On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Michael O'Donovan, principal officer, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Mr. Liam Kinsella, agricultural inspector, specialist farm services; and Ms Miriam Cadwell, agricultural structures division. We appreciate their attendance. I understand representatives from Teagasc are in the Visitors Gallery and from whom we will hear later.
Irish Agriculture and Climate Change: Discussion.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
We have circulated a paper which is on the screen in front of us. I do not propose to go through it all but will revisit the main points.
Matters are moving very rapidly at European level under the French Presidency which is hoping to finalise the agreement on climate change by the time it hands over to the Czech Republic at the end of the year. As the joint committee knows, the strategy being discussed involves a commitment at EU level to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The burden is shared variously among the member states this is one of the countries with the highest target of a full 20% reduction in the non-emissions trading sector. This has particular implications for agriculture.
The flexibilities built into the package will probably deliver a reduction of up to 3%. The technologies available to us for mitigating emissions such as varying cattle diet and so on could deliver at best another 3% to 4% - my colleague, Mr. Kinsella, is the expert on this subject. As can be seen, there is a large gap between this figure and 20%. The only practical way to bridge that gap would be to reduce cattle numbers because cattle, owing to their digestion process, are the largest source of methane. This would entail a sizeable reduction in the size of the cattle herd. Were we obliged to do so, it obviously would have implications for the rural economy and the viability of suckler farmers, in particular. It also would have implications for land abandonment and undergrazing, an area in which there is a certain tension between environmental policies and objectives at EU level. While it naturally wishes to preserve the existing landscape and biodiversity, at the same time it has an urgent climate change target to meet and there is tension between the two.
Moreover, one should consider the issue of carbon leakage. Ireland sells 500,000 tonnes a year to the rest of the European Union which, regardless of whether we are producing it, will still want that quantity of beef. If it does not come from Ireland, it more than likely will be replaced by beef from South America which is produced in a much less sustainable way. In many cases, it involves deforestation, including the removal of South American rain forests. Moreover, the animals tend to calve less often, are slaughtered older and so on. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with a kilogram of South American beef are a multiple of those associated with a kilogram of Irish beef. In other words, while we might contribute to our national target, as well as the EU target, by reducing cattle numbers, ironically, the global effect would be to increase emissions.
Another issue of concern to us which has been included in the paper circulated to members is the question of forestry. Ireland has an active afforestation programme and while we are not reaching the requisite targets, we still are actively promoting it. Forests, new forests in particular, provide carbon sinks by sequestering carbon. As matters stand, the Commission's 2020 package does not propose to give any recognition to our sequestration by forestry.
Will Mr. O'Donovan repeat that point?
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
As it stands, the EU package to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 does not propose to take our forest sinks into account. There are reasons for this. For example, a scenario could arise in which other member states already heavily afforested and deforesting could become net emitters of carbon because the carbon that had been sequestered in their forests was now being released. For whatever reason, the Commission does not propose to give recognition to us. Ireland's position, as it has been pursued at EU level by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is that we continue to argue for its inclusion. Certainly, Ireland's argument is that were the target to change from 20% to 30% in the context of an international agreement the Commission hopes to secure at Copenhagen next year, forest sinks absolutely should be included in that target. In addition, were the Commission to fail to secure an international deal, Ireland's position is that it should revisit the question of including its forest sinks in the European Union's 20% target.
The Presidency is pushing matters as rapidly as it can because it wishes to put this issue to bed. Ireland is in discussions with the Commission and the Presidency about the flexibilities that could be built into the package to assist various sectors, agriculture in particular. The cost of carbon emissions could be built into the pricing of animal products and beef and dairy products. However, as it stands, the draft package contains no mechanism to so do and even were this to be done, there would be a question regarding the likely market effect. Inevitably, it would be necessary to pass on such a cost in prices to the consumer. However, what would happen were we competing with imports that had not internalised the carbon cost in the same way?
This has been a quick overview of what I consider to be the most relevant issues. Obviously, we will be happy to elucidate or answer questions.
Before I invite members to contribute, I should mention that with our officials, Deputy Aylward and I visited Brussels last week. We are highly conscious of the importance of agriculture to the economy and at every opportunity were at pains to point out its importance to Ireland and the unique position in which we find ourselves. We mentioned the point made by Mr. O'Donovan about carbon leakage, that were Ireland not producing the food, someone else would be. We also met the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as the Parliament's rapporteurs in respect of the 2012 to 2020 package. In addition, we met the Commissioner for Energy, to whom we also made our point, as well as our representatives and negotiators in Brussels, to whom we again stressed the importance of this issue. Consequently, we have played our part to the best of our abilities. The joint committee made this point in its report scrutinising the Commission's proposals and will continue to argue the case for agriculture. Although I come from an urban constituency, I recognise its importance to the economy.
The joint committee also is highly conscious of the non-inclusion of forestry. As such, we also pressed for its inclusion. We are being listened to in some respects; people certainly are highly aware of Ireland's unique position. However, were this to be done, it would be at a price to the taxpayer. For that reason, it is important the message should not be sent that we intend to do nothing. Where possible, everything that can be done should be done. In particular, Ireland should examine what has been done in New Zealand which has a similar problem to ours and should consider how it is dealing with this issue. I am anxious that Ireland be seen to be moving forward, in whatever way it can, to reduce emissions as much as possible without damaging the industry or putting in jeopardy the importance of agriculture to the economy. It is important for everyone to try to play his or her part. Moreover, those involved in the agriculture industry, from the farmer upwards, should be aware of this problem and that any relief gained on this issue will be achieved at great cost to the taxpayer. We should not allow matters to continue without the possibility of improving wherever we possibly can.
I endorse the Chairman's comments on the work of the joint committee. I welcome the departmental presentation, as well as the remarks made last weekend by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, on the issue. It is important to state that in recent years agricultural emissions have decreased on a managed basis by approximately 7% because of greater efficiencies, changes in the position on nitrates and so on. Although it will be extremely difficult for Ireland to secure concessions in the European Union on any issue, given the prevailing cool winds around Brussels - I do not refer to the weather - we must deal with this matter.
Although from a climate change perspective the easy way to do this would be to reduce cattle numbers, as Mr. O'Donovan noted, this is completely impractical. In so doing, we would strip ourselves of one of our basic industries and the aforementioned price to the taxpayer would be much greater. What has been the practice in other countries? Has the Department examined other countries' efforts to maintain a strong industry, strong employment numbers and strong and high quality production, while at the same time reducing emissions? Are there international benchmarks against which to position Ireland? What is the status of the Department's efforts in this regard? I note the Minister was working on this issue over the weekend. However, given the pressure being exerted by the Presidency to try to resolve the issue, has the Department a structure or process in place to deal with it? Are the agriculture partners, including the food industry and the various farm organisations, involved? Is there a sense of urgency within the agriculture sector to come up with a package that the Minister, the committee and others could go to the European Union with to try to sell? How far along is the package?
I thank Mr. O'Donovan for his presentation. It is the first time the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has appeared at this committee. In tackling climate change agriculture is the most important sector which presents the most intractable problem. We,therefore, appreciate that the Department's challenge will not be easy.
Will Mr. O'Donovan tease out the meaning of "shifting from a purely agricultural approach to a land use approach"? What is the potential to meet targets? The general consensus is that the sector should continue in the same way. While this is understandable, the corollary is that other sectors must pick up the slack despite being unable to do so. While agriculture is under strain, others are under considerable strain. To meet targets, on what scale would the suckler herd, for example, need to be reduced? Were we to include forestry in our measures, the exclusion of which I hope someone will explain, how successful would we be in accounting for a large portion of the difference? What is the potential in terms of bio-fuels? Much attention has rightly been paid to the fact that bio-fuel production globally has displaced food production with a negative impact. At European level, there is new thinking. I am asking about bio-fuels that do not have a negative impact on food production.
Teagasc may be in a better position to answer, but what is the capacity for growth? When Dr. Murphy appeared before the joint committee, he referred to producing bagasse from abattoir waste, but he also mentioned that it could be done from grass directly. Will Mr. O'Donovan discuss this matter? I have read up on the issue because I am not familiar with it. While I understand how methane is produced, I note there is a cattle inoculation programme in Australia. It may be an insensitive point to raise when the lack of inoculations for 12 year old girls is being discussed, but will Mr. O'Donovan comment on the issue? We are not familiar with it, but he may be.
Mr. O'Donovan's presentation has no more telling part than appendix 1. The scale of the agriculture sector compared to that in other European countries is dramatic and places us in a unique position.
It is good that the Department has attended because it has responsibility for the non-traded sector with the largest emissions. While the joint committee has a genuine desire to try to find new ways to make a positive impact on climate change and secure emission reductions, we have a pragmatic view on what is possible. For a number of reasons, most of us do not accept the simplistic answer - a reduction in stock numbers - to the question of agricultural emissions. It would not work. While it may solve the Government's problem in meeting targets, it would result in what is technically termed mass carbon leakage. The missing number of beef animals would be produced in another country where there is spare capacity or, more likely, an emissions limiting regime is not applied. It is nonsensical to argue that Ireland must choose between cattle and cars. The world needs to be fed, as its population continues to grow. While it will not grow as dramatically as it did in the past 20 years, it has more than doubled since 1960. As a large food exporter, Ireland must respond by increasing food production.
While there is more material in Mr. O'Donovan's written submission, there is an onus on the Department to be more imaginative in determining ways to make a positive impact on Ireland's agricultural land emissions contribution. For example, trying to have included forests as a potential carbon sink has been frustrating, as other carbon sink crops can be grown. Sugar beet and fodder beet are good examples. Certain crops are more carbon efficient than others. Given that farmers must decide, for example, between cereal and fodder crops, should we instead encourage them to grow maize for silage rather than grass? We should know the answer in order that in our discussions with the IFA, the ICMSA and Teagasc we can offer farmers realistic solutions. Instead of telling them to reduce their herds by 40%, we could tell them to switch from X to Y to reduce emissions by 5% to 8%.
Issues around CAP reform are not being discussed. Will Mr. O'Donovan offer some opinions in this regard? Climate change dominates EU debates, much more so than when I was a Member of the European Parliament. In almost every policy area climate change makes and will continue to make an impression on decisions. When the reform of CAP occurs, can Ireland expect payments to be linked with emissions, even loosely? What would the impact of this be? Are we preparing for such an eventuality?
Anaerobic digestion to produce methane has been partially mentioned by Deputy McManus. I know of a large dairy farmer less than five miles away from where I live who has planning permission for a unit to produce methane from grass. The gas produced will be piped to the local town. The company involved which is only two years in operation has been floated on the British Stock Exchange. There are new and exciting opportunities in directly producing gas from grass that may be attractive to farmers when compared with what they can make from producing milk or beef from grass. These are the ideas we must be open to examining and promoting. We must have an honest discussion with farmers so that they can make choices based on income, which is always the main driver. If they can make a choice between two crops, and support mechanisms coming from the EU are more linked to climate change, we must prepare our farmers and their representative bodies for that. Leadership must come from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not get a sense of that today. The officials have just given us a flavour of the topic today and could talk about any of these issues for hours. I would appreciate if the officials could revert to me on some of the issues.
I call Deputy Doyle, who must leave. I ask the witnesses to respond to him and we will take other speakers after.
Mr. O'Donovan said that Ireland's food production was one of the most efficient in the world in terms of emissions per unit of food produced. That is where we must start. We need a global tabulation method before we say that the graph shows us at 26%, the highest in Europe. There are a couple of reasons for that, which have been mentioned before. There is no point in us giving up a system of producing food that would be more efficient at producing food than whatever would replace it. Earlier in the year, the committee was in Sweden which has a high level of renewable energy, but it imports all its ethanol from sugar cane from Brazil. This looks great on Sweden's balance sheet but, globally, it seems terrible. Farmers in Brazil are taking out rain-forests and moving their cattle-based agriculture to that area, so that they can produce more sugar cane on better land. Globally, the figure for renewable energy is not that good. We must consider Ireland's unique position and impart the following message to people who make decisions in Europe. If we do not start at that point, we will sacrifice an industry for the sake of achieving a percentage figure while, on the bigger scale, carbon emissions will increase and we will get no credit for that. We should be careful and that is the message we must bring forward.
The point about forestry is interesting from the point of view of other European countries that might deforest and might be penalised. If we move away from a bovine-based, grass production system to a tillage-based system, grass is a carbon sequester compared to tillage yet it has not been taken off the top figure. It has not been netted off. If we move to more tillage, the fact that we plough more land means we will release more carbon rather than trap it.
Deputy Coveney referred to the other figure that must be taken from the top line. If we develop a system of second generation crops or crop rotation, brassicas as a break crop in tillage, we could take that figure from the top of our production, thereby pulling in carbon while we do so. We may be producing fuel but we are certainly sequestering carbon. A harmonised figure or calculation method has not been developed. Before taking decisions, there is no point in agreeing on this, even without the New Zealanders, if we are not all working to the same level. If we put a currency on our food production with a carbon value, in the same way we have calorie counts for example, unless we do so on a harmonised basis we are not comparing like with like. I apologise but I must leave the meeting for half an hour.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
I take the opportunity to correct an impression I did not intend to give, which is that we are saying there is nothing we can do with this and that it is someone else's problem. The Minister has repeatedly stated he fully supports Ireland's commitment to achieving the 20% target. Many of the questions are technical and I will ask Mr. Kinsella to address them.
The presentation focussed on the negatives more so than in the paper we circulated. An issue must be confronted and our concern is that we do not lose sight of the issue. The Department and Teagasc have worked on this for a long time. We have talked to the farming organisations and the industry, which has concerns. Next week we will have two meetings with the food and drink industry.
There were several references to land use change generally, including afforestation, planting of bio-fuels and growing other crops. Regarding the EU strategy, it is not just that they do not factor in sequestration by afforestation, they do not factor in any kinds of new sequestration. Even if we were to divert land from pasture and plant it with forestry, willow, miscanthus or brassicas, that would release carbon that is sequestered in the grass, as Deputy Doyle pointed out. Also, we would not get any credit for it towards the figure of 20%.
Regarding the reduction figure for the herd, along with other organisations we have come up with various figures between 1 million and 2 million head of cattle to achieve the target. Questions referred to practices in countries such as New Zealand and what we are doing in respect of abatement technologies. Deputy McManus referred to the inoculation of cattle in Australia, Deputy Coveney referred to anaerobic digestion and Mr. Kinsella will address them.
Mr. Liam Kinsella
Some Deputies raised similar issues. Deputy McManus asked what other countries are doing and what Ireland is doing. We have a significant research programme, partly funded by the research stimulus fund of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This examines different approaches to reducing emissions, including dietary manipulation and various approaches to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Deputy McManus's question on inoculation and vaccinations was raised some years ago and raised much hope at the time. New Zealand is putting great effort into researching this area. It seems that the diversity of the microflora in the rumina is so great that as soon as we take out one, another will take up the slack.
What is that?
Mr. Liam Kinsella
The rumina. There is potential in the area and significant research is continuing. We have some research on this and are in contact with various scientists around the world to find out what is going on and whether strategies pursued in other countries have application here.
Is there capacity to measure this in terms of Ireland benefiting? Presumably, the way it is calculated is based on a head of cattle producing an average amount of methane gas each year and the number of cattle is multiplied by the average amount released. Even if one is examining vaccinations to change activity and produce less gas while digesting grass, it would require European and international recognition. Calculating it sounds like a nightmare.
Mr. Liam Kinsella
This is obviously done through the inventory. In Ireland we have a sophisticated greenhouse gas inventory. We have a tier 2 inventory. We go beyond the straightforward calculation of multiplying the number of animals by a standard emission factor. The emission factor used is specific to Ireland and takes account of diet and other factors which impact. The next stage is to examine and research mitigation strategies. This research must be peer reviewed and examined by various scientists. It must also be agreed by the IPCC that it is a real mitigation strategy. After this, it is a question of adjusting the inventory calculation approach, which is a technical issue of modelling. If we had mitigation strategies, I am sure we would be able to find a way to reflect them in the inventories.
The issue of anaerobic digestion has been discussed a great deal. The technology in the production of methane from organic matter in anaerobic conditions has been available for a long time. Recently it has been considered as having significant potential. The science is not new. We put question marks against the potential of anaerobic digestion in the context of fugitive emissions, emissions that escape or result from the anaerobic digestion process. Work in Canada shows nitrous oxide emissions from the soil to which the digester is applied are 60% to 70% higher than they are from the application of raw slurry. Work in England shows some emissions escape from the digesters. If we are to pursue a strategy of anaerobic digestion to reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage, we must ensure the strategy works. We need to take measurements prior to strongly pursuing a line of promoting anaerobic digestion to achieve a reduction in emissions.
Deputy Coveney raised the matter of growing other crops to reduce emissions from the agriculture sector. Ireland enjoys strong agricultural animal production in terms of dairy and beef cattle. It might not be easy to change over the system to produce other crops. Most of the emissions are from animals. More than 90% of the diet is grass - this is traditional. Reference has been made to the fact that if one ploughs up grassland to change over to different crops, one will release carbon. It is my calculation that the carbon dioxide released from a hectare of land newly converted to tillage is approximately the equivalent of the emissions from a suckler cow. Reducing the number of suckler cows and making a hectare of land available for tillage do not have a major effect on overall emissions.
The point I was making was more about farmers making a choice between grass or maize silage as a feedstuff and the percentage it would be of the diet of beef cattle. Are we examining a way which would make financial sense to farmers and provide them with more guidance on crop choice implications for emissions?
Mr. Liam Kinsella
We are constantly in contact with Teagasc and I know it will be in contact with the committee. We know it has a focused research programme. One strategy which would reduce emissions from cattle would be to extend the length of the grazing season. This would improve the animal's diet and lower emissions would result. The farmer would gain because it would reduce his or her costs if less silage was required. The advisory strategies being followed by Teagasc such as improved nutrient management and changing farmers to the use of clover are having an impact. However, they are slow processes and take a long time to achieve 100% conversion. In this respect the work is ongoing.
The overall impact of and potential for technical mitigation strategies are small, even in the context of a 20% target, certainly in the context of a 30% target. These efforts are ongoing at research level. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food research stimulus fund is targeted at funding research which will find solutions to the problem. One project at UCD is examining the impact of maize and its potential to reduce emissions from cattle.
The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, came before the committee and stated 100,000 hectares were available for growing crops for bio-fuel purposes. Of this, 30,000 hectares was set-aside land. What has happened to set-aside land and land on which beet was grown? What is it used for now? Deputy Coveney mentioned a policy of encouraging people to move into certain areas.
Mr. Liam Kinsella
Recent years have seen a significant increase in the price of cereals. I have not precisely examined the figures but imagine there has been an increase in the planting of cereals. On policies to encourage the growing of other crops, we have a significant grant aid programme to encourage the growing of miscanthus and willow, two bio-energy crops. A grant is available to meet approximately half the substantial planting costs of these crops, but the uptake has not been large. These are long-term commitments by farmers and perhaps not enough marketing has been done to give them confidence that the market will be available in the long term to justify considerable expenditure or investment in year one. They need to have such confidence that someone will buy the crops in years 15 and 20.
They do not get anything back for three years.
Mr. Liam Kinsella
With miscanthus, a return is made after a short period because of the annual harvest. With willow, it is a much longer period; it could be up to six or seven years before a return is made, even with the payment of the grant.
Does the Department work with the IFA and the ICMSA on the climate change issue? Does it have any contact with them? Is a common approach taken to making people conscious of reductions without damaging the industry?
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
From the Minister down, we are in regular contact with the farm bodies on a range of issues, of which this is only one. Members would have seen some of the statements from the farm bodies in response to what the Minister, Deputy Smith, had to say at the Teagasc conference last week.
The impression may come across from ourselves and from the farm bodies that at this stage we are focusing purely on the problems, but that is not the case. We are all searching hard to find solutions. At the beginning of my presentation, I mentioned that between 3% and 4% of a reduction in climate change emissions from agriculture was available from the abatement technologies. Those are the technologies Mr. Kinsella described. There would be international scientific consensus on that. That is the extent of what those technologies can deliver. Therefore, we still have to bridge the gap.
Deputy Coveney mentioned that instead of using grass as a feedstuff for animals it could be used for the purpose of generating methane. That is the type of practice we have to examine. We are not sure about its potential, but it must be examined because we accept that the 20% target will not go away.
This raises the important point of setting certain targets that are realistic. The impression I get is that Mr. O'Donovan reckons a 3% reduction in emissions will be obtained from abatement measures, which he is fairly confident will work and will have a good impact. Has the Department set out in any way how the shortfall will be met? The requirement in this respect is coming down the tracks. There should be a framework within which the Department is working.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
We are at the point where it is most unlikely there will be many more changes in the draft package the Presidency is trying to push through. It is quite an inflexible model in many respects.
Mr. O'Donovan does not expect a change to be proposed in regard to land use in forestry.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
We do not. We are not getting much support from other member states and the Commission is against it. It is a fairly inflexible package. Unless matters come off the rails and some of the eastern member states have problems with the package, it is likely it will go through, more or less as it is, by the end of the year. We will have to see where we go from there. It is no exaggeration to say that we are more or less in daily discussion with the Commission and the Presidency on various aspects of this. Mr. Kinsella has just mentioned one measure on which he might expand - the "hot air" measure as it is known.
Mr. Liam Kinsella
It is essentially an amendment proposed to the directive, which provides that member states which do not use their allowances would be able to sell them. This would provide some flexibility where we would be able to buy them. There are other small flexibilities in the system. We would also consider the possibility of the production of bioenergy from miscanthus and willow as providing some inroads towards meeting our targets.
Is Mr. Kinsella talking about a small or a large amount? I am trying to figure out how far he reckons he can go with that. I understand targets, but they do not necessarily work out in practice. There must be some objective in terms of that change that can be made. Has he a figure on how much he expects such a change would deliver?
Mr. Liam Kinsella
In the overall context, there is significant potential to grow bioenergy. The effort that has to be made is to try to achieve some hectarage and some momentum in the market. Possibly by 2020 we could be achieving between 0.5 million and 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide abatement from the use of bioenergy.
I thank the delegates for their presentation on which I have a few questions. One relates to an issue that lies at the heart of this matter and on which I wonder if work is being done in the Department. I refer to the future of agriculture. Having regard to the climate change with which we are dealing and all we have heard about it and the fact that we live in a global economy, agricultural practice must change. What is Ireland's forté in terms of agriculture? What do we do best? We hear all the time that ours is the best environment to grown biomass. What part of agriculture do we do best and where else could it be done best?
It has always struck me that farmers are great entrepreneurs. What is the Department doing in terms of developing a ten year strategy? I am conscious of the audience present and recognise that I am not terribly knowledgeable about farming. However, there are a few developments on which one can pick up. As a lay person, I am aware that agricultural practice has been changing and must continue to change. What way is the Department dealing with that? This climate change issue encapsulates the need for change in Irish agriculture. To what extent are farmers being encouraged to make the fundamental changes needed - an issue on which we had an earlier discussion - and to argue for them?
I listened to the displacement discussion in terms of a cow reared in Brazil compared to a cow reared in Ireland. As a representative of the lay community, I do not have a vested interest in this area other than that I want to find out what way can Irish agriculture adapt to make its impact positive for the climate change issue and also to provide a viable income base for people who will continue to practise. I am conscious that an audience of people steeped in this sector are present. It is pointless to try to persist with an industry that is so heavily dependent on different types of subsidies - which are necessary - but given that we have to deal with this second massive problem, there is no point in trying to allow farming to continue this way if it is not truly sustainable.
However, there are major opportunities available. I refer to a ten year strategy because it is not possible to introduce such changes quickly. If we were all operating from a level playing field, what would be the difference in quality in the meat available for purchase in Europe from Brazil compared to the meat that is available here, in France, Spain or elsewhere? Are we asking people to pay a premium and affirming that rearing beef here is worth continuing, or is it something from which we must move on and need to encourage farmers to examine? In case I cause offence and some people ask what I know about this——
The Senator is quite entitled to ask questions.
Thank you.
It is an educational process for all of us.
Indeed. That is why it is important for people like myself in the non-agricultural sector to get an understanding of this issue because we must ensure rural communities are vibrant and sustainable. I would prefer for the sector to operate on the basis of opportunities opening up for it rather than it persisting with something that cannot continue. I look forward to hearing from the representatives of Teagasc and discussing this issue with them.
I have another question arising from the earlier dialogue in which the representatives were engaged. I would like them to be honest and answer if there is a palpable froideur towards Ireland in Europe as a result of how we voted in the Lisbon treaty referendum? I have a sense that because the Irish people voted the way they did, it has caused a slight delay in progress in Europe. Do they find that in trying get what is best for Ireland from these negotiations, those in Europe are less inclined to listen to us because we voted against the Lisbon treaty? This is a public forum. If this is a consequence of the decision of the Irish people to vote “No” to the Lisbon treaty, it is important we hear it. It is not something that should be pushed behind——
I apologise for interrupting the Senator but I can tell her that we certainly picked up that sense when we were in Brussels. We asked that particular question of our representatives there and the answer we got was clearly, yes, we are not getting the same warm welcome as we did previously.
That would worry me.
In other words, there is no antagonism, but——
A keenness to co-operate.
——they are not bending over that extra bit to help us. There is a sense of coolness.
It is important to note that because we operate in a climate where we have to negotiate and make deals and because this is a small country, we need the co-operation of our friends. We must realise that a consequence of our decision is a lower level of co-operation. The departmental representatives would do the nation a service if they told us the truth. I simply want to hear their views.
I am sure the agricultural community will not appreciate my final question. Mr. Kinsella spoke about cattle diets and the mitigating mechanisms employed globally. Am I correct in stating that mechanisms devised elsewhere are equally applicable in Ireland? I would not think we need to reinvent the wheel. We should buy into the expert knowledge that already exists rather than conduct our own native research. Regardless of what happens in Spain or South America, our agricultural practices are similar to the UK's. I hate to show my ignorance but I have an interest in this area.
I apologise for being late. I agree with Deputy McManus on the analogy of a train coming down the tracks. I am concerned about the language being used by the delegation. Other delegations have discussed their respective responses to climate change. For example, the ESB plans to invest €22 billion in renewables. The Department's presentation to the committee is not a policy response. It implies that on a good day we might achieve 20% over 20 years. That is not a sufficient response and I am disturbed because the approach appears to be fragmented and lacking departmental co-ordination in terms of reaching the targets set by Europe. In a significant recent report, the Institute of International and European Affairs examined four different approaches to climate change, the first of which was the ostrich approach. I am concerned about the apparently fragmented nature of the Department's response. I had hoped to hear a policy response on bio-fuels, anaerobic digestion, wind energy, organics and adding value to products, but instead we seem to be hearing from the beef and cattle marketing section.
Rather than speaking about the marketing of miscanthus as if it were an entirely separate issue, the Department should have been involved in technical assistance and hand holding all the way from consulting with farmers on the potential benefits to finding end markets for the products. I am slightly confused because we had momentum in many of these areas five years ago. Grants were available but the take-up has been limited. Where is the sticking point in terms of a departmental approach to climate change and acknowledging the 3% annual reduction sought in the programme for Government?
This not an ethereal discussion; it is a real challenge. I expected the Department to lay out options for reaching that target but the impression I get from the document before me is that it is taking the rabbit in the headlights approach if not the ostrich option. I expected more because we know what the EU will say to us. Department officials may be in daily contact with Brussels but the writing has been on the wall since the package was published last January. I seek a policy driven response to meeting national and European targets.
I apologise for being so blunt but the response of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is different from the other Departments and bodies which have appeared before the committee to set out clear changes in their policies to meet the targets. I do not see evidence of that in today's presentation. I prefer frankness to diplomacy when discussing these issues.
I am apologise for being late. Earlier today, I spent three hours in a meeting with the Department at which similar issues arose. I compliment the Chairman on the presentations he gave last Monday in Brussels. He did a very professional job in explaining our problems and concerns regarding the 30% reduction in carbon emissions between 2013 and 2020.
Given that global demand for meat is predicted to increase by 35%, young farmers who can improve their systems will face improved prospects of making their living from farming. At the same time, however, we are being told that we need to reduce the 27% of bovine emissions for which we are responsible. Where do we marry these demands? If a shortage of meat and dairy products ensues from the reduction in the Irish herd, will we have to import meat from Brazil and New Zealand and, if so, what are the carbon implications of this? We will gain nothing because we will be transporting food halfway around the world.
In the aftermath of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty, Irish officials in Brussels have said the door is slightly ajar rather than completely shut. We do not have the access we had previously to Europe because attitudes have changed slightly towards the Irish in negotiations. It is important that we realise we have damaged ourselves by rejecting the Lisbon treaty. We will have to pay the price for this.
In terms of forestry sinks and boglands, is the Department fighting our corner? Bio-fuel crops are great but what about food security? Conflicts arise in switching from food to energy crops. Are we doing enough to present our case? At the six meetings we attended last Monday we got the strong impression that a reduction of 30% by 2013 is all but imposed on us. Agriculture will play a role in that because we are responsible for 27% of greenhouse gases from agriculture. This country is natural for producing agricultural goods because we are pasture oriented. In other countries they have to feed their cattle indoors. We have a natural environment for producing good quality products and we must be allowed to do that. We must marry the two and come up with an alternative solution that is acceptable to everybody. This is a serious issue for the agricultural community's future.
Last Monday we were out there fighting our corner and making our case. Is the Department, through the Minister or directly through its officials, working with the Commission to work out this issue of food supply, fuel shortages and the question of Europe's approach to providing sufficient food? This is a European issue and we made this point. Ireland is not making a special case for itself. Europe must face the issue of guaranteeing sufficient food supplies for Europe and the world. One side of the Commission is producing proposals without thinking about this while the other side is merrily saying it must do something about agriculture through reform of the Common Agricultural Policy or other actions.
Somebody must take up the running on this and it should be Ireland. We must produce a European policy on supply of food for the EU and other parts of the world that are in dire need of food. If we have certain targets to meet in that context, so be it. We are trying to reduce emissions by an accrued 20% to 30%, and at the same time ignoring the fact that we must produce food. I tried to make this point wherever I got the opportunity. This package will go through before the end of the French Presidency which is determined to get it through by 31 December. Trying to get some relief or way we can deal with this issue is a fire brigade action. In the longer term we face into Copenhagen. Whether forestry can be brought in as part of a worldwide agreement will have to be debated in that context. The door will not be closed because that will really be debated there. With the change of President in the United States we are not talking about 20% but 30%. It is more important that we get this European policy on food supply up and running and get a really serious debate on it. I hope our Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will seek and lead that debate.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
I agree strongly with what the Chairman said about food security. It is sometimes assumed that the European Commission speaks with a single voice, but as the Chairman said, it does not. DG agriculture's priorities are not those of DG environment. They are not necessarily compatible with one another. Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel spoke earlier this year on food security and the need to remove obstacles preventing farmers from following the market.
Senator O'Malley asked what we do best in Irish agriculture and, unfortunately, the answer is growing cattle. Our climate and geography are conducive to rearing cattle and sheep very efficiently and sustainably. We must engage with the fact that we face changing circumstances. Deputy Cuffe said we have known this since last January and that is true. From very early in the year we engaged with the Commission at the highest level, tabling our concerns, which it took on board. It recognised there was an issue but was not sure if there was a solution. There was a great reluctance on the part of the Commission and the Presidency to revisit any aspect of the package for the obvious reason that if one pulls at one thread, many people would want to pull at their own threads and the whole thing would quickly unravel.
There is growing demand, especially in India and China, for beef and dairy produce. European and Irish farmers naturally want to follow that demand because if they do not, somebody else, understandably, will take it up.
Senator O'Malley asked if we are trying to reinvent the wheel or if we are keeping in touch with developments in other countries. We are keeping in touch. There is an international research community on this and we have a particularly close working relationship with researchers in New Zealand, probably the country that is most similar to us in terms of climate and type of agriculture. Our colleagues in the Department and Teagasc are very much keeping up to speed with developments in other countries in particular areas of alleviating climate change emissions.
I listened closely to what Deputy Cuffe said about how we appear to be just discussing the implications and not presenting a policy. One must assess and recognise the implications before developing a policy to deal with them. Understandably, some people have the impression that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is purely about livestock. That is not the case. We have grant aided pilot projects on anaerobic digestion. Mr. Kinsella mentioned a generous support scheme for biomass crops. Farmers make their own decisions. They have not taken up these projects in large numbers. There was an initial burst of interest in bio-energy and biomass crops but it has abated because there are doubts about markets. Farmers will always make their own decisions in these situations. There are no simple answers. Senator O'Malley asked what we will do about long-term strategy. Unfortunately, we do not have expert colleagues here today on that but it is continually under review. If I have inadvertently overlooked any points, I will be happy to pick them up.
Is the Department developing the long-term strategy and evolution of the agricultural industry internally or also externally with practitioners? Does the Department do market research into where farming is going?
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
We do. It is not by any means all done internally. I invite Mr. Kinsella to talk about FAPRI-Ireland.
May I ask a straight question? Does the Department advocate that we cut back on cattle numbers because of what is coming down the road regarding carbon emission regulation? What is the Department's policy? Is it telling farmers the only way we can reduce our carbon emissions is to reduce beef and milk production? Are we coming up with a policy whereby we can marry the two? Mr. O'Donovan is not answering that question.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
I would like to answer. We are not telling farmers to cut animal numbers. We are saying that unless we get certain flexibilities in the EU package and a satisfactory result on the carbon sequestration and the forest sinks, we do not see any other way of reaching the target except by reducing cattle numbers. If we achieve those aims, that will be much less of an issue.
This is the nub of the issue. Deputy Cuffe's comment has got me going on this and I should contribute for the record. There is no universal agreement around this table on the best way forward. I agree with Deputy Cuffe on many issues relating to climate change and radical strategies in other areas. The point made by Deputy Andrew Doyle earlier is the nub of the issue.
If one is to pick three or five countries in the world where beef and milk should be produced in the most efficient way in terms of emissions, Ireland would be in the top three. New Zealand would also be there and the other country would have a very similar climate to both Ireland and New Zealand. We do not want to reduce our herds where we are producing milk and beef efficiently in terms of emissions; I am not referring to stocking rates.
We must make the case rather than thinking there is a boulder coming down the mountain we cannot stop. While that is true, we are engaged in politics as well as being faced with climate change statistics. In order to solve a problem of figures in terms of the targets we need to achieve, that are being requested of us and are being signed up to with a European agreement, we should not be pushing business that makes much sense when compared to farming systems in other parts of the world out of Ireland.
Senator O'Malley indicated that a cow in Ireland is surely the same as a cow in Holland but that is not true. We grow beef and produce milk in the field but in most countries it is done in a slatted shed, which is far less efficient with regard to emissions. We should not decide to dramatically cull Irish stocks, as we will regret it in five, ten or 15 years because it will be very difficult to rewind the clock on the issue. Other countries will think Ireland should be producing beef because it has the climate to do so.
That is the very point I was making. This is a European issue that must be addressed and the Commission must make up its mind on where Ireland fits into the regime. Are we to be the food basket of Europe? It cannot have it both ways.
Planting willow on permanent pasture does not make sense from an emissions perspective and we would be reducing our capacity to produce milk, as well as meat such as beef and lamb, which we can do efficiently with regard to emissions. I do not get the sense the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making that statement aggressively enough. The impression I am getting is that we are almost trying to keep our head down on agriculture because if somebody sees the size of the agricultural contribution to overall emissions, we will be in trouble. We should have the debate and put the issue on the table.
The agricultural sector does not need to make any apologies for its contribution to emissions when one considers the efficiency developed over decades of farming in Ireland. This is not playing to the gallery; it is fact. Deputy Doyle has raised the matter numerous times in committee, as has the Chairman.
Is a Europe-wide approach being taken?
We have witnesses in the Gallery so I want to wrap up the session with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and invite the representatives from Teagasc down. If there are any points the witnesses wish to make in response, they should do so as we could keep them here until 7 p.m. speaking about this.
Mr. Michael O’Donovan
In response to Deputy Coveney, we have nearly worn out our welcome in Brussels at this stage trying to raise this very point. I am not dodging Senator O'Malley's question; at a personal level I have seen no difference in the climate - I did not mean to use that word - in dealing with my counterparts in the Commission. It is business as usual.
The Minister has raised the matter with Commissioner Fischer Boel and officials have raised it at the highest level at the Commission. We are forever over and back on it. Perhaps we could make it more forcefully and the Minister's remarks at the targets conference last week got some attention which the issue had not received previously. I do not think we are keeping our heads down.
I thank the witnesses for their attendance. I have no doubt we will be in touch with them again. I welcome the representatives from Teagasc to the committee. They are Professor Gerry Boyle, Professor Jimmy Burke, Dr. Frank O'Mara and Mr. Sean Regan, programme manager, environment. They have been listening to the debate and we look forward to their contribution.
Professor Gerry Boyle
I thank the committee for the invitation to address it. We were specifically asked to consider developments in Irish agricultural practice, particularly the research of relevance on climate change. Irish emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, as has been discussed earlier, are proportionately higher than in most other developed countries. Our first slide illustrates that.
As has been discussed earlier, the goal of reducing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide presents a major challenge for the agricultural sector. Meeting the Kyoto obligations and the commitments that will arise following these also presents opportunities, with the growing of biomass as a source of energy being one example.
Agriculture counted for approximately 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 but this figure has been reducing over time from 35% in 1990. For example, agricultural emissions have decreased by 1.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, or 7%, from 1990. In an international context, Ireland's profile of emissions is unusual in the developed world. New Zealand is the only developed country with a higher proportion of emissions from agriculture than Ireland, and the EU average is substantially below our level. This is due to a number of reasons, not least the importance of agriculture in our economy and the importance of livestock production and the grassland systems we have in common with New Zealand agriculture.
I have an important slide that I would like the committee to focus on. It details how more than 50% of agricultural emissions are methane from enteric fermentation. This is due to the mysteries of the rumen. It also details how emissions are produced from a combination of approximately 11% from the storage of manures and 38% from soils. The 51% portion is the most difficult to deal with on a scientific basis, short of reducing the cattle herd, as was discussed earlier. However, with regard to manure management and agricultural soils, there have been significant and positive developments, as we will see later. To bring members up to date, the 2007 provisional data for emissions show a reduction of almost 4% on 2006. This is accounted for by an actual drop in cattle numbers of a little over 3%, a significant drop in sheep numbers of almost 8%, largely driven by the economic conditions in that sector, and, very importantly, a drop in nitrogen usage of more than 4%.
To look to the future, Teagasc has undertaken a number of forecasting exercises. Last April we reckoned that, given the assumptions that were relevant at that point, agricultural emissions would increase slightly between 2006 and 2020. However, in the intervening period, as we all know, there has been some turbulence in world economies, including energy markets and so on, and we have since revised our forecasts. Given the new assumptions, our prediction is that by 2020 our emissions might be marginally lower than they were in 2005. In other words, the trend will have been reduced.
With regard to challenges, many of them have been rehearsed earlier, but it is worth summarising them. We are very concerned about the policy conflict with regard to food security, as the Chairman mentioned. There was an emphasis in the earlier discussion on the problem of leakage. In addition, concern has been expressed about the credits the sector is not receiving for afforestation, biomass production and other forms of bio-energy. It is fair to say there are huge social, economic and, some would say, moral consequences of the kind of catastrophic reduction in the livestock herd that would be needed if no other policy measures were pursued. A great challenge is presented to an organisation such as Teagasc to establish the kind of research that may have a positive impact on the scale of the problem confronting us.
There is also some good news behind the negative issues I have outlined. Nutrient management has led to a 35% reduction in the use of nitrogen fertilisers over the past ten years. This is equivalent to a reduction of almost half a tonne of CO2 per annum. That is a significant positive benefit which we expect will continue and be enhanced in the years ahead. There have also been significant technological advances in dairy production which have led to a drop of more than 12% between 1990 and 2006 in the amount of methane produced per kg of milk.
This illustrates a very important point which is worth bringing to the attention of the committee. There is a positive relationship between improvements in efficiency at farm level and reductions in emissions. In other words, there is a win-win outcome. This is something we have been promoting strongly for a number of years.
Another positive development is that since 1990, the age of slaughter of beef cattle has been significantly reduced. In 1990, 44% of male cattle were more than 30 months at the time of slaughter. This proportion has now been reduced to 15% in 2006. That of itself will reduce emissions as well as making sense from the point of view of economic efficiency.
The problem, as I said at the very beginning, is that methane is the main agricultural greenhouse gas produced in Ireland, contributing 51% of our greenhouse gas emissions. This is largely due to fermentation or digestion in the forestomachs of ruminant animals. Methane is a by-product of digestion of feeds, especially fibrous ones. We have been learning over several years from the experiences of our partners in many other countries in the area of abatement strategies for reducing this challenging category of emissions. We have been considering dietary modifications and the introduction of additives or probiotics to reduce methane production. Breed has an influence. Increasing the length of the grazing season is another possibility, as was pointed out in the previous session. All of these, especially the latter, give rise to fewer emissions and also improve pasture quality. The breeding of more efficient animals produces more product for a given amount of feed which, again, makes economic sense but also reduces emissions per kg of product. However, it is important to understand that this kind of work requires a lot of basic science to understand the physiological and genetic factors controlling digestion. As I said, it is quite a mystery to scientists, even though a significant amount has been invested in examining the microbial processes and emissions of methane from ruminants here and, particularly, in New Zealand.
With regard to nitrous oxide, I remind members of the first graph they saw. About 38% of nitrous oxide is produced from soils. This is part of the natural nitrogen cycle and is, of course, a significant source of greenhouse gases. We in Teagasc, in concert with colleagues elsewhere, have been considering this issue. The research involves a number of elements. First, optimising the application of organic and inorganic sources of fertiliser helps to reduce both nitrogen fertiliser usage and emissions. Other techniques being researched include the application of nitrification inhibitors and other fertiliser technologies. The more efficient use of clover as a natural nitrogen fixation mechanism also reduces the level of nitrogen in the soil and thereby contributes to a reduction in emissions.
I will now consider some other abatement strategies, many of which were mentioned earlier, and try to put them in context based on our experience. As has been said, crops can be converted into a number of different energy carriers, including transport fuels and electricity. They can also be used to generate heat and therefore, taken together, they can make a significant impact in terms of reducing emissions. First generation bio-fuel production in the country will mitigate we estimate approximately 87,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent via a new biodiesel plant which, as many members probably know, has become operational at New Ross. Further expansion of bio-fuel production is possible up to a possible maximum of 270,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Incidentally, this will be just about equivalent to our 2% national bio-fuels target.
There is the prospect of an ethanol from wheat plant which is in planning at the moment. This will produce bio-energy and also, by substitution for fossil fuels, save on emissions. The development of perhaps one or two first generation ethanol plants would also, in our view, pave the way for second generation technologies which have a much greater efficiency in terms of emissions. This would help to establish a logistics infrastructure and provide expertise and markets for the production of bio-energy based fuels.
Growing energy crops to meet the Government co-firing target could mitigate we estimate about 830,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent if the target were to be supplied by energy crops exclusively. Our estimation is that if these measures were put in place by 2020, there is the possibility of mitigating about 2.85 million tonnes of CO2, which is very significant when compared with the 19 million tonnes or so the sector produces.
With regard to land use, which was mentioned earlier, we estimate that this would involve about 200,000 hectares of land, which is not a huge amount and is, therefore, in our view, achievable. That is approximately 50% of the current land area and would involve different crops, such as miscanthus, willow and so on. The additional 2.85 million hectares are entirely separate from the issue of afforestation because in this case we are looking only at bio-energy crops and their potential to off-set carbon emissions.
The goal of reducing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide presents a major challenge for the agricultural sector and for the scientific community. However, meeting our Kyoto commitments also presents opportunities such as growing bio-mass crops as a source of energy. The use of anaerobic digestion as a way of handling animal manures was mentioned earlier. These are all positive opportunities that can be exploited. Research can play a significant role in the development of innovative solutions that can, in turn, be applied by the agriculture industry.
In the current economic climate resources are scarce and it is difficult to pursue this avenue with the urgency it now merits. We have a great deal of catching up to do with respect to our investment in science and technology, relative to New Zealand, for example, which is a significant international competitor as far as our main export crops are concerned.
I thank Professor Boyle.
The figures we are looking at here do not really tally with the aspirations of the Minister concerning the positive contribution that agriculture can make towards mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2020. The reason is that what Professor Boyle is talking about is a direct reduction of the emissions from the agriculture sector. Perhaps he might clarify this.
An example will make the point. A farmer decides to produce willow as a fuel source for an electricity-powered generating station in which willow may be blended with peat. The benefit of that willow contribution will be counted in the electricity generation element of the emissions calculation. That is part of the traded sector but it is in the non-traded sector that the Government must meet its commitments. In this scenario agriculture makes a significant contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions by producing a crop that is being used as a replacement for peat, gas or oil. Ireland's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is thereby reduced but the agriculture sector does not get any benefit in terms of the figures. The same applies in bio-fuels and transport, though to a lesser extent. The Minister for Transport might say that we will try to achieve a 5% or 7% fuel blend, ethanol with petrol, or bio-diesel with diesel. These fuels will be produced on Irish farms but the transport sector will make the case that it created the benefit, rather than the agriculture sector. In many ways, agriculture is the problem but it also provides the answer. Most of Ireland's wind farms will be developed on agricultural land. There is a permeability problem between the traded sector and the non-traded sector, particularly with regard to energy.
I mentioned a methane production unit being built in Cork which, essentially, will produce methane from grass rather than beef or milk. This will probably be measured in terms of energy generation rather than as a contribution from the agriculture sector. There is a fundamental problem here for agriculture in terms of public relations. Farmers and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food get beaten over the head by environmentalists who say that agriculture is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and that we must see change. All the changes that are currently promoted will see figures improve in other areas, in transport, electricity production and even in the domestic area where people are using wood chips in their home boilers, for example. Crops can be produced for use as efficient insulation. All these areas will see the benefits of produce from Irish farms but agriculture itself will not. Such programmes may have a negative impact. If a farmer plants willow on bogland, for example, that is a very irresponsible thing to do from an emissions point of view. As the bogland is ploughed up and disturbed to provide the damp soil needed for willow, carbon is released into the atmosphere. This is a fundamental problem that must be addressed.
I have specific questions for Professor Boyle, as a scientist and expert. Most of my experience comes from cereals. What is being done to encourage farmers to drill cereals directly rather than plough, harrow and disturb the soil, thereby adding to carbon release? Professor Boyle might give us some more detail as to how those impressive figures came about in the amount of methane emitted per kilogram of milk. Was it primarily a matter of nitrate management in fertiliser and promotion of clover growing? Are there other aspects I am missing?
We will take one more question.
Professor Boyle mentioned afforestation as one of the challenges in respect of emissions. Why is it so problematic? I ask this because of the discussion that took place towards the end of the previous contribution. Making this efficient is not a matter of national compartmentalisation of what people are doing but of working together in an EU-wide perspective.
I mentioned that we were efficient at having cows and therefore we should have them. However, we must have give and take. The Irish may be good with cows but there is a cost in terms of carbon which must be offset. To what extent do such negotiations take place? Perhaps Teagasc is the wrong body to ask. If afforestation is allowed to be accredited in other areas why are the Irish not allowed to do this? It is a potential growth industry and is possibly where the future of Irish agriculture may lie.
On the nitrates directive, Professor Boyle mentioned progress to date, such as, for example, improved nutrient management. Is that as a result of the nitrates directive? When that directive was introduced all hell was supposed to occur as a result. The Commission has shown adaptability and flexibility in the matter of dates for spreading, for example. As somebody mentioned, farming cannot operate to a calendar because climatic factors come to bear. The nitrates directive got very bad press. Teagasc might answer whether the directive has been positive or negative.
Technological advances in dairy production led to a drop off of 12.5% between 1960 and 2006. Can we expect that level of rate of reduction to continue, or any level? Can we expect the rate of reduction to continue at this level? I am curious about the comment on the move from dairy cattle to beef and the suggestion that because a beef herd is younger there is an impact on methane emissions. I do not understand this, surely a cow is a cow regardless of how old or young it is?
They do not eat for too long, only while they are young.
It is because of the amount of time they are around, they do not live as long and so do not belch as much.
Is this when cattle are young or old?
The life span is shorter and so there is less accumulated belching.
It is like an efficient car.
Professor Gerry Boyle
With the permission of the Chair some of my colleagues will address the points made. However, Deputy Coveney raised an important point about the agriculture sector working to achieve the gains, but not getting the credit. The Deputy is correct to point out this is the way the system operates. Research estimates that the potential for the use of bio-energy crops is significant. Approximately 2.85 million tonnes could be in production by 2020, which is very significant given the scale of the overall problem. Let us also consider the afforestation issue which Senator O'Malley raised. The potential to offset methane in that case is between 4 million and 5 million tonnes. If we add the two together the amount is substantial. However, given the way the regulations are framed at present agriculture does not benefit. We all agree these are land-using activities and that farmers must make decisions about land use, growing these crops and the possibility of shifting land use towards alternative sources. Therefore, one logically assumes they should be the beneficiaries of what accrues. However, as the Deputy correctly pointed out that is way the rules are framed.
I will ask my colleagues to address some of the other points. Professor Burke can address the cereals issue and Dr. O'Mara the methane issue. Regarding nitrates reduction a number of factors are involved. Farmers are rational people and respond to the marketplace. This year, because of the significant increase in fertiliser prices there was a substantial adjustment in usage. Farmers adopted technologies to handle organic manures, in which they would not have been previously interested. This is an example of an economic driver consistent with the emissions requirements. Since 1997 nitrogen usage has declined in Irish farms by some 30%. This results from a combination of market conditions and new research findings which have shown producers how to use nitrogen more efficiently. Professor Burke will address the cereals issue raised by Deputy Coveney.
Professor Jimmy Burke
As Deputy Coveney knows, we have been working on direct drilling for several years. It has several potential benefits, primarily to reduce the energy cost involved in growing cereals. For example, research shows we can reduce the energy costs involved in planting 1,000 acres by approximately 50%, because of the way the system operates. It is especially advantageous in terms of reduced labour, energy and so on. In addition, because straw is chopped and returned to the soil, it has the direct benefit of trapping carbon, which is a mitigation strategy. Overall, direct drilling has significant potential, especially in the larger units in the country. Ireland has the highest cereal yields in the world and we are always looking for new technologies to try to stay at the top. Our work on direct drilling has been taking place at Oak Park for more than ten years. In addition, we have compared the emissions from a plough based system and direct drilling with our colleagues in Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin. Overall the results are quite positive and it can make a contribution.
The issue raised about energy crops is interesting. Energy can be a significant driver for the tillage sector too and it creates opportunities in addition to the climate change benefits. As Professor Boyle outlined, the difficulty in allocating the benefits from the climate change measures is political. It must be solved by the European Commission, national governments and policy makers. If the agriculture sector does something that has a significant win-win impact for both the economy and the environment then it should get credit for that. However, the Deputy is correct. At the moment the way the rules are calculated this does not happen in the sector and this issue must be dealt with in the future.
Anaerobic digestion was mentioned. This is an interesting area, but the difficulty with anaerobic digestion in Ireland, especially when grass is used, is that it is hopelessly uneconomic. Recently, the scheme was changed and now we receive some 12 cents per kilowatt hour. This only happened in the past year and before that the rate was hopelessly low and no business man or industry could afford to make a decision based on it. There has been much comparison with Germany where the use of anaerobic digestion for maize, grass and food waste has been notably increasing. However, in Germany some 15 to 20 cents is paid per kilowatt hour whereas here the rate is 12 cents. I am conscious there is a re-feed scheme and we are moving in the right direction. We must make it more attractive to the sector. Anaerobic digestion has applications for dealing with animal slurry, the pig sector and large dairy farmers. However, without the ability to use food waste and other organic residues in the system, it is not economically viable. We must examine how we deal with landfill, and what is and is not allowed for landfill. At present, many of the raw materials that could be useful and provide a gate fee for the agricultural sector to generate income are going into landfill. Teagasc maintains an open mind about anaerobic digestion. The recent changes in the price paid for electricity generated from methane production is making the option viable and attractive. We must examine this area and keep an open mind for the future as there is potential in this area.
Professor Gerry Boyle
Before I ask my colleague to deal specifically with the question Senator O'Malley raised about methane production per kilogram of milk, the committee should note Teagasc intends to build a significant anaerobic digestion plant in the new year at the Grange research centre. This will be a demonstration facility used to show farmers how the technology can work. We hope this will be successful in promoting the idea among the farming community. Senator O'Malley raised a question about methane production and Dr. O'Mara will address this matter.
Dr. Frank O’Mara
Deputy Coveney also raised the same issue. I will first explain what has happened. There has been a change in the increase in milk yield per cow since 1990. Cows now produce approximately 20% more milk than at that time. This is a result of an improvement in the genetics of the cows and their management and nutrition. The increase the amount of gas or methane produced by the cows has not been proportionally as high as the other increase so the emissions reduce comparatively. This is a good example, demonstrating how improved efficiency of agriculture production aligns very well with reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector.
Senator O'Malley raised the question of continuity in this area. Efficiency improvements and improvement in the genetic merit of animals are continuous, long-term processes that farmers always seek to achieve. Our research programme underpins this both in terms of the genetic progress of the herd and underpinning the progress in the management. There is no reason this will not continue and I believe it will speed up in the future. Let us consider what has happened in New Zealand, which has a similar milk production to ours. Its gains in efficiency have been greater than ours in the past 20 years because they do not have a milk quota. Farmers there have, therefore, pushed production per cow to the maximum. Here, farmers have a fixed milk quota but they do not like to get rid of cows which has impaired growth in efficiency production. A key example of this is the lactation period of cows. That has decreased over the last 15 years as farmers are drying off cows earlier. If, as appears to be the case, milk quotas are removed in 2015, we will initially see a significant expansion in milk production per cow and a significant gain in the efficiency of greenhouse gas emissions per kilo of milk. It will be a catch-up phase to what has happened in other countries with similar production systems.
That is good news.
I thank the Teagasc representatives. Logical expert opinion is that one cannot separate what is produced from land, whether it is food, energy or fuel, and divide it up into calculations. Whatever influence we, or anyone else, has on policy, we must return to basics. We are supposed to be the people who can influence policy, but all the information from both contributions today have questioned that. One cannot debit one side and credit a different side without taking it all into context.
Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only factor in global food production. The Dutch would probably argue that their system of zero grazing is more efficient. No animal welfare element is taken into account. I have been led to believe that they will try to make the point there is a more efficient way of producing milk in terms of greenhouse gases, and it is an argument they will try to make the most of.
I am interested in what Dr. O'Mara said. I understood New Zealand milk production was based on kilograms of butter fat per hectare as opposed to litres of milk per cow. At one stage, especially with share farming, people would get as many cows as they could together and would leave a herd behind, as long as they had the units to go on, and go on to develop their efficiencies. Their figure of 50% of their greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture is interesting. A piece of useless information is that in 2005 tourism surpassed agriculture in New Zealand in GDP. Agriculture is perhaps not the largest factor, but it still accounts for 26% of emissions.
The fertiliser usage drop is equally related to price as anything else, such as the nitrates directive, but one cannot draw a correlation between that and the drop in livestock numbers of both cattle and sheep. I want to throw a curve ball. I spoke to a man who was on a tour in America recently and he went to see the Amish people, who will not use a tractor, sowing GM seed to reduce the level of cultivation and chemical production. Are we fighting with one hand behind our backs by not allowing GM seed to be used here? I know it is another debate, but we are discussing carbon emissions.
In the same vein, can we put some reality on whether organic food production, be it cereals or other forms, is efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? I have a friend in England who is farming a large farm organically because he wanted to try it, and he said what he saves by growing wheat, he blows out of the chimney of a 200 horsepower tractor in carbon emissions. It is very fashionable to say that organic farming is the most efficient, non-invasive way to the environment of producing food, but I argue differently.
I welcome the Teagasc representatives' comments on technology, efficiency and research. It is very important because we seem to get better at it each year and perhaps by 2013 we will have no problem with more cattle and crops. Research may save us from any reduction in producing the products we want to produce.
The delegation said that 100,000 hectares of land growing bio crops would be sufficient. Would that be at a cost to the food crops and feed crops for animals we have now? I have a problem with that because if 200,000 hectares is taken out of present tillage - I presume we are talking about present tillage - that is half the tillage that produces food crops and feed crops for animals now, so there will be a shortage somewhere along the line. We cannot marry the two, and I am worried about that from a farming point of view.
The comments of Deputy Coveney are very relevant. Are we getting credits from products produced from agriculture but used in another field? Are we getting full credits for our boglands? I got the feeling we are not getting full credits for our research on boglands and forestry sinks at EU level, and I think we should. Are we getting any credits for the energy savings in the rural environments protection schemes? We are now in REPS four; there were REPS one, two and three, and the scheme has been in place for 16 years. Wind farms will be put on hills on agricultural land. Should we get credits for wind farms? We will put a large emphasis on them in the future. Will those in agriculture receive those credits and will they be set against 27% of emissions?
I have a problem with grants for aerobic digesters. Grass is going into feed for cattle now, and will be diverted back into aerobic digesters. It is fine to have aerobic digesters, but at what cost? Pig waste might be able to go into aerobic digesters but I am worried about cattle waste. The cost of fertiliser and compound fertiliser increased last year, and every farmer is now utilising waste from cattle and not throwing it out. They are using it on a rotation scheme, for example 1,000 gallons to the acre three times a year, instead of 3,000 gallons at once. The waste from pigs and cattle is being used as a fertiliser in a different way. I do not see a large surplus of waste; on our family farms they are all using it efficiently to grow grass.
It is envisaged that 80% of farmers will be in REPS within a few years. I think we should get credits for that. Another matter is the trading and non-trading sectors. If savings are made in the trading sector, which would happen through investment in the ESB as was mentioned in Brussels last week several times, and the non-trading sector, which is agriculture, and we have credits in one, why can we not use one against the other? I should perhaps address this to the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but if we are able to get credits in the trading sector, it is within our own country, emissions and carbon footprint and we should be able to transfer credits from one to the other.
Professor Gerry Boyle
Deputy Doyle raised a number of very provocative issues on organic food production and the GM issue. GM is a very sensitive matter in the European context and it is not just an issue that is of concern in combating emissions but also in the wider issue of food security it is a major concern. We represent a research organisation and, therefore, our only contribution to this matter is that we have to look at the science. There needs to be a wide and open debate on the science, and strictly on the science, and to identify the areas of scientific inquiry we need to pursue in all of these areas. It is a hugely important technology. I would categorise it in the same frame as the discussion on nuclear production of electricity. In this context of global food security, it is an issue that needs to be brought centre stage and discussed openly.
Organic food production is a relatively small sector in this country. The views expressed would cover both sides of that debate in relation to the relative efficiency in emission terms for obvious reasons. It comes back to the point we have been making here, that there is a positive association between efficiency of production, in other words, the less inputs required to produce a unit of product, that is, the conventional food production model, also makes sense from an emissions point of view. Organic food production does not follow that mainstream model. My colleagues will pick up other points.
Deputy Aylward made a number of very important points. He referred to the issue of credits. We would agree with that but it is not a matter for us in the sense that it is a political issue to be determined and discussed in depth at another level. The point is well taken and we appreciate that. The Deputy made an important point in regard to the use of land for bio-energy crops or the use of grass for anaerobic digestion or animal manures. Farmers are rational economic people. They will only convert their land use to an alternative source if it is profitable for them to do so. We saw in recent years that because of the huge profitability of conventional cereal products, producers who might have been contemplating producing bio-energy crops shifted back into the conventional wheat products because it made economic sense. This year, of course, things have changed again and farmers will reassess the situation.
The same point applies in relation to anaerobic digestion. The feedstock, unless it is waste material that has no other use, has a value. Cattle manures do have a value. Grass has a very clear value. This therefore comes back to an issue of policy. If policymakers want to promote bio-fuel production or bio-energy crop production or anaerobic digestion what they need to do is devise an economic instrument which counteracts the thrust of the market place. That is what policymaking is all about, because policymakers will then determine that the outcomes in terms of more bio-energy crops being produced is worth the additional investment of taxpayer resources. That is what it comes down to.
I will ask my colleague, Mr. Seán Regan, to respond to the question on REPS. He is in charge of our REPS programme within Teagasc. Perhaps Dr. Frank O'Mara would follow him.
Mr. Seán Regan
Deputy Aylward mentioned REPS and its importance. We concur with his views. At present there are about 60,000 farmers in REPS. We project that by the end of REPS 4, there should be approximately 70,000 farmers in the scheme, which is in the region of 55% to 60% of farmers. That would be a great outcome. When one speaks about giving REPS credit, REPS is certainly due credit, but it is taken account of. One of the objectives of REPS concerns slurry management. We are getting our farmers to put out slurry earlier in the year which means there are less emissions into the atmosphere and consequently the farmer need put out less chemical fertiliser. In addition, there is an incentive in REPS for new low emissions slurry technology and an incentive for farmers to sow clover which, again, replaces chemical fertiliser. When one takes all of those elements together, it is reflected in the 0.5 tonne equivalentCaO.
It is included.
Mr. Seán Regan
It is because the outcome is included in the chemical fertiliser reduction which is being impacted on by the better management of slurry and also the incentives for clover are taken into account. If we save fertiliser on that it shows up in the national figures for use of chemical nitrogen. There is one other incentive for which REPS does not get full credit. REPS has been to the forefront in the overgrazed areas in the hills in the west which would have given rise to a good deal of CO2 emissions. The solution to that problem has been helped greatly by REPS and is practically solved.
We benefit from that in terms of our figures.
Mr. Seán Regan
That is the one area where the benefits can be had.
Dr. Frank O’Mara
To return to Deputy Doyle's question.
In my second question I asked which was the factor——
Dr. Frank O’Mara
There are just two ways of looking at output from dairy cows, whether one measures the volume of milk produced and relate that to yield per cow or yield per hectare or one looks at the constituents in that milk and take out the actual constituents and look at the quantity of constituent produced. New Zealanders have always looked at it that way. They have always been paid on the basis of the yield of constituents. Our payment systems have reflected the volume of milk produced. It is exactly the same thing we are capturing - the efficiency, the growth in efficiency over time, and theirs has been more rapid than ours in recent years, mainly because of the restriction our farmers have had in terms of milk quota.
I want to pick up on the point about the Dutch and the claim that their system is the most efficient. This is very difficult to measure across countries because one is comparing different production systems. The assumptions one takes in doing this kind of comparison will have a big impact on the outcome. If one takes the Dutch system, where a lot of concentrates are fed, does one take into account the emissions involved in growing the concentrates and the emissions involved in producing the tractor that was required to till the soil? This is what people mean by life cycle analysis.
The issue of comparing countries and trying to see which countries are the most efficient in terms of agricultural production is in its infancy. It is an area in which we would like to get some expertise to be able to enter that debate. The New Zealanders would claim that under their pasture based production systems they can put lamb on UK supermarket shelves with less carbon emissions by the time it gets to the shelf than can local producers. Likewise, they say they can put cheese on the supermarket shelves with less carbon attached than cheese produced in the UK. It is an area that will become important in policy discussions around this issue. It is an area in which we would like to get some expertise because it will be important.
The jury is still out on the question of whether the Dutch are more efficient than us. The point was made earlier that Ireland would be very efficient compared to some countries in South America or some less developed countries. In our production systems we would, in the order of magnitude, be better than them but whether we are 5% or 10% better than the Dutch remains to be seen.
Deputy Aylward raised the issue of anaerobic digestion and the loss in the value of nutrients. To clarify, processing the slurry through the anaerobic digester does not remove any of the main nutrients that we would want from the slurry. It does not do anything to the nitrogen content, the phosphorous or the potassium. Those nutrients still remain. Effectively, one is getting rid of some of the organic matter by converting it to methane. It is being concentrated down so that the digestive remaining still contains all the original nutrients that would have gone in. They are still available for subsequent spreading on land in the same way that applies to slurry. That is not the main issue regarding anaerobic digestion. Issues arise concerning profitability, as my colleague mentioned earlier, and other issues the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food alluded to in terms of properly assessing the effectiveness of those facilities on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Much work remains to be done in terms of quantifying the leakages from these plants and quantifying other technical issues about the need to store slurry from the winter period to allow one to continue to run the digestor during the summer at a time when a dairy farm is not producing slurry. Many practical issues arise but the main one is the economic issue. That will be the biggest factor impacting on whether farmers get involved in these type of facilities.
That completes our discussion.
As a committee we need to time to digest all of this information.
I was about to say that the written submissions are extremely useful for reference purposes in the future.
Yes.
I thank Dr. O'Mara for a very professional presentation which was a great help to our ongoing work.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.52 p.m. and adjourned at 4.57 p.m. until Thursday, 27 November 2008.