waste products from food production. We have meat and bonemeal — let us talk about the elephant in the room — that is exported to Germany where it is used to produce energy there. In the matter of planning there are difficulties convincing the public that these are the right decisions and that there are no health consequences. This is a job we must all work at. I know it is not easy. I have been 21 years in this House and I know how difficult these matters are for people. These are the other things that should be done. There is potential for significant energy production in meal and bonemeal, tallow and oils as long as it is done properly. The technologies are superb. Instead of exporting our energy potential we should use it. These are policy issues that we must all address in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
On the overall issue, there is a significant learning curve for many people. It will be an all encompassing response by every sector. We all have to play our part: the public and the people in the industry. I will take guidance from the committee in the preparation of my response and in working on my policy framework. The work done in the committee can be filtered into the response of the Department on this matter. In the cool light of day, not today but maybe tomorrow, we could look at further responses in the Houses of the Oireachtas before the matter is brought to finality. A deal has been done, a target is set and we have to work within this. We have to examine the extent of the flexibility we have and the extent to which we can manoeuvre within the European Community.
Will the Minister speak on the Foreshore Acts?
The Foreshore Acts can cause confusion.
Is this the Minister's responsibility?
Although the Chairman was once responsible for this area I will confuse him now. The situation is that foreshore for energy matters will be transferred from my Department to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I will keep responsibility for foreshore matters appertaining to my sector, including piers, harbours and aquaculture. Everything else will go to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Does this include wind power?
Responsibility for wind power will go to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Although I have been anxious to transfer the section for some time, the reason it has not yet moved is we are dealing with a Department section in Clonakilty. The committee will appreciate that there are staff issues, but the policy decision has been made that the section will move to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in due course.
I thank the Minister for her contribution which was very interesting.
I am sure the committee is suitably confused now.
It is very much a learning process. It was very interesting. With the Minister's co-operation, the committee might invite her back in the near future as issues develop. I thank her and her officials for attending today and for being so open and helpful.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. an Wednesday, 16 April 2008.