Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 2014

Overview of Land Use: Teagasc

I welcome from Dr. Rogier Schulte, principal research officer, Teagasc, and Mr. Réamonn Fealy, spatial analysis unit, Teagasc, who will discuss land use with the committee.

I remind witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Schulte to make his opening statement.

Dr. Rogier Schulte

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to present to the committee.

It is timely to discuss emerging demands on land use. Changing land use is a slow process, not only in Ireland but internationally, that requires early engagement because it is difficult to manage. The time horizon is between 2020 and 2050. The European Commission is preparing a land use directive aimed at dealing with the challenges we will be discussing today. We would like Ireland to be in a position to inform this process rather than respond to it in ten years' time. Our work is based on numerous reports and scientific papers but this presentation will be a whistle-stop tour.

At global level there are two grand challenges facing agriculture, namely, achieving and maintaining food security and sustainability. By 2050, the world population will have risen to 9 billion. Particularly in emerging countries, there is an increase in demand for livestock produce. The demand for food is expected to go up by 60% by 2015. With sustainability, there is the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change on agriculture. Globally, agriculture is the largest consumer of fresh water. There is also pressure on biodiversity. Wherever agricultural areas expand, it commonly comes at the expense of biodiversity such as with the Amazon rain forests or high nature value farmlands in Europe.

The question we are facing is how we can maximise multi-functionality of our limited land resources. Ireland is no different in this respect and can be considered a microcosm of these global challenges. Food Harvest 2020 is an agricultural policy in response to food security concerns. We also have a raft of environmental policies coming from Brussels and national level.

What do we expect from our land? There are five high level demands on land use, namely, the provision of food, fibre and fuel, water purification, to sequester carbon to offset greenhouse gas emissions, to provide a habitat for biodiversity and a home for nutrients in the form of cow or pig slurry or sewage sludge from human waste. Over the past five years, Teagasc has conducted a scoping study on the extent to which we are likely to meet all these demands. Over the short term, up to 2020, there is a real potential to meet these competing demands for land but only if the process is managed from the very start. That was also the conclusion of the independent environmental analysis of Food Harvest 2020, published by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the past fortnight.

How can we achieve the targets set out in Food Harvest 2020? It can be done through intensification, keeping more animals on the same intensively farmed land base to achieve more output.

Alternatively, the same targets can be reached through expanding the land area intensively farmed and increasing the total number of animals but not the average stocking rate. The third pathway is what we call resource efficiency where we produce more from the same amount of input and the same number of animals. In reality, we expect that Food Harvest will achieved through a combination of all three pathways.

What are the implications for land use categories and land use change? We are not going into the detail of these figures here. These are historical figures from the CSO on the broad land use categories and our projections to 2020. The bottom line is that our projection is that Food Harvest 2020 per se will have limited impact on the broad land use categories in Ireland. The caveat is that within grassland, we expect an expansion of the intensively managed grasslands at the expense of the extensively managed grassland, mainly through new drainage schemes.

The second demand we are facing relates to greenhouse gases and climate change. This is where we expect our land to sequester carbon. The context of this debate is that, as we now know, it is extremely difficult to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions per se and that it is a simply a reflection of our ruminant dominated livestock industry. It is very difficult to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals. At best, we can aspire to flat line our agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the context of achieving the Food Harvest 2020 objectives. Half of that story is good news because it means a decoupling of production and emissions. Within the current Kyoto framework, we are stuck with reducing agricultural emissions.

Post-Kyoto, new thinking is emerging to allow agriculture to take credit for the good things it does in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly sequestering carbon in the soil and displacing fossil fuel emissions or imports through bio-energy and biofuel crops. We have carried out an assessment of the potential of this off-setting and currently our grasslands are sequestering carbon at a high rate. Our first generation forestry is also sequestering carbon. Our arable lands are considered neutral whereas our drained organic soils are a source of carbon emissions.

We also assessed the future potential. We may or may not be able to increase our grassland sequestration. It will be difficult because the rates are already so high. There is real potential to expand our first generation forestry area and hence increase carbon sequestration. There is also real potential for bio-energy crops as a sink for carbon. In December, we published a comprehensive report about it that is available on our website. The overall conclusion is that there is real potential for agricultural off-setting of greenhouse gas emissions but this will require land use change, forestry and bio-energy. Before that becomes a reality, there are many obstacles. These obstacles are regulatory, social and economic, particularly in respect of bio-energy. There is real potential here for competition with both food production and biodiversity objectives.

A third demand we ask of our land is the provision of clean water. Here we are led by the EU water framework directive, which is a very complex directive, but, ultimately, it comes down to two objectives. The first is to achieve good water quality status for all water bodies across the EU. If we have a quick look at how Ireland is faring - there is a slide with the 17 original EU member states with Ireland highlighted - we can see that the directive ultimately requires that all the bars are either green or blue. At the moment, Ireland is not in a bad starting position. It is in fourth place in the EU in terms of the amount of water we consider to be of good quality. From our agricultural catchments programme, we know that the nitrates action plan that has been in place for the past ten years will go a long way towards achieving good water quality status. One important caveat is that this is a very slow process. Our farmers have implemented many measures to protect water quality under the nitrates directive but it may take many years - ten or 20 years - before this translates into good water quality. This simply due to legacy effects in our soils.

The second objective of the water framework directive is more challenging. Wherever there is pristine water quality, this must be maintained. This is better than good water quality. Of particular relevance in Ireland are the freshwater pearl mussel and the catchments in which this shellfish is found. It is a very rare shellfish that is threatened with extinction across the EU and worldwide. These are the water bodies where we require pristine water quality to be maintained. Our overall conclusion here is that additional actions may be required to maintain these pristine water bodies. One caveat is that any actions must be assessed for cost-effectiveness. Often one can get the same result for an order of magnitude difference in the cost. In other words, some actions are very cost-effective and cheap while others can be very expensive.

This leads us neatly to our last demand, which is to provide a habitat for biodiversity. Here we are led by the EU habitats directive and the birds directive which have led to the designation of Natura 2000 sites across Ireland in which biodiversity is prioritised. That is the good news. The bad news is that according to the National Parks and Wildlife Service survey, the outlook for many of these habitats is either bad or poor. There are also concerns about high nature value farmland outside these areas. This has culminated in a negative judgement against Ireland by the European Court of Auditors, which has been well documented. Our conclusion is that additional action may be required to maintain the rich natural heritage of our landscape but, again, any actions must be assessed for cost-effectiveness.

This leads to the question of how we can manage these competing demands for land. We have a limited land base. How can we manage that? We know from our work that all our soils perform all functions in response to these demands but some soils perform some functions better than others. Some soils are better than others at producing agricultural output and some soils are better than others at purifying water. A solution could lie in the targeted management of our three scenarios - roll out resource efficiency where this is cost-effective. Intensification may be justified and desirable where we have the soils that can process the additional nutrient loads. Expansion may be the preferred option where this competes with high nature value farmland.

The next logical question is how this can be managed. A particular challenge we are facing is that it is often assumed this can only be managed through command and control or red lining areas for agriculture, sequestration or forestry, but this is not necessarily the case because it can also be managed through what we call soft incentivisation. Indeed, the EU, including Ireland, has a very long history and tradition of managing land use through schemes like the Common Agricultural Policy; the less favourable areas, LFAs; agri-environmental schemes; and the forestry scheme. There is no reason this could not also be applied to manage land use in a future context.

How is Teagasc addressing these issues? It is fair to say that most of our research, knowledge transfer and education programmes have focused on the resource efficiency scenario - getting more value and more output out of the same amount of input and land base. Examples are the carbon navigator, the grass wedge and the economic breeding index. We have a new programme called a soil quality assessment and research programme, which is funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, where we will quantify these five soil functions for more than 150 farms throughout the country. Another new development is our new sustainability demonstration farm, which we launched in October 2013 in Kildalton, where we will bring together all our knowledge in education, research and knowledge transfer on this resource efficiency. We also engage with policy. Our submissions to the review of the nitrates action plan, the climate policy and the development of the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, are well documented. We are also engaging at EU level. We have worked with the Commission on the bio-physical criteria of the new LFAs and are now leading a proposal under Horizon 2020 called LANDMARK which is aimed at informing the new EU land use directive.

The final point that may be of note to the committee is that, this year, Teagasc will launch the Irish soil information system, ISIS.

It is a five and a half year collaboration between Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency which produced the new high resolution soil map of Ireland. All of our soil information will be publicly and freely available on the web. The scale will be 1:250,000 which makes it applicable for use at national and regional level. It is not applicable at field or farm level.

We have two headline conclusions: in the short term it looks like there is an opportunity to manage our land resources to meet all targets but only if we manage them from the start. After 2020, however, hard choices on our land use may be required. These might even be choices between sustainability indicators and we might face questions such as do we want to offset our agricultural or greenhouse gas emissions, for example, through forestry. This may come at the expense of biodiversity, or vice versa, do we want to protect all biodiversity which will reduce the opportunity for carbon offsetting? Then we have to throw in the other demands, food production and water quality and we may be faced with very difficult choices. The one thing that is clear is that we can no longer address these challenges one at a time. We cannot deal with water quality this week and greenhouse gases next week. It requires a coherent response. This is a good opportunity for engagement, as we have started, but it is a slow process. We have heard the first discussions on a successor to Food Harvest 2020, named Food Harvest 2025. That may be a good opportunity to start thinking about these competing demands for land use to bring it into the process. This is a timely moment to engage with the EU process. We would like Ireland to be in a position to inform that process, rather than in ten years time having to respond to its outcome.

I thank the committee for its time. We will welcome whatever questions members may have.

I thank Dr. Schulte. That was very informative. His work has identified many of the areas that this committee realises need to be addressed and dealt with in some detail. A debate needs to start, even on some of the choices to be made. That is the aim of the committee’s work and Teagasc is our first witness. We said we would start where the preparatory and scoping work was being done to help us to navigate and the information provided is very helpful. I have some questions, but I will first call members to speak.

I thank Dr. Schulte for his presentation. The Chairman has outlined its importance. The target of 9 billion people by 2050, a 60% increase in food production in order to provide food security and a huge effort towards further intensification of production will create their own difficulties in respect of environmental quality. The problem is that in many parts of the world food will never be produced, unless some revolutionary way to irrigate desert and so forth is found. How does Teagasc hope to manage this? It is all a question of management. Professor Schulte mentioned incentives. The option is to use the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, etc. That shows the market side, on which the European Union and the CAP create incentives to manage and direct production.

I did not hear any mention of GM production, but I may have missed it. What are the delegates' views or opinions in that regard? Do they see it as part of food security in the future and what are its consequences?

I thank Dr. Schulte for his presentation. It is a big subject and it would probably take more study than an afternoon meeting to try to come up with some reasonable questions in response.

Are the goals of Food Harvest 2020 and the various environmental policies with which we must comply mutually exclusive? Is it possible to satisfy all of them through correct land usage? Dr. Schulte has said measures in the water framework directive need to be assessed for cost-effectiveness. Does that mean that we need to decide it is too expensive and that we should not do it and justify this, or what does it mean?

In respect of carbon sequestration in agriculture, we hear a lot about the amount of methane cattle produce, but can it be measured against how much is absorbed by growing grass? How will this be achieved in the future?

Dr. Schulte has said soft incentivisation is preferable. Are there studies of how effective that has been under the CAP and how was it achieved? Does he foresee farming practices being officially restricted based on soil type in an area, for example, it might be desirable to allow intensive or resource-efficient farming on soil that can manage it and restrict it on other soils, rather than allowing the market to decide?

The last time I saw a paper like this was in University College Dublin, and it was given by some of Dr. Schulte's predecessors. The focus obviously has to be on soil type and land use and, broadly, how soils function. That is one of the challenges. There are gleysols, heavy soils, limestone soils and deep soils. I appreciate Dr. Schulte is trying to aggregate them in averages, but how can he be more specific about the different soil types across the country in a way that will help achieve the 2050 goal? The most important thing he said was that in September this year the soil type identification would be updated. There have been changes owing to drainage and so on which have created different types of soil. How will that input into his process? In respect of carbon sequestration, habitat diversity and water purification, he has indicated that forestry has a significant role to play as a carbon sink. We only have 7,500 ha and aim to have in excess of 10,000 ha in forestry. Does he have any view on how we will achieve this?

The real challenge is to explore the compatibility of achieving a 60% increase in world food production by 2050 and the central and important issue of sustainability. Does Dr. Schulte agree that is the nub of the problem? We have so often been behind the ball in dealing with the European Union. Did Dr. Schulte say it was bringing out a land use directive for 2019?

Dr. Rogier Schulte

It is starting to prepare it now.

I salute Dr. Schulte because we have been notoriously slow. We should be making a major input into formulating this directive and be proactive, rather than standing on the sidelines, being reactive, until all hell breaks loose.

How much of an input will this research have into the shape and form of the directive? Let us be honest; some of the proposals that emanate from Brussels are well endowed with theory, but it is a challenge to apply them on a practical level.

I thank the delegates for bringing clarity to an enormous body of work. As Deputy Thomas Pringle suggested, we would probably have to lock ourselves in this room for a week to do justice to their research, but we will start where we can. The global soil challenges are big issues, but there is no mention of the almost 1 billion people we currently fail to feed. That is important to be put on the map alongside all of the other important matters.

Deputy Willie Penrose referred to wanting Ireland to inform the EU directive. I agree that Ireland should play a role in this regard. Are the delegates having to fight their way into that process or insert themselves into it? Why would we not be invited to become involved? Surely the European Commission would have an interest in what we and others might have to say. I wonder, therefore, where we stand in terms of our European counterparts. The soil map of Ireland is welcome, but we are late to the table in developing it.

In regard to Food Harvest 2020 and what is imaginatively being called harvest 2025 - that is for politicians to ensure we do not get too confused - do the delegates think the body of work they have produced is compatible with these strategies? Do they also need to insert themselves into that debate and, if so, how much support can we offer them?

My final question is whether the cattle on the page are bugged. I observe that they are wired.

I ask the delegates to provide further details on the sustainable model farm at Kildalton College. What trials and experiments will be conducted there? Has any thought been given to renewable energy that is land sourced to mitigate the output increases under Food Harvest 2020?

Dr. Rogier Schulte

I thank members for their excellent questions. I wrote them down but do not hesitate to tell me if I skip any.

The 60% increase in demand for food is a global figure, but there are very different challenges and demands around the globe. There is great potential for developing countries to increase yields through the use of science and technology and the application of simple things such as fertiliser. We are working closely with Irish Aid to lend our expertise in agricultural production and have established an international food security committee to co-ordinate that expertise with Irish Aid. Senator Susan O'Keeffe is correct to point out that 1 billion people are undernourished or hungry. That is one of the main drivers of our collaboration with Irish Aid.

There is a certain degree of confusion about the targets set under Food Harvest 2020. It contains only one volume target, that is, an increase of 50% in dairy and milk volume in response to the phasing out of the milk quota. All of the other targets are value based. The changes in the demography of the national herd and land use will be less dramatic than they may appear at first glance. For example, the projection from our Teagasc FAPRI Ireland model is that we will see an increase in milk volume and the number of dairy cows, but it will be partially offset by a projected contraction of the national suckler herd. As these additional dairy cows produce more calves, they will offset some of the suckler cow production.

On whether intensification under Food Harvest 2020 will increase pressures on water quality, this is where management comes in. Our agriculture catchment programme aims to measure the impact on water quality of intensive agricultural production in compliance with the nitrates directive. This is a complex programme, with complex outcomes, but the headline is that the nitrous action plan will go a long way towards ensuring good water quality across the board. When we bring our paper into the equation, a wide range of soils have the capacity to process additional nutrients. This is reflected in the good water quality status we enjoy in Ireland compared to many other EU member states. However, certain soils are approaching their maximum capacity for processing these nutrient loads and purifying water to quality standards. This is where target management comes into play. Some soils can cope with additional nutrient loads, whereas others cannot. The most important achievement of Food Harvest 2020 is that it has brought sustainability and growth in the agriculture industry to the same side of the table. The environment is no longer considered a constraint on production. We are now building on our green credentials. Bord Bia is promoting this as a point of differentiation on international markets. The sustainability of our systems will allow us to grow the industry. Clearly, we cannot afford to sit still because other countries are catching up with us rapidly. We have to keep working on sustainability.

That leads me to the question of genetically modified organisms, GMOs. This is a complex area. Perhaps members saw the most recent episode of "Eco Eye" which featured some of Teagasc's research on GMOs. We maintain a completely scientific position on the subject. There are clear benefits from GMO crops, but there are also perceived risks. We are researching both the potential benefits and the potential risks in highly controlled and regulated conditions and will await the outcome of our research before taking further steps. It is worth noting that the field of genetic modification is developing very rapidly and the distinction between conventional breeding and genetically modified breeding is beginning to blur in laboratories. It may become increasingly difficult to tell one from the other.

I will ask Mr. Fealy to speak on the issue of incentivisation.

Mr. Reamonn Fealy

I thank everybody for their questions. There is a comprehensive list for us to deal with. I agree with Senator O'Keeffe that we would want to be here for some time to adequately address them all but we will do our best.

On the notion of incentivisation, Deputy Pringle's question referred to the effectiveness of incentivisation in terms of soft incentivisation versus hard incentivisation. Most of the work in that area is conducted by my colleagues in the socio-economic area of Teagasc where the effects of different types of incentivisation are rolled out. However, as a general principle, we view the construction of a framework that avoids red-lining - another question we got a short time ago was on restricting areas of land for particular types of activity - as a particular path that should be avoided.

Traditionally, the way we have implemented changes and moves towards best practice was through the incentivisation model. Ultimately, if we are to expect our farm stakeholders to be the arbiters and those responsible for maintaining our land to the best possible quality in a manner that will lead to the best economic outputs and the best agricultural production outputs while maintaining environmental quality, we must have cognisance of the fact that it is a public good and a service to the public good, and incentives must be designed to meet that end. That is what is engendering the approach we are now examining with regard to a framework for moving into the future. A framework needs to be built that takes account of the multiple outcomes of agricultural land use in Ireland, be they for environmental quality or for agricultural productivity. To date, incentives have been designed with a singular outcome in mind and while the incentive is designed in such a manner that would bring one to that end, it has created what are termed perverse outcomes in that there have been negative impacts that might not have been considered previously.

Two examples come to mind. Traditionally, perhaps our management around upland areas and sheep has been shown in retrospect to be misguided, and the issue around overstocking has created some problems, particularly in the western areas. Also, in retrospect the expansion of forestry onto deep peatland soils with a singular species was not the most productive and useful way to go in forestry, but we are learning. As research, time and resources are put into these problems we are learning that there are better ways to approach the way we incentivise land management.

One or two questions were asked about soils. Soils and soil mapping is a particular area for spatial analysis in Teagasc. If I understand his question correctly, Deputy Penrose asked how we take account of the finer detail of soil variability in Ireland in a national mapping. It is a good question and one I have had to deal with for nigh on 16 years in my career in Teagasc. It is a challenging task. Depending on the classification system we use there are ten or 11 major soil groups in Ireland, and nine of them have been recorded as occurring in one field in Cork. Without referring to Cork, that suggests how difficult the task is of mapping our soils.

In terms of the way we approach this problem, with the production of the 1:250,000 map, we show soils in their generality and we show soils with the proportions that occur in a particular region. These are called soil associations. That is the classic industry standard, so to speak, in terms of the way soil mapping should be approached. We would always add a caveat when people are using the data that soil maps are not to be used for sight-specific purposes. For any reason, be it for the positive side of farm productivity or a farmer making an assessment within field or regulatory efforts, a national soil map should not be used at point or field scale.

Senator O'Keeffe asked if we are ahead or behind the curve. Interestingly, when I started in Teagasc we had drifted behind. We are now coming towards the front, particularly in light of the near completion of phase 1 of the Irish Soil Information System, ISIS, project. This is an opportune time to answer this question because we are at the end of phase 1 and it is due to be presented towards the beginning of March. For the first time we will have a comprehensive database containing all our soils information that has been developed over many years, since the mid-1950s, which will be available to the public via a web browser interface.

In this regard we have European colleagues and peers on our steering committee, and colleagues of mine have been invited to present to European organisations on the way we have developed that system. We are using leading-edge technology to both store and disseminate the information, and at this stage we are coming back into a position where we are beginning to lead the curve.

Dr. Rogier Schulte

I shall follow up on that regarding another question posed on our access to the Commission and feeding into that process. It is because of initiatives like the Irish Soil Information System, and a representative from the European Commission is chairing the steering committee of that project, that we now have a good working relationship with it, particularly its soils unit in Ispra, in Italy. Also, the paper the members have before them has been read and commented on by the European Commission. The landmark proposal to which I referred is a very large Horizon 2020 proposal on soil quality and soil functions that we are leading for that very reason. We are reasonably satisfied, therefore, with our working relationship with the Commission.

One of the benefits of being a relatively small country is that we have fairly short lines of communication here compared to other countries in that we have good collaboration between the State agencies and the various Departments that are involved. It is relatively easy to get a group of people together and come to a position compared to the position in some of the bigger member states that have to go through more layers, so to speak.

Deputy Penrose asked about the offsetting of carbon emissions. Our figures suggest that, currently, the offsetting equals one third of agricultural emissions in Ireland and that without action that will not improve because our first generation forestry that was planted after 1990 is beginning to mature. We will then go into second generation forestry etc., and the potential for carbon sequestration of those is lower. However, in a report on carbon neutrality as a Horizon point, we also identify actions that can be taken to rectify that, and increasing of forestation is an option in that regard. There is a difference in terms of the physical land base that in theory is available for additional forestry. However, the reality is very much restricted by regulation and social dimensions. It involves forestry, a change of enterprise type, a complete change of business, and there are also social barriers.

A question was asked on the bio-energy side. If as a country we want to seriously get involved in bio-energy, it requires a change in our energy infrastructure, and there would be significant economic costs involved in that. When we talk about bio-energy, like many other countries the thinking is moving away from liquid biofuels because liquid biofuels are considered in direct competition with food production. When we talk about bio-energy now we are talking about either bio-energy crops - willow, miscanthus - where there is less competition with food production.

We are also at a very early exploratory stage of anaerobic digestion of grass in combination with slurry. The one thing this country can produce very well is grass. If we chose to we could produce much more grass than we currently do, which could be used for bio-energy without undue competition for land. There are many obstacles to overcome before that becomes a reality. Again, it would require a change in the infrastructure of our energy distribution network. In terms of Horizon 2020, we should not pin our hopes on that but when we are talking about Horizon 2050, it is one of the options that could be explored.

And Kildalton?

Dr. Rogier Schulte

Apologies, it is an exciting initiative. Kildalton, as the committee will be aware, is our largest college. We have chosen Kildalton as the preferred site of our sustainability demonstration initiative because it is where we are training the next generation of farmers. When we talk about 2020 or 2050, it is the students who are in Kildalton now on whom we will be relying to make all these discussions a reality. Also, the Kilkenny area, or the wider catchment area there, is where we see a lot of movement in terms of Food Harvest 2020 - many new entrants into dairy production. What we are doing there is bringing together all our research on sustainable farming from all our research centres - our dairy production centre, our beef research, our tillage, our rural economy and our soil centres - to showcase options for best practice in sustainable farming.

It is always difficult in our line of work to make that link, from proving options at research level in experiments to achieving it on the ground on a large number of farms. This will be the focal point where we will demonstrate different options for different farms. There is no one blueprint for sustainable farming. We will demonstrate options - going back to the paper - on how to maximise what we get from the land, in terms of food production, water quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

As to whether we can capitalise on that natural capital that we have there, it will involve a large KT programme bringing both farmers and food business on board. Where Bord Bia has its Origin Green programme, this will be a focal point where all the stateholders can come and see at first hand what sustainable farming looks like. That will be rolled out over a seven-year period.

The first year, this year, what we are doing is a baseline survey. If we want to show progress over time, we have to know the baseline information. This year we are simply measuring everything and as from next year, we will introduce, step by step, further measures to improve efficiency.

Will it include habitats?

Dr. Rogier Schulte

We include habitats. There will be three phases. Phase one, which will be next year and the year after, we are simply implementing best practice which we would recommend anyway, that is, the grass wedge, the carbon navigator, the five-point nutrient plan and the ten-point biodiversity plan.

In phase two, we start looking at the infrastructure in the college. In terms of bio-energy, there is, for example, a large woodland in the area that is currently and traditionally largely unmanaged. We propose to manage that for it to have two functions - a public amenity function and a producer of energy for the college as a client. Bio-energy crops may be an option also for the college as an energy client.

In the third phase, we will look at emerging technologies. The ICT area in agriculture is developing fast. We expect that in five or six years' time it may become affordable for real-time monitoring of, for example, both soil conditions and animal movements, and we will start implementing those emerging technologies.

I have a couple of supplementary questions.

I was not sure how effective were incentives. Dr. Schulte stated that if it is tailored correctly it can be effective, but we do not know whether it has been tailored correctly until it is too late. I also question the cost-effectiveness of measures under the Habitats Directive.

I would make one last comment about the paper, which states, under Towards Functional Land Management, that, "reductions in greenhouse gas emissions do not need to be locationally bound – the spatial origin of reductions is irrelevant in the context of their global warming potential". It refers to it on a global level as well. Is that a dangerous concept to be giving to the EU in the context that one would export global warming reductions to the Third World and continue as before? Perhaps the question is not relevant to today but it is one that came to mind when I was looking at it.

Dr. Schulte mentioned additional action may be required to maintain pristine water bodies. I refer to the freshwater pearl mussel. It is a big qualification, that it "may be required". I wonder why it may be required. I understand the cost, but I wonder whether that is the only consideration.

Dr. Rogier Schulte

These are good questions also.

Let me start with the cost-effectiveness and then I will come to the pearl mussel as an example. We conducted a study in the Lough Melvin area. Lough Melvin is one of these pristine water bodies. It was a North-South collaboration because it is a cross-Border lake. We looked at approximately 20 different options to reduce loss of phosphorus, from the land to the water. Phosphorus was the biggest threat to that pristine water quality. We found that, in theory, many of the measures would be effective in reducing phosphorus flow, from the land to the water, but the difference in cost was significant. To give two extreme examples, one measure proposed in the scientific literature is to stop access of animals to the water bodies. In the Lough Melvin area, the challenge is that there is water everywhere and the stocking rate is low, and one would need miles of fencing to keep each cow out of the water. If one considers the cost-effectiveness of stopping that one cow from standing in the water, it is an expensive option. Another measure we looked at was soil testing for phosphorus and customising the fertiliser management accordingly, which came out as a cheap option.

It is worth noting though that such difference in cost-effectiveness is catchment-specific. The reason fencing was so expensive on Lough Melvin is miles per cow. If one goes to a different catchment with well-drained soils, few rivers or streams, and a high stocking density, that equation changes completely. Also, if one looks at other risks, such as transfer of pathogens, then in that equation for keeping the cows out of the water one comes up with a different figure for cost-effectiveness, but it can differ by orders of magnitude. In fact, in the Lough Melvin scenario, and if the objective is to reduce phosphorus, then the fencing option turned out to be 100 times more expensive than soil testing if one compares kilo for kilo of phosphorus lost to the water. It is a real issue.

On the additional actions for the pristine water quality, the pearl mussel is a peculiar case study. A map in the presentation shows the catchments where the pearl mussel is found. It is a slow-growing animal. It is particularly the young pearl mussels, the juveniles, that are sensitive to both nutrient loss and sediment loss. Basically, if there are excess nutrients and excess sediment, they get buried and sufficate at the bottom of the stream. Once they grow to adulthood, they can live for a long time. They can live for over 100 years. The challenge is that in all of these blue catchments shown the slide the pearl mussel has been found but in some of these catchments we - by which I mean the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as it, not Teagasc, conducts the surveys - find only adults remaining. These adults are almost relics of when those waters were pristine, whereas in some of the western catchments there are still viable populations that have a chance of breeding and continuing themselves.

This leads us to a peculiar challenge. Under the habitats directive, we are obliged to protect this species but nobody knows whether it is technically possible for these old pearl mussels to start breeding again in some of the more intensively used catchments - hence our hesitation in making straight statements on what should be done. To the best of our knowledge, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has now also prioritised the catchments accordingly. It has put the highest priority on those catchments where the pearl mussels are still breeding and there is a chance of success. That brings me back to cost-effectiveness.

We are better off putting money into small catchments, where there is a chance of success, rather than spreading it over a large area where it may be difficult.

The first point we are trying to make is that some of the soil functions are tradeable between areas while others are not. Water quality is a soil function that is not tradeable because we require good groundwater conditions for drinking wherever we are. We cannot increase the pressure on water quality in one area at the expense of another area and vice versa. Carbon sequestration is the other side of the extreme. Technically, from the point of view of the atmosphere or from a global warming point of view, it is irrelevant what catchment, what area or even what country the carbon comes from. The reason we mention it in the paper is that at regional and national level it may not be the most prudent approach to expect every farmer to put all his energy into soil everywhere for the purpose of carbon sequestration because not all soils are suitable for further carbon sequestration. We may get more benefits from trading between catchments or regions where people target carbon sequestration and food production. That is an area we are currently conducting research on so we do not have the final word on it. It will be a number of years before we are finished. We are doing a number of scenario analysis projects.

Deputy Pringle is correct to point out the potential difficulties at international level. Scientifically, the concept holds internationally and, just like in the energy market which we were discussing before we came in, there is a move for southern Europe to produce solar energy in summer and northern Europe to produce wind turbines in the winter. This can then be traded and it makes the most of our resources. The same could apply to carbon sequestration if we identify areas that are good at the carbon sequestration and areas that are good at producing grain It is a very difficult area will prove difficult even within the EU. Had do we value it and how do we incentivise countries? Will we export our problems to developing countries? That is a question mark that can be already placed over the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, REDD, vehicle under the UNFCCC where, as a country, we can invest in credits in developing countries. There is merit in it and it is a win-win scenario but there is a valid question as to whether we are exporting our problems. As a scientist, I am reluctant to say as there is no scientific answer to it. It is a matter of values.

One point we did not touch on is the green, orange and red table in the presentation. Do we have the prospect of turning the red area to green? I could put the question better but witnesses know what I mean.

Dr. Rogier Schulte

I will defer to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which produced the table. Our understanding from the report is that Ireland has met its obligations in terms of designating areas for Natura 2000 sites. Within those areas, the outlook for the future status of many of the habitats is poor to bad. This is the column on the right hand side of the graph. That is where the challenge lies. In our conclusion, we say that additional actions are required.

Scientifically, is it possible?

Dr. Rogier Schulte

Scientifically, protection is always preferable over restoration. The restoration of ecosystems is difficult, slow and expensive. It makes more sense to protect it in the first place if that is the objective.

This is the most important challenge in respect of the future direction the country takes with regard to its agri-industry. It is a major challenge. We wanted to invite the witnesses to appear to establish a well of knowledge. Resource efficiency and balance are the key issues. The diagram showing the same number of animals and the same amount of feed, with extra food at the end, is the optimum. If we can do that and use science and good management practices to do it, then we can argue the case about trading. We can ask what is the point in us not increasing our production in an area we happen to be good at just to achieve a percentage reduction in overall output, when other countries can to other things better than we can. There should be a certain level of re-evaluation, without compromising it. Our 20-20-20 targets need to be looked at in that light. The question is what to use to factor in mitigating allowances against energy, bioenergy and off-land wind energy. That is a hot topic but it is a land-based use while hydroelectric energy is a river-based use. Science and management will form a key part of this.

The project will take longer than the lifetime of this Dáil. It would be worth the time of the committee to see a host farm in the south east. We have a proposal to see a host farm for another reason. We could do worse than go to Kildalton to gather information. Trial work on forestry is also being done there. It is taught in the college and some information may be available. We could do worse than see what they are scoping out.

I thank the members. Although not many committee members were present, the questions show there is interest. We cannot overestimate the subject for the future of because we have put great stock in Food Harvest 2020, to be followed rapidly by food harvest 2025. We must also deal with the other issues. Perhaps the witnesses can make the slides available to us.

The slides are very clever; they are too clever for us.

The slides have beaten us. I thank the witnesses.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 10 a.m on Thursday, 20 February 2014.
Barr
Roinn