Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2021

Implications of Climate Action Plan for Agricultural Sector: Teagasc

I remind members that, in the context of the current Covid-19 restrictions, only the Chairman and staff are present in the committee room and all other members must join remotely from elsewhere in the parliamentary precincts. The secretariat can also issue invitations to join the meeting on MS Teams. Members may not participate in the meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. I ask them please to mute their microphones when they are not making a contribution and to use the raised hand function to indicate. They should note that messages sent in the meeting chat are visible to all participants. Speaking slots will be prioritised for members of the committee.

The topic of this meeting is the impact of the climate action plan 2021 on the agricultural sector. The joint committee intends to draft a submission to the public consultation on the plan, so this meeting is vital to tease out the issues. I welcome to the meeting the following representatives of Teagasc, Professor Gerry Boyle, director, and Dr. Frank O'Mara, director of research, both of whom are joining us remotely. We have received their opening statement, which has been circulated to members. We are limited in our time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions, so the committee has agreed the opening statement will be taken as read in order that we can use the full session for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website and are publicly available.

Before we begin, I draw witnesses' attention to an important notice on parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If, however, they are directed to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, 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 are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Witnesses participating in the committee meeting from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether, or the extent to which, their participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I invite questions from members for the Teagasc representatives.

I welcome Professor Boyle and wish him well. He has been with Teagasc for some time but I read the other day on Agriland that he will depart in September. I take this opportunity, in case I do not see him again, to wish him well and thank him for all his work at Teagasc. I also welcome Dr. O'Mara.

I want to stick to one issue because I know there will be a multitude of questions. I thank our guests for the paper they have submitted. I am particularly interested in carbon sequestration in woody biomass and our guests have dealt with that matter in their submission, to some extent. One of the recurring themes is the potential in terms of calibration and the significance of hedgerows. In their submission, our guests referred to increasing perennial biomass via increased adoption of forestry, agroforestry, the use of hedgerows as shelter belts and what they offer in terms of verifiable options. Our guests tell us in their report that Teagasc is doing a lot of research in this area. It is a particularly interesting area. We, in Ireland, are familiar with hedgerows. It is a significant area and the more research we have, the better. The issue was raised this morning when we were talking about CAP and environmental initiatives. We sometimes underestimate the significance of our Irish hedgerows as they relate to that area. Perhaps our guests could touch on the significance of that issue and the extent of Teagasc's work to date on it. I know work is ongoing and Teagasc has not concluded all of its research. This is an area on which I would be interested in having feedback. Where are we with it now? What are our guests' plans to produce some substantial information and analysis that we can use? This is a significant area and we should not underestimate it.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I thank the committee for the invitation to the meeting. I acknowledge the kind remarks of the Senator and I will certainly miss meeting him at our annual Oireachtas briefings. He has attended several of those briefings and we very much appreciate his contributions.

I know the issue of hedgerows is of interest to many members of the committee because I have engaged in discussions with many of them previously. We are, obviously, very much in favour of planting new hedgerows but it is perhaps even more important to manage existing hedgerows to maximise their potential for carbon sequestration. I will ask Dr. O'Mara, who is director of research, to outline the various research and extension programmes in which Teagasc is engaged.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

Hedgerows are an important feature of Irish landscapes. We have quantified the length of hedgerows in the country and the total is somewhere in the order of 650,000 km. They are a huge part of our landscape when one considers that the average field size is somewhere around 2.5 ha and most field boundaries, as committee members know, are hedgerows. They have a role in carbon sequestration and storage. There is a difference between storage and sequestration. Our hedges store a lot of carbon in the woody biomass, the material above ground, and there is also quite a bit of carbon in the rooting system and so on underground. From the point of view of sequestration, the additional carbon that is added is of real interest. That can be in the form of planting additional hedgerows or managing our existing hedgerows to allow them to accumulate some more material or biomass. In other words, that would involve making them a little bushier than they currently are while still maintaining their shape and making sure they are effective as stock barriers and shelter belts.

As I said, we have quantified the length of hedgerows and we are now involved in research to look at the amount of carbon that is stored both above and below the ground. While we know that additional hedgerows or allowing the existing ones to get bulkier will add extra carbon, we are also trying to quantify more exactly how much extra carbon might be stored from the way we manage our hedges.

This is a very active area of work and we hope to have the results of it very soon.

Does Teagasc have a timescale regarding when it intends to complete some substantial piece of work, for example, a scientific paper or some concrete statistics on it?

Dr. Frank O'Mara

We have the concrete statistics on the length of hedgerows. I do not have an exact timeframe but it will probably be the best part of a year before we have significant information on the carbon stocks in those hedgerows. There are estimates around but we need more accurate estimates of the amount of carbon in the hedges but, more importantly, how much additional carbon we can put into them because that is the really important point. It is great to have a store of carbon but unless we are adding to it, it is not really taking any extra carbon out of the atmosphere.

I welcome the representatives from Teagasc. I wish to be associated with Senator Boyhan's remarks and wish Professor Boyle the best in the future. I have no doubt our paths will cross before his imminent departure but in case they do not, it has always been a pleasure working with him on occasions like this.

I have a couple of questions and top of the list is one about hedgerows. Senator Boyhan got in there before me. Following on from that, as somebody from Westmeath, which is not a Golden Vale-type area, I can confirm the figures given relating to field sizes and the amount of hedgerow. While I welcome the science and research on this area and all other areas, I would put some pressure on for timelines on when we might be in a position to say how much sequestration and storage there is per metre or kilometre of hedgerow. When do the witnesses envisage that we will be able to get down to individual farm audits and identify the actual carbon footprint of an individual farm, for example, an 80-acre suckler farm in Westmeath with ten fields of 2.5 or 3 ha each and hedgerows everywhere? When will we be able to identify an exact figure of what storage and sequestration is in the soil if it is a grassland grazing suckler farm? What storage and sequestration value do the hedgerows have? Will we be able to identify that this farmer is carbon-positive, neutral or even negative? How far away are we from that?

I would like to hear Teagasc's views on carbon leakage. While the witnesses have their job to do and are doing a fine job and we will collectively tick the boxes we have set for ourselves, are we creating an opening for carbon leakage? If we rewet all our bogs, reduce our herd, do whatever is asked of us and become carbon-neutral by 2050 but the beef requirements of the world are being met by Brazil, which has knocked down a hundred times more rainforest than we have wet bogs in the same length of time, that would not make sense in the overall global picture. While the science is the witnesses' end of things, I would like to hear comments on that.

I would also like to hear their comments on the fact that every document and proposal I have seen in the past six months has contained the statement "stable national bovine herd". Can the witnesses explain what they mean when they use that term?

I would also like to hear their opinion on an article I read in last week's Irish Farmers' Journal by Colm McCarthy regarding where carbon emissions are allocated.

Mr. McCarthy's argument was that we are production as opposed to consumption and we are allocating the carbon footprint to production whereas with a lot of product that is exported, its carbon footprint is credited to the consumer. I would like the Department's opinion on that. If the people who are consuming our beef were responsible ultimately for its carbon footprint, it would take much of the pressure off the agricultural sector.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I thank the Senator for his good wishes. He asked a number of substantive questions. I will deal with some and hand over to Dr. O'Mara.

Starting with my good friend, Colm McCarthy's comment in the Irish Farmers' Journal, he has been saying this for a long time, and, as a fellow economist, I absolutely agree with him. The theoretical position in respect of consumers paying carbon taxes is well established. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the practical policies that are in front of us. I guess as the years go by we will probably see more of that perspective coming onto the agenda but at present we are very much aware that the imposition in terms of restrictions is on production, in particular, on the products and associated carbon outputs.

The Senator asked an important question regarding timelines in respect of when we will have solid, robust information on an individual farm basis. I assume what he is referring to there is on a basis that we would be able to present data for the majority of farms in the country. At least that would cover the majority of production because, as the Senator will be aware, at present we have good information from the national farm survey, which is a sample of farms that are representative of the national farms in the country. We are able to extract from that survey robust carbon footprint information and also information on the basis of the volume of carbon that is produced on a per-farm basis, and that is statistically representative. We were doing this for a number of years. We publish this every year. In fact, we were particularly pleased to see that the European Commission took the decision some time ago to have a similar focus right across Europe in respect of the farm accountancy data network to which we supply the information. That is one source.

Most importantly, and Dr. O'Mara might elaborate on that, part of our strategy is to implement the measures that we have produced from the research contained in the so-called marginal abatement cost curve, MACC. We will implement those on farms through a programme we are calling the signpost farm programme, which will commence in the middle of next month. That will see us being able to measure carbon on a detailed basis across the country, admittedly, on a small number of farmers, but in a way that will provide additional information in respect of what is happening at farm level. That database will also be used to measure carbon sequestration using the most up-to-date equipment available to us.

In terms of scaling that up, part of the signpost programme is to involve ourselves directly, not only with the farming organisations and the food and meat companies but also with State agencies that have a similar interest, such as Bord Bia. Of course, we will work closely with Bord Bia to make sure that we are harvesting the information from its quality assurance programme that feeds directly in to providing the kind of information that the Senator recognises as being needed. Clearly we would then be in agreement.

As far as the signpost farm programme is concerned, I hope we would kick it off in the middle of next month. I would certainly hope that within a year we would have more of the kind of information that the Senator is looking for. Of course, we will put every effort then into making sure that is scalable and representative of the total farming situation.

I will hand over the questions on carbon leakage and what is meant by a stable, national bovine herd to Dr. O'Mara.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

I will begin by adding to the last answer from Professor Boyle in terms of the carbon footprint of individual farms. As Professor Boyle said, we have been doing this in the national farm survey but because those farms are all anonymised, we cannot discuss any individual farmer's results. However, we will be using the exact same methodology on these 100 farms and it will be great to be able to talk about real-life farms, to have demonstration events on those farms and discuss the actual figures.

To give the committee some sense of it, we have modelled the typical or average suckler farm in the country in the national farm survey and the amount of emissions that are offset by sequestration, according to our estimates, is approximately 50%. Around 50% of emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are offset by carbon sequestration in soils, based on our current estimates of sequestration. We are undertaking a major programme on carbon sequestration in soils. We are setting up the national agricultural soil carbon observatory, a network of very sophisticated measurement towers for measuring carbon changes in soil across the country. We will have about 16 such towers in the network which, for the size of the country, will give us one of the densest measurement networks in Europe, if not the world. As part of the research that will be conducted using that network, we will be looking at whether we can use remote sensing, such as satellite or drone data, to measure or estimate carbon sequestration so that we do not have to do the kinds of detailed measurements that we will be doing on the 100 farms in the signpost programme. Hopefully, we will not have to do that on every farm in order to get estimates of carbon sequestration.

Committee members are probably well aware of the carbon leakage issue and what it means but briefly the idea is that if we cut back on our production of food, particularly milk or meat, and the shortfall is filled by some other country which has higher emissions, there is no gain. Indeed, there is actually a loss to the overall system. This is a very real issue because Irish milk and meat has a very low carbon footprint. Ireland has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world for milk and the footprint for our meat is also very low. Therefore, if our production is replaced by countries that have a higher carbon footprint per kilo of milk or meat, then the world loses out in terms of the level of emissions entering the atmosphere. That is the carbon leakage argument but at the same time, the agreements we have signed up to contain individual country targets. We must live within those individual country targets and that is the conundrum we face. In our approach to this issue, we are always trying to find ways to reach our environmental targets without negatively impacting on food production from Ireland.

The question was asked as to what a stable national bovine herd means, which is often spoken about in the context of methane emissions. It means that we have stable emissions of methane or that we have stable numbers of animals. Obviously, different animals produce different amounts of greenhouse gases so the logical conclusion is to talk about stable methane emissions. The MACC that we produced in 2018 around greenhouse gas emissions set out scenarios for how the national herd might develop over the next decade. Broadly, there would be a stable overall number of animals in the country. We envisaged some increases in dairy cows and some reductions in suckler cows over that period, with one more or less counteracting the other.

That is the stable bovine herd.

I reiterate my thanks to the two professors and I send my best wishes to Professor Boyle as he moves on. I have a number of questions that relate, in the first instance, to the opening statement, which alluded to major reductions equivalent to 51% by 2030 that would require a substantial reduction in the amount of agricultural activity in Ireland. Does this convey that Teagasc is not confident that the assurances the committee has received regarding the separate targets for biogenic methane will offer the leeway for the agricultural sector that has been suggested?

I heard what was said in response to Senator Paul Daly's questions on carbon leakage and what appears to be the crazy suggestion that we would reduce the amount of production that might be in a country such as Ireland in order to import less sustainable product from places such as South America. To return to the Senator's point on consumption and production, we know why we encourage people in Ireland to move to electric vehicles - it is so that we contribute as consumers. If we were to take into account production and consumption at a global level, would this not lead to consumers and governments encouraging consumption of the most sustainable products? This would have a beneficial impact for countries that produce more sustainably and would encourage more sustainable practice. What is Teagasc's position on this?

It was mentioned that greenhouse gas emissions have risen over the past decade as emissions associated with the dairy herd have increased. This was followed by the statement that this has not been fully matched by a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from other cattle. It would be useful if Teagasc could clarify this. Do the witnesses suggest that it is the responsibility of the beef sector to reduce emissions to offset increases in other sectors? Many beef farmers are of the view this is where the strategy has been leading and the pressure on them is, perhaps, as a result of greater profitability in other areas.

The witnesses also mentioned the carbon footprint of Irish beef being low by international standards due to the close interaction between livestock and their feed. In the case of beef, this has a lot to do with the fact it is primarily grassland beef. Biodiversity and landscapes have also been mentioned. With this in mind, would it not be fair to say there should be an onus on promoting the most sustainable types of beef production, which is clearly our suckler herd, for example. When it comes to reducing cattle numbers, or when this suggestion is made, when we compile this with all other beef production, including factory feed lot, which is clearly much less sustainably produced, the easy target is a reduction in the suckler herd even though it is the most sustainable beef product we produce. Would we not be better to target increasing the profitability of our sustainable product as opposed to trying to use reductions in this regard to offset other sectors?

There was quite a bit of focus on the Ag Climatise strategy. Action No. 9 of the latter seeks an increase in the area of land under organic farm production to 350,000 ha by 2030.

From previous ministerial responses, we know that the Government strategy is to aim for the 2019 EU average of 7.5% by the end of the term. As such, it appears that 350,000 ha will account for approximately 10% of land. Is it not a wholly underambitious target that, by 2030, only 10% of land will be participating in organic farming schemes?

The Ag Climatise document states that research will be required into peat alternatives for the horticultural sector, but policy is moving beyond that. We are essentially facing the possibility of an outright ban on the harvesting of peat moss for horticultural product. The importation of horticultural peat is already happening in order to sustain the requirements of the horticultural sector. As such, I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' views on where we are in terms of providing peat alternatives to the sector or, in the absence of such alternatives, whether it makes sense to import that product, given my earlier points.

Professor Gerry Boyle

The Deputy raised many important questions. He will understand that some stray into the policy domain, which is not part of our brief, but I will nonetheless try to deal with the issues he raised. Dr. O'Mara will speak on the matters that I neglect to mention.

In our statement, we considered what the implications of the targets set in the programme for Government, in particular the 51% target, would be if they were extended to the agricultural sector in a simplistic way. Our assessment, as we state in the document, is that it would have a significantly negative impact on activity levels in the sector. We have conveyed that view to the Department and the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, and we would be happy to brief any other body that is interested in this issue.

Regarding the implications, it is important that there be recognition of some of the biological features of agriculture, not least that there must be animals to produce animal products. In other sectors, technology can change and decarbonise and the sector can still engage in productive activity. That makes the sector unique relative to other sectors.

Of more importance is an issue that has been in the scientific literature for some time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Teagasc and the CCAC have remarked on the important scientific information that is becoming available in respect of biogenic methane produced by animals, which is the substantial part of the methane produced in Ireland, being quite a different greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere and, therefore, has a potentially lower impact on the greenhouse gas issue or the potential for global warming. For that reason, we have been advocates for some time for a separate target for biogenic methane within the national targets, which will be determined over the coming months. That would give recognition to the uniqueness of this gas. Obviously, the level of the target is a matter for the Government.

The document before the committee and the work that we have done point to the need for the unique requirements of the sector to be taken into account in setting the national budgets. That is no different from what other countries are doing. The obvious example, of course, is New Zealand, which has a target for biogenic methane that is significantly lower than that for other greenhouse gases.

We are in complete agreement with the Deputy on carbon leakage. It makes neither economic nor environmental sense that a policy could lead to carbon leakage. All of us would be better off in a global sense if countries can produce goods in the most efficient way. It benefits consumers at the same time if those countries that are engaged in an efficient way in the export market also produce lower emissions. There is a win-win there all around. However, as we are aware, that is not the policy, at least at the moment.

I wish to amplify on the consumer approach. This can cut a number of ways. Clearly, if this is reflected in the prices consumers pay for their products, including in taxes and so forth, it could lead to consumers consuming more products that are produced in a sustainable way. Of course, it could also lead to a defensive action on the part of some countries which might want to defend their own producers against exports. That is also a possibility. Again, I agree with the broad sentiment of the desirability of having a consumption-based tax, but as I pointed out, that is not where we are at the moment.

The Deputy raised a number of other important issues. The approach depends on one's perspective. I have argued that we should start from a position where the Irish dairy and beef herds are not in opposition to each other but are interdependent. I am a little bit older than the Deputy and I can remember the situation in Ireland prior to the imposition of the dairy quota when we had far fewer suckler beef animals in the country. Subsequent to the introduction of the quota, farmers naturally looked to the alternatives and that led to an increase in sucklers from approximately 400,000 to, I believe, in excess of 1 million head by the early 1990s. The suckler herd has been declining gradually since. We all knew it would accelerate its decline post the abolition of the dairy quota in 2015. To some extent, we are experiencing a recycling of history.

As I am sure the Deputy will agree, the fundamental issue on which we are focused is to maximise the livelihoods farmers can generate, irrespective of the enterprise. That is the most important issue. There is no point in having a herd of suckler cows if farmers are not making a decent income for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, the data from the national farm survey show that only a tiny percentage of suckler farmers are making a sufficient livelihood. In most situations, were it not for the basic farm payments and other direct payments, those farmers would be making a net loss per hectare. Our job, along with the farming organisations and farmers themselves, is to try to enhance the opportunities for the creation of livelihoods.

I see nothing wrong with advocating an alternative - not to the exclusion of sucklers - of dairy-beef for example. I see nothing wrong with advocating that farmers consider contract rearing of heifers or indeed male calves as long as there is profit in it, in other words as long as those enterprises offer an alternative livelihood.

The Deputy is right, in that the carbon footprint of beef is low. That is primarily because it is an extensive system. The other side of the coin is that this also means that livelihoods are predominantly low on those farms. There is no doubt that this type of farming activity is sustainable in an environmental sense. When we discuss sustainability, though, we are careful to emphasise three critical dimensions in our annual sustainability reports, the first of which is economic. The farmer has to be able to make a living. That is at the core of sustainability. The second and third dimensions are environmental and social issues. Wrapping all of those up together and getting them to work requires a farmer to be able to change, make investments and have the education to enable him or her to identify and exploit opportunities. From a sustainability point of view, the core issue is the need to identify where farmers can generate a better living. A certain amount can be done inside the farm, and our job is to support farmers in being more efficient technically. We see a positive future for many suckler farmers, although not with the same level of suckler cows that are in the country currently. There will be a strong core of suckler farmers who, through their excellence in managing their herds, will be profitable. There will be other opportunities as well.

Dr. O'Mara will expand on my next point, as there are several important issues on which to focus. Regarding organic farm production, the targets in the farm-to-fork strategy would be very ambitious were they to be applied to Ireland. We must be sensible, in that we are starting from a low base of 5%. Teagasc has been involved in supporting this sector for a number of years and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been centrally involved in the provision of grant aid and so forth. That percentage was hard won. To be realistic, it would be a considerable achievement were we to double that target over this Government's period. The Deputy may consider it to be underambitious, but ambition must also be realistic. We are prepared to state that Teagasc has a responsibility to up its game when it comes to organic farming. That will involve us recruiting more specialised research staff and developing demonstration farms in collaboration with the sector. We will do our bit to promote organic farming, even more so than we have been doing for a number of years.

The issue of peat alternatives is significant for the protected crop sector, including mushrooms. Given what has happened with the production of peat by Bord na Móna, which was a major player not only in Ireland but in the export market as well, the only feasible alternative is to consider importation. That will be the immediate challenge in the next few years. I will not make any comment on it, as that is the policy implication, but I will comment on the need for research into identifying alternatives. I am glad to see that the Department, in its recent stimulus call, has prioritised this area for future research. Importantly, Teagasc will be collaborating not just with institutions in Ireland, but with institutions internationally to find alternatives. It will take a number of years to find those alternatives, but I have no doubt that we will. I tend to be optimistic when it comes to the potential of research to find solutions. In the meantime, though, the Deputy is correct that the only alternative is to consider importation. That is the position as I understand it, but Dr. O'Mara may wish to elaborate.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

There is not much more to say on that. It is the only option at the moment for most horticultural producers. The volume of peat that was being used for domestic horticultural production accounted for a small proportion of the overall volume of peat that was being extracted. To the best of my knowledge, it was in the low single figures as a percentage of the total.

It had been anticipated that while peat extraction for fuel would cease soon, horticultural peat extraction would continue for up to ten years. This issue has come very much as a surprise to the industry and an unanticipated issue for it to face in the next year. There are no good alternatives at the moment. The best option in respect of replacement would be that perhaps 30% of the peat would be replaced. That is what we appear to be looking at. There is currently no alternative to peat for the capping of mushrooms. Therefore, there is a big challenge for research to find ways around those issues.

Professor Boyle dealt with most of the issues raised by Deputy Carthy. On the beef issue, he compared our Irish grass-fed beef with feedlot-fed beef. Grass-fed beef is really a sustainable product because of the carbon sequestration associated with the grasslands that the cattle are raised on and the biodiversity in that type of production system. There is very little "food versus feed" competition. In other words, the animals are not eating food that could be eaten by humans. From an animal welfare point of view, the animals are very much in their natural surroundings. Beef production in Ireland is by and large very sustainable. That applies to both suckler beef and dairy calf to beef production. In fact, the carbon footprint of dairy calf to beef production is even a bit lower than suckler beef production, because the emissions from the cow are carried or assigned to the milk that is produced. Both types of beef production are very sustainable systems. I agree with the Deputy that we should be seeking to improve the profitability of suckler beef production here in Ireland in any way we can. On the way in which the document portrays the figures, it was not our intention to imply that one needs to compensate for the other; it is just the mathematics of the way the emissions have gone over the last 20 years or so. There was a gradual decline up to about a decade ago and there has been a gradual increase in emissions over the last decade, which by and large has been associated with the rise in the dairy cow herd. At the same time, there has been a small drop in the suckler cow herd. It is not a question of one compensating for the other, but mathematically, that is effectively they way the figures were adding up.

I welcome Dr. O'Mara and Professor Boyle. Indeed, I extend the good wishes that my colleagues have sent to Professor Boyle and I wish him well in the next few months before he finishes up. I thank him for his work with Teagasc over the years.

Professors O'Mara and Boyle have acknowledged the beef versus dairy situation. It seems that until the 2010s our emissions were reducing, largely because the suckler herd was reducing and then it turned around. Now we have a situation wherein any gains that we have made through the reduction in the suckler herd have been unfortunately negatively offset by the increase in the dairy herd. Had that reduction continued, we would be at something like 15 megatonnes of agricultural emissions per year instead of 21 or so. The professors have acknowledged that and it is a most significant point on which we should probably dwell more - perhaps not in this session but in further sessions.

The professors have mentioned an EU study which shows Irish milk to have the joint lowest carbon footprint in the EU.

Bear in mind 90% of our milk product is exported. Does the study include the carbon footprint as a result of export?

The same section in the statement refers to the international context. The United Nations understands the biggest threat to global food security is climate change. Many of our development agencies such as Trócaire and Concern are working with some of the poorest communities around the world which suffer extreme hardship and famine as a result of climate-related floods, droughts, water scarcity and food insecurity.

More than one quarter of the world's population, approximately 2 billion people, do not have regular access to nutritious and sufficient food and the Covid-19 pandemic only makes matters worse. The painful irony is industrial agricultural systems with high greenhouse gas emissions, such as we have in Ireland, contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss. We must get our house in order. The best thing we could do to prevent increases in global hunger and malnutrition and to avoid future breakdowns in food and livelihood systems is to ensure our agrifood policy and processing of food do not contribute further to climate change.

On the issue of biogenic methane, action 4 states that "Biogenic methane such as methane from ruminant livestock is different from other greenhouse gases because of its biological origin and its relatively short life span in the atmosphere." That statement is quite misleading. Biogenic methane and methane are the same molecule, as the witnesses are aware. They are the same thing and have the same effect in terms of global warming potential, irrespective of their source. The biogenic refers to the source. It is misleading because it implies this methane has a different effect on global warming potential when it does not. It does not have a shorter lifespan than fossil-derived methane in the atmosphere, regardless of whether its source is biogenic. Methane, whatever its source, needs to be reduced drastically if we are to tackle climate change.

The point below that on the Teagasc submission refers to the GWP100 and the GWP* systems of accounting but GWP10 and GWP20 were not mentioned. If GWP10 and GWP20 had been mentioned, one would have stated methane had a global warming potential of 88 times the warming effect with those systems as with GWP100. It is short-lived compared with carbon dioxide but converts to carbon dioxide after it breaks down. It is a potent greenhouse gas and is not, by any means, an insignificant one. No matter what system we use, we cannot get away from that.

I ask the witnesses to give us more information on the most important line in the statement, that reducing methane "can be associated with a cooling effect". That is critical. On the issue of biogenic methane, the statement notes that "the CO2 produced is effectively new carbon released from permanent carbon stores and therefore must be treated differently because it inputs additional CO2 into the atmosphere".

The reality, however, is that increasing herd numbers inputs additional CO2 into the atmosphere also. I think there is a sleight of hand here. This line gives the impression that methane that comes from ruminants is somewhat less harmful than fossil-derived methane, and that, scientifically, is not correct. Teagasc goes on, on the last page of its submission: "Because of the significant difference between biogenic methane and fossil fuel derived CO2, scientists propose setting a separate target for biogenic methane in climate targets." That is the subject of debate, but I do not believe - and the witnesses may correct me if they know more about this - that the IPCC or the United Nations have proposed any change in how we account for biogenic methane.

I will ask the witnesses some questions. I know we do not have much time, but if they would like to revert in writing, I would appreciate that. Can they tell me how much the beef and dairy herd have grown in numbers in the past five to ten years and what the increase in nitrogen fertiliser has been over that time? That, of course, is a very significant greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of, I think, over 200 times that of CO2. In Teagasc's 2020-27 sectoral roadmap, it shows projected increases in cattle numbers from 1.4 million to 1.65 million and increasing output from the dairy sector. Could the witnesses give us an indication of the expected overall emissions increase from the beef and dairy sector attributed to 2027, not on an efficiency-per-cow basis but from an absolute emissions point of view? I do not expect them to have these numbers right now, but if they could revert, I would appreciate that.

As for the issue of hedgerows, the document Teagasc sent us refers to sequestration from hedgerows, and we know hedgerows are excellent for biodiversity and should be promoted. I wonder how impactful they are from a carbon sequestration point of view. Perhaps the witnesses could estimate the numbers quoted in their note to us to give us the national picture. How much hedgerow coverage have we got in Ireland, and what is the suggested coverage of hedgerows over the next few years? I think Dr. O'Mara said we have 650,000 km of hedgerow, but how does that translate into an acreage basis? I think it was Dr. O'Mara who mentioned that 50% of methane emissions can be offset by sequestration on the average suckler farm. Is that a temporary or a permanent sequestration? How is it verified, and is there a scientific basis that is aligned with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's, methods for compiling its emissions inventory?

Professor Gerry Boyle

I thank Deputy Leddin for a very comprehensive set of questions. I will hand most of them over to Dr. O'Mara in a moment.

Regarding the comments the Deputy made previously on the trajectory of the dairy herd and the beef herd, the introduction of the quota in the first instance and then its removal are responsible for a lot of those trends, in my opinion - historians will differ, I am sure. However, when the quota was brought in, dairy farmers expanded their suckling numbers. At the time there were a lot of coupled subsidies available. Teagasc's predecessor, An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, ACOT, supported these at the time as farmers were scrambling to find viable alternatives. Then when we came up to the post-quota period there was a lot of pent-up demand for young farmers in particular to get into dairy production.

This was for the very simple reason that relative to other enterprises, it was quite profitable on reasonably small amounts of land and animal numbers. That is what is behind the expansion. We will get to the detailed figures in respect of the trends. Deputy Leddin referred to our roadmap publication a number of months ago. It is something we do every few years, and we make an honest attempt and give our best estimate in respect of where the sector is going and what are the critical driving technical factors. Nonetheless, if we were to combine the dairy and beef herds into the national herd up to 2027, as in the roadmap, and even beyond that to 2030, overall the trends would be consistent with what we call the stable herd. In other words, there would be rough balancing out between the two herds.

This underlying assumption was critical to the publication of the set of targets in the previous climate action Bill, introduced two years ago by Deputy Bruton, when he was the Minister. We presented our marginal abatement cost curves on the assumption that if the technical measures were implemented, and on the assumption of a stable national herd up to 2030, we would be able to sustain a decrease of between 10% and 15% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It was based from 2005. This was the calculation, based on the very same figures underlying the estimates that were in the roadmap publication.

I absolutely agree with Deputy Leddin's comments on food security globally and the threat of climate change. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that for a number of years we have been working very closely with Irish Aid, the Department of Foreign Affairs and NGOs on the international agricultural development agenda. We have been doing a lot of work in Irish Aid countries. We are very familiar with the challenges because of climate change in respect of agricultural production in many of these countries. It is a fact that we are an exporting country and where it is more efficient for countries to import food at reasonable prices we certainly can support the alleviation of the worst implications of climate change. Of course, it is equally desirable that countries themselves are able to produce to their optimum. This is where our technical support work comes in.

It has to be borne in mind that there is a vast difference with regard to sustainability between an exporting sector that is dependent on technologies such as grass-fed systems to those dependent on feedlots and the feeding of concentrate animal feed. This harks back to the earlier discussion in respect of the importance of a low carbon footprint and sustainability.

Before Dr. O'Mara picks up on the biogenic methane issue, I have a comment in respect of the points made on hedgerows. What we are saying is we have to do the research here in respect of the potential carbon sequestration that hedgerows can provide and their potential in future. One of the issues we are concerned about, given the length of hedgerows in the country, is their management.

Our biodiversity specialists are concerned about the typical management practices, which are not as conducive to enhancing biodiversity or dealing with emissions as they could be. The initial work has to be done in quantifying the biomass involved. Based on that, we will be in a better position to estimate the level of sequestration. It will depend on the multiplicity of species and so on.

The Deputy rightly put his finger on the importance of verification. This issue does not just extend to hedgerows, but to all other potential sources of sequestration. That is why we embarked on the signpost farm programme. Among other considerations, it will examine rigorously quantifying emissions and sequestration. The regulatory regime needs to be worked out into the future, and I am sure that will happen. Being optimistic, we hope it will lay the basis for carbon farming, as it is called. Whatever way the regulatory environment takes shape, there is no doubt in our minds that it will have to be based on rigorous scientific measurement and verification if it is to have value in the marketplace. We hope that, as time moves on and the regulatory regime sharpens up, the measures we are laying in place now in terms of protocols will be consistent with whatever regime emerges.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

I will provide some more facts about hedgerows in light of the Deputy's interest in that matter in particular. Ireland has 690,000 km of hedgerows. Per hectare, we have approximately 150 m of hedgerows. The figure is probably a little higher on grassland farms, given that tillage farms tend to have bigger fields and fewer hedges. The average width of those hedges is approximately 2.7 m. As the Deputy rightly alluded, just having the hedgerow is acting as a store, but the additional sequestration is what is important. We get that by either planting additional hedges or allowing the existing hedgerow cohort to add more biomass. Current research is focused on quantifying the potential for sequestration through hedgerow management or further planting. That work is in progress, but it is an active area for us. While hedgerows might not have as much sequestration potential as soils, they are nevertheless an important sequestration route that we want to quantify better.

I will quickly answer another question before addressing biogenic methane. The Deputy asked about the EU study that we referred to in our opening statement. It was published by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in 2010 or 2011. It only went as far as the farm gate, that is, the emissions inside the farm gate, but that accounts for most of the emissions in a dairy or beef product. The life cycle analysis of dairy products in particular suggests that approximately 90% of the overall emissions occur inside the farm gate, with processing and transport representing small amounts. Of course, factoring in the food waste that happens after food leaves the supermarket shelf is a whole other scenario. As the committee knows, quite a bit of food gets wasted.

We were not trying to give the impression that biogenic methane was irrelevant to global warming. The reason biogenic methane is being spoken about so much now has to do with the Paris Agreement, where we shifted from talking about controlling greenhouse gas emissions to controlling global warming and we put a target on the amount of warming.

A molecule of methane is a molecule of methane, wherever it comes from. The issue with methane that comes from enteric fermentation in animals is that it has come from plants taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis. The animal eats the grass or other plant and respires most of it back out as carbon dioxide, which is the carbon cycle. Carbon moves from the atmosphere into plants, into animals and back out, effectively, but with ruminants some of the carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere is put back out as methane. Methane stays in the atmosphere for about 12 years or a half-life and reverts into carbon dioxide. Again, it is part of the carbon cycle and the carbon that is in methane was originally carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That is different from fossil-derived methane whereby the carbon dioxide therein was taken out of the atmosphere a million years ago or some such. That is why biogenic methane is singled out. We were not trying to say that it does not have an impact while it is there. In terms of its warming impact, it is part of a fairly short cycle of 12 to 15 years so in theory, if we keep its concentration in the atmosphere stable, there is no additional warming. On the other hand, if we emit carbon dioxide from burning fuels like diesel or petrol, that will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years and will contribute to warming over a very long period. That is why scientists are trying to figure out how we can account for methane and biogenic methane in particular in our climate targets now, when our focus is on warming rather than just on the emission of greenhouse gases. I hope that answers the question. It is a complex topic and one on which we could spent a lot of time but in the time available, that is the best answer I can give.

I will come back in briefly, if I may. The answer ignores the numbers issue, with respect. If we are increasing herd numbers globally, whatever about in Ireland, that increases levels of methane and we need to talk about that because that has a global warming potential.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

That is right, yes. As I said, if we keep the concentration of methane stable in the atmosphere, there is no additional warming, in theory. However, if herd numbers are rising and hence, emissions of methane are rising then there will be additional levels of methane in the atmosphere which will contribute to warming. If one looks at it over a short period of ten or 20 years, there is a lot of additional warming from that methane. This is where the importance of a stable national herd comes into play, as per earlier questions. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas if it is rising. Obviously, if it is falling, it can make a significant contribution to cooling, which is the point we made in our document. If it is stable, it is having neither a warming nor a cooling effect.

Deputy Fitzmaurice is next.

I wish Professor Boyle the best of luck in the future, when he retires. Ireland should be a country that can produce food efficiently. Everyone is talking about the climate but the first problem many people may face is food shortages as a result of what governments around the world are doing. I met Professor Boyle a few years ago in Leinster House and we discussed hedgerows. Do we have tonnage figures for the sequestration that is possible now?

Have we done any research on grass? Grass grows, it is eaten, it grows again and it is eaten again, but it is sequestering. Have we done anything on that? Have we done anything on heathers or grain? I read a report from Norway on grain. The witnesses spoke about biomass. Willow and miscanthus have both been disasters. Where is Teagasc's thinking with regard to anaerobic digesters? They can create electricity. They have a double use.

I would like Teagasc's view on the following. I got a call this morning from a guy in Louth, where some of Teagasc's guys are going around signing up farmers to basically go chopping straw. To make matters worse, it is barley straw. It is my understanding that we are trying to increase our organic herd to 8% or 10% or whatever it is. This equates to 350,000 ha. When one looks at the terms and conditions of the organics scheme, one sees that one has to use straw in the 50% of a cattle shed that must make up the lie-back area. Deputy Carthy touched on the issue of horticulture earlier on. What is Teagasc's view on this chopping of straw. I talked to a few people about it this morning and it is my understanding that, while one gets more slugs in the ground, one has to spray away more tannins. Is that correct? Are we defeating the purpose altogether?

In its document, Teagasc talked about peatlands and wetlands. What is its vision for people in Donegal, Mayo, Sligo, Galway or any other area which has mountains or peaty ground who are trying to farm, do the best they can and rear a family? Is the vision that such people should flood their ground for the sake of the rest of the country? What is Teagasc's view for the future? I will be very straight about my view. I heard people on about climate, food and the lot. We see the prices land reaches when there is a shortage. There are areas in the west, the north west, in Wicklow and in the Chair's own area that are really only suited to sheep or suckler cows. Dairying will not work in these areas. What is Teagasc's view on such areas and peaty ground? I have been watching Teagasc over the last while and it has made a fair bit of reference to the matter. What is its view? There is a new system for agitating in slatted tanks which allows the methane coming out of them to be reduced by 40% to 50%. Are there new technologies that will tick the boxes and get us through this?

How much research has been done over recent years? That is very important. Off the top of my head, I believe some work on this is done in Athenry. Everyone talks about what comes out of agriculture. If we do not know what it sequesters, we are giving the incorrect figure. Have we given the wrong figure over many years? When will Teagasc be able to give the right figure that includes the sequestration potential of all the hedgerows about which we have talked, the grass and all the different things that grow, to put it simply? On top of that, how much research has Teagasc done with regard to forestry? Am I correct in saying that, when the goods are being divvied out, the carbon credits arising from sequestration from forestry do not go to the agricultural sector but rather are spread between a few sectors? If these credits come from agriculture, they should come back to that sector.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I have met Deputy Fitzmaurice previously and we have discussed matters on a number of occasions.

I recall a discussion about hedgerows in particular. He raised this issue with me previously. At the moment, we have an estimation of the level of sequestration in our hedgerows. It is outlined in our submission, if memory serves me. There is quite a wide range and, obviously, the purpose of the research is to narrow that range. If we could have solved all the problems and addressed all the issues, we would be in a very good place, but we have to start somewhere. The Deputy will be aware that at the moment, in the context of the so-called effort-sharing agreement, there is a limit on the number of removals that can be included. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, most of that is taken up by forestry. Even if, therefore, we could identify in a comprehensive and rigorous way the sequestration potential from hedgerows, we would not be able to get credit for it at the moment. There is no doubt that the situation is constantly changing, and we hope we will be well ahead of the curve by the time it is needed nationally to include sequestration from hedgerows.

The same applies to most of the other areas. Obviously, we have information from research but that is not the same as being able to state categorically that something will apply to every farm in the country. It gives us a good idea but it is not robust. It is certainly not sufficiently robust to be included as a credit in the so-called national inventory of greenhouse gases or, longer term, to be included part and parcel in a carbon farming or trading regime. Nevertheless, the Deputy is absolutely correct. The way in which the research is heading is to get firmer estimates of the sequestration potential of our farmlands, our mineral and organic soils, our grains and the contribution of different mixes of ryegrass and legumes, including multispecies swards and so on. We are putting major effort and resources into addressing that issue. The Deputy may say it is a bit late but we have had a considerable agenda over recent years and our production of marginal abatement cost curves was of tremendous benefit to the agricultural sector. I would like to think we are ahead of many European countries and, indeed, further afield in that respect, but there are many other areas we have to research, as the Deputy pointed out.

As always, and I acknowledge the Deputy is very conscious of this, farmers make up their own minds. They can be presented with technical information on the best outcome in any given number of situations but they will make up their own minds, and encouraging them to do so is often a greater challenge than producing the research results. For example, we have been carrying out research on clover for several years and some really important results are emerging from that work. In Clonakilty Agricultural College, for instance, we have demonstrated the significant potential that clover has to replace chemical nitrogen, but the greatest challenge now is persuading farmers that that will work in practice. The same applies to our research on alternatives for calcium ammonium nitrate. We have identified protected urea, as it is called, as an alternative that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions with the same efficacy in terms of dry matter production. Farmers have to come to that decision themselves, however, and that takes time and support from throughout the industry. It is another dimension that is as important as research.

I am glad the Deputy raised the issue of anaerobic digestion. It is a hobby horse of mine and I am a great supporter of it. It is the ultimate example in the agricultural system of the circular economy. I certainly think there are opportunities, although, like with everything else in this area, subsidisation is necessary in the early stages.

We do not have a regime that is similar to the one north of the Border. In any rural community north of the Border, one will notice the prevalence of anaerobic digesters, which is not the case south of the Border. We are doing a small amount in that respect. We are about to commission an anaerobic digester demonstration plant in Grange. It will demonstrate how one can use grass silage and slurry to produce biomethane. We plan to be able to sell that surplus biomethane into the national gas grid. In the future, that will be an alternative for farmers. Grass is a phenomenal source of energy that we convert into human and animal foods via animals. It has several other potential uses, not least, in terms of energy, in the production of electricity and biogas. Who knows what future research will show can be produced from this crop which we produce with such efficiency?

I will leave the question on topping straw to Professor O'Mara because it is not part of my competence.

On the point raised by Deputy Fitzmaurice about our vision in respect of uplands, wetlands and so forth, I have two perspectives. First and foremost, I go back to the point that we certainly see the ability of the farmer to generate a livelihood as being the critical element of sustainability. That extends to, and is a particular challenge in the context of, the areas of special natural beauty that we all value. We know from research that these areas are maintained in best order when there is agricultural activity. We have very good examples in that regard, not least through the Burren LIFE project which has demonstrated that time and again, as have many of the other LIFE programmes throughout the country. We are very supportive of those programmes.

I have a particular interest in uplands because I live in an upland area. The Deputy is absolutely right that in many cases there is no alternative to beef production in these areas. In my area, there is very little sheep production so it comes down to beef. Dairy tends not to be very suitable. In some cases, it is not possible to have forestry and so on because of restrictions relating to the hen harrier. There are very few alternatives for farmers in these areas. They need to maximise what they can produce off grass, given all the limitations of those areas, and they must have access to direct payments to support the preservation of farming in the areas. Our vision certainly is to promote those uplands in such a way that a combination of appropriately designed environmental supports maximise the income the farmer can obtain from farming activity and provide a decent standard of living. That is really the issue. It is what we try to do through our sheep programme in particular.

The Deputy mentioned rewetting peatlands and so on. I am always of the view that if farmers are to be presented with options, it should be for each farmer to make up his or her own mind. Obviously, farmers will not make decisions until they have done the sums, so to speak, and looked at competition between the alternatives. That is what everyone else would do and farmers are entitled to do that. Our view is that it is ultimately a decision for the farmer. I certainly hope that recognition will be given to the necessity of maintaining farming in upland areas.

I visited Glenwherry farm, a fantastic farm in Northern Ireland which is being managed by the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise our counterpart on the adviser side in the North.

The college came up with the important insight that we need to farm our sheep and animals but also farm the environment. In other words, all of us, including Teagasc, must view the environment as another enterprise that farmers have to manage appropriately and they must be compensated appropriately for farming.

New technology was mentioned. Teagasc must always be ahead of the curve. Dr. O'Mara will talk about this issue, which we referred to in our statement. We are doing work on feed and slurry additives. We hope that some of those will come on the market and will do what they say they do on the tin. Sometimes there can be excessive optimism about the potential of these various additives, so one must guard against what I call optimism bias. We like to think that some of those that we are currently researching will come through in a positive way.

The issue of whether carbon footprint is measured appropriately was mentioned. I think what is being referred to is the difference between gross emissions, on the one hand, and the adequate accounting of removals, on the other hand, so that we get at the net figure. Clearly, that has been to the fore for Teagasc over the years, particularly concerning the national inventory and the target set for agriculture. Teagasc in its research always tries to identify opportunities that can improve the footprint. We certainly pursue them to the point that they are included in the national inventory. One practical example is the replacement of calcium ammonium nitrate by protected urea. Research was able to demonstrate the lower footprint that arises from using that source of nitrogen and the national inventory was amended. As we move forward in this area, particularly given that carbon farming may emerge on the agenda, more and more of that precise work will be required to establish a value for carbon at the individual farmer level. Dr. O'Mara may wish to pick up at this point.

I ask the witnesses to please speed up their answers as three or four members have questions and we must finish at 4 p.m.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

I will give a quick answer to the question on straw chopping, on which I am not an expert. Tillage soils, by their nature, tend to be lower in carbon and organic matter. When we keep tilling these soils, we run down the organic matter in the soils compared with grassland. This can be bad for soil health and soil function. One way to address the issue is to chop the straw and return it to the soil. In a year where straw is scarce, it is a very valuable and dear commodity. In a year where it is plentiful, it can be hard to give it away in some parts of the country. For two of the last three years, straw has been pretty scarce and very expensive. Obviously, it would not be a good outcome for the country if we ended up not having enough straw to meet our needs.

I will not discuss technologies in any detail but I will refer to pages 3 and 4 of our statement which set out our approach to the issue. The first part is to implement the measures that we already know will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the measures that were in our MACC. That is what the signpost programme is about and we have said that these measures could deliver a 10% to 15% reduction in absolute emissions from the sector. We need to go further than that so the next big part of our strategy is to research additional technological measures that could further reduce emissions from both methane and nitrous oxide.

The third big part of our strategy is carbon sequestration.

It is to see how much of the residual emissions that would be left after one does all the mitigation one can, and how much of that can be offset by carbon sequestration. I am going over that just to illustrate that developing new technologies is a very important part of what we do. There are some quite promising technologies in the pipeline, including some relating to reducing the emissions from stored slurry. However, they are still at the research stage. We will have to take them through to fruition and see how they work in practice when they are deployed. I am hopeful that there are a number of technologies we will be able to put forward with potential to reduce emissions in the coming years.

I believe Professor Boyle and I have covered most of the areas the Deputy mentioned. I will make a final point on the bogs. Most of the bogs in the country are not drained. They are hill bogs, mountain bogs and so forth. Those bogs are not emitting carbon. If anything, they are probably still sequestering some carbon. It is just the bogs that have been drained in the past that are emitting carbon and where the focus is on rewetting as one possible option. As Professor Boyle said, it will be up to every farmer to figure out if the compensation for that is worth it for him or her.

I will be brief and to the point. I thank our guests for their attendance today. One of them said that without the payments for work in the farm schemes at present, farmers would be working at a loss. I fully agree with that, but I would go a step further. I know many farmers who are on farm schemes and, unfortunately, they are working at a loss. Only for the off-farm income of a partner or wife or their own off-farm income, they would be wiped out.

What type of environmental schemes are proposed to come on stream and what type of payments are there for them? Have the witnesses any indication of what will happen? We are currently looking at the rural environment protection, REP, scheme that is being proposed. There was a promise, with carbon tax and so forth, that no farmer will get less than €10,000 in this new REP scheme, but it appears that it will be €4,700. If that is the case, it is a disaster for farmers. That is the one they were depending on; it was the great REP scheme that was started previously. There is talk about the same amount of money now, and perhaps even less than when it was started over 20 years ago. If that is the compensation for people paying carbon tax and if that is the thanks they are getting, it is turning people very sour. The farming community is starting to seethe with anger. The carbon tax has not delivered, and it is rural areas such as the area in which I live that are suffering most. There was no greenways funding from the carbon tax, although that is outside the farm sector. However, it is frustrating people more.

My other question relates to dairy farmers and suckler farmers. There is talk of a reduction in agricultural activity in Ireland and of herd numbers dropping. Most people in my constituency might not have more than 50 cows, but if we take an average of 50 cows or suckler cows, to what number will they have to reduce to comply with the regulations that are coming on stream? Would the witnesses be able to give us those answers?

In addition, we discussed peat moss earlier. This is an absolute disaster. The new solution for Ireland is that if one cannot, one will not be producing anything, but we will import everything in through the back door. That is not a solution. We are getting it hot and heavy from the garden centres and others. They cannot understand the idea of importing peat moss into the country instead of producing it ourselves, and working towards a solution while producing it ourselves.

I would appreciate it if the witnesses would answer some of those questions.

Professor Gerry Boyle

Unfortunately, I do not have answers for two of the Deputy's questions. The first one concerns the nature of the environmental schemes, how much they will be worth and so forth.

I am afraid we do not have any more insights than members do at this stage. The only issue that is quite different is the payment by results pilot which is a departure from what was there in the past. We must wait and see how that works out.

Similarly, the Deputy asked an impossible question in respect of the potential likelihood, if any, of a reduction in cow numbers to achieve whatever environmental targets or budgets will ultimately be set. I simply do not have the answer to that. We have looked at a variety of scenarios, depending on the scale of the potential reduction which might be required, but it is nearly impossible to answer that question in any precise way because we do not yet have the information on the targets. It brings us back to the point that the key assumption in the old climate Bill was that of the stable herd. We have talked about that already and its importance for the overall ability of the sector to continue to make an adequate living for the people who work in it and also to achieve an overall reduction in gaseous emissions.

I agree with the Deputy's comments on the challenge some farmers, particularly livestock farmers, have in making an adequate living and on the importance of farm employment, which is hugely important and has, no doubt, been affected to some extent by Covid. I would certainly like to think farmers would be very careful that their farming activity does not eat into the household income they generate off-farm but also, and equally important, that it does not eat into the single farm payment. When that starts happening it can be very corrosive when trying to manage normal household expenses.

I also thank both Teagasc officials for coming before us and wish to be associated with the remarks to Professor Boyle. In the Ag Climatise report the expansion of forestry by 8,000 ha per year is cited as one of the big ambitions to further the sequestration of carbon. However, the Minister stated in the past month that that target will not be met this year. For years, we have had complete mismanagement of the forestry sector and that deters new entrants. Can the targets set out for sequestration through forestry be met if reform of forestry is so slow in bearing fruit? Do the witnesses have any idea of what impact delays in the licensing process will have on the sequestration targets?

Has the Minister asked Teagasc to complete a full economic analysis on the likely implications of the European Green Deal for Irish farm profitability? The IFA indicated it had asked the Minister to do this but we have not heard anything from it since.

I am aware that Teagasc is conducting research on grass management which has made findings about the introduction of clover, which Professor Boyle raised earlier. Is any evidence available to show whether there is any difference between the CO2 storage capacity of, shall we say, old grass versus new grass?

Professor Gerry Boyle

I will respond briefly and Professor O'Mara might take the question on old grass versus new. I thank Deputy Browne for his comments and good wishes, particularly as they are from a fellow Tipperary man. I must state an interest here, as I always do, that I have a small forest myself. We have been very fortunate. I believe it was 2014 when agricultural emissions could be offset against forestry and agricultural land. I will be positive for a minute. There is no doubt that the level of plantation farmers undertook 30 years ago and more is benefiting us now, not least in terms of timber production and so on, and especially in commons sequestration. We are benefitting, and will benefit up to 2030, from the historical level of planting that was put in place.

As Deputy Browne rightly pointed out, the problem is that the current level of plantation is well below the national target and way below the levels that will be needed to replenish the forest stocks for carbon sequestration post-2030. This is a huge concern, obviously. Teagasc has been involved with the Department and the National Council for Forest Research and Development in the past couple of years in actively promoting an afforestation campaign. It is a difficult area. I do not have to go into the views that some non-farming people, and indeed some farming people, have in relation to forests. That was before there was even an understanding of the carbon sequestration potential of forests. There are whole other issues. We can speculate as to the reasons for the very disappointing level of planting that is going on. A new group has been set up to look into all of this and I agree with the Deputy that the matter is very urgent.

The Deputy asked a question on whether Teagasc has been asked to undertake any analysis on the green deal. The answer is "No." We have been asked, and we continue to work with the Department, on the whole impact of the climate change scenarios, those in the programme for Government and the international commitments that Ireland has entered into. There are many ancillary issues, but I see that issue as being the primary driver behind the green deal. We are certainly working on that.

We are in the difficult situation where we do not yet have a firm indication of what targets will be attached to the sector. We expect this in a couple of months and we will continue to do the work we are doing. The Deputy can be assured, however, that the issue of implications for Ireland of the whole green agenda, including climate change, is very much at the top of our agenda. We are continuing to work on this and look at different scenarios. That is very much in train. Perhaps Dr. O'Mara will answer the last question.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

Our old pastures are different for carbon storage than newer pastures. The theory, as I understand it, is that the more productive a pasture is at growing grass then the more carbon it will sequester. That is the theory. We will do a good bit of research in this area over the coming years and how that might be modulated by deep rooting species, as one might have in a multispecies sward. That is one of the questions we will have to answer, but in general the new, more productive pasture will sequester more than an older, unimproved pasture.

Some people call for consumption-based emissions. If that was the basis then Ireland would be 6.4% higher in our emissions if we were to move to a consumption-based emissions. We must, therefore, be careful what we wish for.

The speakers referred a great deal to ongoing and long-term research, but what are the short-term reductions envisaged in agricultural emissions in response to the five-year carbon budget programme and sectoral carbon budgets proposed in the new climate Bill? They will be over five years, so it is a very short timeframe. Teagasc acknowledges on page 22 of its marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, document that increased efficiencies do not necessarily lead to reduced emissions and can, in fact, lead to an increase in emissions. What does Teagasc intend to do to address that, which is probably the Jevons paradox?

In terms of feed additives and their potential to increase efficiency, is it not true that additives are added to feed indoors? If we are to rely on additives for reducing our emissions, what does that mean for our reputation of having a pasture-fed beef and dairy herd?

Another topic is not climate-related but relates to ammonia. I hear that the EPA has recalculated its figures for ammonia upwards. I am not sure if those figures have been reported lately, but they are significantly higher than was estimated. Teagasc has mentioned a move to protected urea from calcium ammonium nitrate, CAN, in a bid to reduce nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas. What are the implications of moving to protected urea for ammonia emissions? How does Teagasc foresee us being able to reduce both nitrous oxide and ammonia, given the health implications of ammonia emissions?

Professor Gerry Boyle

I take the Senator's point about consumption-based taxes. I should have added that they are not on the table at present and are unlikely to be for some time, if at all.

She raised an important point about short-term versus medium to longer-term actions. When we talk about short-term responses we are arguing from a position of existing research and existing knowledge. That was the basis of our MACC curves. All those technologies have been tried and tested. The challenge now is to deploy them onto farms. They are ready to be rolled out on the farms. Many farmers have adopted them but, typically, one finds in an adoption process what has been characterised as an S curve turned sideways or a sigmoid curve. At the very early stages there tends to be very low levels of adoption. Some farmers at the frontier adopt and then they can influence others around them. It is the same situation here. Farmers have to change on a number of fronts and we are not naive enough to think it is going to happen very rapidly in the early stages, but we think it will pick up momentum.

That is why the signpost farm programme has been devised, to focus particularly on demonstrating to farmers how they can benefit in a real way from adopting the known and existing technologies. As I said earlier, we are not in any way underestimating the challenge of persuading farmers to change. For example, if one is a farmer who has been buying 18-6-12 fertiliser for years from one's co-operative or merchant, it is very hard to change overnight to a product one does not know anything about or perhaps the merchant might not have the knowledge and information. It will require what we believe to be an all-industry response to get the adoption of the type of changes that are required and to make the quick impact that the Senator and everybody else is concerned about.

The Senator is absolutely right about feed additives. Most of the existing technologies we are looking at are designed for indoor systems. Our challenge is to adapt those to grass-based systems. We are in complete agreement with the Senator on the desirability of doing that.

I will leave the question about ammonia emissions to Dr. O'Mara because that is his area of expertise.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

Briefly, the main form of nitrogen fertiliser used in this country is CAN, which is associated with emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. The main alternative fertiliser type available and which is used in many other countries is urea. We use some of it in Ireland, but much more of CAN than urea. Urea is associated with emissions of ammonia. Protected urea is the one that hits the sweet spot in that it is a urea that does not produce ammonia.

It is low in both nitrous oxide and ammonia, which is why it is the fertiliser type we would advocate as the main nitrogen source on our grassland farms.

Page 22 of the Teagasc document refers to increased inefficiencies leading to increased emissions. How are we going to square that curve?

Dr. Frank O'Mara

Is that our MACC document? I do not have it here.

It is page 22, where Teagasc acknowledges that increased efficiencies do not necessarily lead to decreases in emissions, but, in fact, have led to increases in emissions.

Dr. Frank O'Mara

That can be the case. Generally, increasing the efficiency of a system is a good thing to do in that we are getting more for what we put in. That translates into reductions in an agricultural system and into reductions in carbon footprint, and it can translate into reductions in overall emissions as well. However, if there is not a reduction in the overall level of activity, there can be a situation where we are reducing the carbon footprint but we are increasing the overall emissions because there is more activity. That is not to say efficiency is not something we should not seek in any case. We talk about the sustainable production of food, which means we have to get as much food out for the inputs that we put in. Therefore, efficiency is a very important part of the repertoire of things we want to bring to bear on agriculture.

Professor Gerry Boyle

To add a quick point which is brought out in our presentation, there is one very good example where we get both a reduction in carbon footprint per unit of animal or per kilogram of output, or whatever it might be, and we get a reduction in total emissions. That is the case of slaughtering animals at an earlier age, which gives that double dividend. That is one example.

It is relevant also to the earlier discussion on the stable herd. Obviously, if there is a stable herd and we can reduce the footprint, we reduce overall emissions. The risk is that there can be a rebound effect, as we call it. If a farmer generates more profit because of being more efficient, then there is an incentive to increase numbers and activity. That is the difficulty. If we can hold activity level constant and push down the footprint, that is where we get the real dividend from efficiency.

I wish Professor Boyle the very best of luck in the next phase of his career. I ask him to put on his hat from the Climate Change Advisory Council. As he knows, a statutory function is to be provided for the Climate Change Advisory Council and the climate action (amendment) Bill will set out a five-year carbon emissions cap for the country. That has to be rubber-stamped by the Dáil, although, sadly, just rubber-stamped. Sectoral caps will then be put in place without any consultation with the Oireachtas whatsoever.

My concern in regard to these sectoral caps is that they are five-year caps but agriculture needs a long lead-in time to bring about change. My concern is that when we hit 2025, and the Department of Transport and the Department responsible for energy have kept their hands in their pockets, so to speak, the statisticians will then turn to agriculture and tell it to reduce stock numbers overnight in order to try to achieve our 2025 or 2030 targets. Can Professor Boyle comment on the built-in incentive that is now being put in through primary legislation for other Departments to do as little as possible and let agriculture carry the can in the fourth or fifth the year of the implementation?

I want to come back to the broader issues and the issue of the structure that is there in terms of climate targets. As we know, climate targets are designed by industrial countries to deal with the bulk of emissions coming from industry, cities and intensive agriculture. In Ireland, 37% of our population live on 96% of the land mass in rural areas and we have only two cities with a population over 100,000.

Our challenges and issues are very different from those of any other EU country. It is about managing our land use and our dispersed populations. In that context, an inbuilt industrialised-country bias is being adopted here and enacted into legislation that could have a detrimental impact on the economy. Take, for example, beef production. We all accept that Ireland, as a net exporter of beef, is the most efficient producer within the European Union. The environmental targets as they are currently structured will see the decimation of the Irish beef industry, which will be replaced with beef coming from South America. If it comes from the Amazon basin, it is 35 times more carbon intensive than the beef from Ireland and that is before it is exported to Europe. While that is okay from a climate calculation point of view, it has a detrimental impact in terms of global warming. Our guests might comment on that.

The issue of biogenic methane is related to that. Deputy Leddin highlighted the issue well. The difficulty is that environmentalists look purely at the figures on this matter rather than at the source of the methane. The methane coming from agriculture is part of a biological cycle, and as long as numbers are maintained, that biological cycle will remain in equilibrium. Disappointingly, while the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill pays lip service to biogenic methane, it will not enshrine in law that it should be treated differently. Professor Boyle mentioned the approach being taken in New Zealand. Will he elaborate on the fact that in that country, biogenic methane is treated in legislation very differently from other sources of methane that add to global warming?

Ireland is very involved in the scientific community in terms of the agricultural sector. Based on Professor Boyle's engagement with the IPCC and the community feeding in to that, does he think that the IPCC approach is likely to look differently at the various sources of methane and not treat them all the same, as is done currently, given that each of them has a very different impact on global warming?

Professor Boyle spoke earlier about the grass-based systems in Ireland in the context of his home place. Disadvantaged land types cannot be used for tillage or for growing crops to feed the public directly. The only way food can be produced is by converting stock into animal protein that can then be used to feed our population. In many parts of Ireland, that is the only way that such land can be actively cultivated to produce protein fit for humans. Based purely on the mathematical calculations being done at the moment, however, whether we like it or not, what will happen is if an overall cap is put on stock numbers in Ireland, dairy numbers will increase as the beef herd haemorrhages in terms of numbers. That will take much of the beef production off marginal land and let the land go fallow, which is not good in terms of food production and is definitely not good in terms of low-emissions protein production to feed our global population, particularly when we use grass-based extensive agriculture with its low-emissions profile.

How do we deal with the contradiction in terms of the environmental zealots and mathematicians on one side who are saying we have to comply with these figures rather than looking at what is best for our global environment, which is to maintain and support small indigenous farmers in rural communities across the west and north west of Ireland rather than shutting them down in terms of large beef production in South America or dairy production in other parts of the world?

I call Professor Boyle. I ask him to be brief because we are over time in our two-hour slot.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I would make one comment in response to Deputy Naughten's points. I assure him I will be in a better position to answer many of those questions in a couple of months when I have left this role because they were encroaching on policy issues on which I would prefer not to comment. I would agree-----

When Professor Boyle has a statutory role in terms of Climate Change Advisory Council-----

Professor Gerry Boyle

I am an ex officio interim member but Deputy Naughten will understand that in the deliberations of the climate council I have to maintain my fiduciary responsibility to that group also. However, despite what might be the outside perception, and it has been a challenge for me, I have been most impressed by the way the council has addressed agriculture. In the past two or three years the council was the first body in the country to identify the issue Deputy Naughten has underlined of the uniqueness of biogenic methane and argued for a separate target for biogenic methane. I have no reason to believe that, notwithstanding the Deputy's comments in respect of the Bill being discussed, that emphasis on the uniqueness of biogenic methane will be maintained. It is certainly something I will be articulating.

The Deputy and I are in complete agreement in respect of the challenges of disadvantaged land. I have been saying for some time that there are no alternatives to the production of human protein through livestock and also to the maintenance of those landscapes in such a way that the rest of us can enjoy them for recreation purposes.

I do not necessarily agree with the Deputy but we could argue the point. He is presenting a very pessimistic and worst-case scenario where there was a significant additional reduction in sucklers. As I said earlier, there is a strong future for suckling. I believe it will be maintained in the traditional areas. I accept that a premium price is required for a premium product. There will be alternatives in dairy beef and so on. It is not that long ago that the country managed quite well with substantially fewer suckler cows. If that future were to unfold I do not believe it has to be as pessimistic as the Deputy says but time will tell.

I thank the two Teagasc representatives for a very informative exchange of views.

On behalf of the other members of the committee I wish Professor Boyle well. I worked with Professor Boyle over many years and he has served the agricultural sector exceptionally well in evolving and very challenging circumstances. His ability to assemble and co-ordinate the research available to formulate the best policy and technology for the sector to prosper in a profitable and sustainable manner will be his legacy. His successor in Teagasc will have a hard act to follow. I wish Professor Boyle well in whatever future career he chooses to follow.

I thank Dr. O'Mara and Professor Boyle for a very enlightening discussion. It will very much help us to put our submission together for the Joint Committee on Climate Action. We appreciate them taking the time to give us their views and outline the work they are doing for the sector in assembling the scientific evidence that is vital for us to make the arguments for our sector.

I thank everyone for attending on what has been a fairly long day since 10.30 this morning. The meeting is adjourned until 9 a.m. on Monday, 19 April, when we will have a private meeting on Microsoft Teams.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 April 2021.
Barr
Roinn