Carol Nolan urges carbon sequestration assessment to protect farms

Deputy Norland. Deputy Norland. As a rural TD from the constituency of Lee Shoffley, I, like many rural TDs, am very, very concerned about the impact of what is coming down the tracks and what has been imposed on us. Certainly from the economic impact report done by KPMG, commissioned by the Farmers Journal, it showed us clearly what lies ahead, the destruction of Irish farming and the family farm, if a blunt instrument like what is being proposed is used. And I suppose my question relates to the fact that why isn't all of the good work done in terms of the sequestration of carbon, why isn't that accounted for? I mean, we have grassland, we have hedgerows and we have forestry. And, you know, even to incentivise farmers to get more involved in afforestation, wouldn't that make sense and wouldn't it tick that box? And I know that, Dr. Mithlaner, you mentioned the fact that beef farmers, that we don't know, how much they are, you know, in terms of the sequestration of carbon, we don't know how much is being done there. And would you, my question relates to, I suppose, do you feel that an assessment needs to be carried out in terms of the positive work that's been done here by beef farmers in sequestration carbon before a blunt instrument or a calculation be decided? Because I think any pragmatic and logical person would say, please do the assessment first, rather than plunging a whole sector into chaos and into the dark. So, I'd just like to ask your opinion on that. My next question relates to, you know, the global population is set to treble. We have a war in Ukraine. We can't get certain food products, we all know, because of that war. Why isn't there a special case being made for agriculture in the EU? In light of the fact that there are issues around food security, and farming organisations such as the IFA have said that, you know, any unfair calculation will threaten food security. You know, why isn't there common sense here and some logic? And, John, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you feel that our MEPs out there need to fight to make a special case for agriculture and for it to be done across Europe? Yeah, well, look, the special case is one thing, but, you know, the facts are so important here. I mean, the removals by Irish forestry are huge. But there was a paper produced last week by Gary Lanigan of Chagask. And, you know, in the Irish, in the inventory, you will find that they say that Irish mineral soils remove 2.3 million tonnes a year. Gary Lanigan's research has shown that that is an underestimation by about seven times. Irish mineral soils, according to Gary Lanigan, are about 15 million tonnes a year. The inventory says 2.3. Now, he also mentioned that the research on peatlands is not completed yet, but he thinks they are overestimated by a factor of at least 2 million tonnes a year. So they have 8.5 million tonnes in for emissions by peatlands. It's probably near to four, but there's no actual figures on that. But the figures by Gary Lanigan are out and they're current and they're correct and they're massive. That's 1.4 to 1.5 tonnes per acre per annum being removed by Irish grassland farmers. And if you look at research in places like Florida and Georgia, where they're dealing with very depleted soils, but they're doing 3.6 tonnes per acre per annum. And their method of combating climate change is intensive grass based dairy. That's extraordinary. They say the way to take carbon out of the air is convert the arable land to grass and put intensive grazing animals on it. And that's what we're doing. So I think we're in a win-win situation. Can you just answer the questions that definitely no one would put there? Sure. I'd be happy to. I think I just wanted to, on your first point about rural constituencies, I just wanted to sort of remind you of Dr. Mitlener's point about how we don't need farmers to feel threatened by this. In fact, it could easily be seen as an opportunity for farming. And we're sort of saddled with this rather misperception of conflict because of the incorrect way in which we measure the impact of farming on climate. And so, you know, notwithstanding all these other accounting and measurement issues that have been raised, this is a problem we don't need to have. And if we actually measure the impact of the farmers in your constituency on climate, on global temperature, rather than on this global warming footprint or this carbon footprint, you know, I think farmers would be reassured by the results. And I think that would be a very useful thing for Ireland to do, and indeed to show the rest of the European Union as a way forward. I think there may be other farming communities in the European Union who haven't really perhaps got their minds around this issue as much as the Irish. I dare speculate here, but maybe Irish farmers are a bit ahead of some of other countries in the European Union in terms of thinking about this issue. So, you could really do a favour to your European partners across Europe by pointing out that just with this simple additional piece of information, impact on global temperature, you can do a great deal to diffuse the animosity in this whole discussion. Dr. I completely agree, and I want to add this. When it comes to methane, there are of course sources that we are all aware of. Kettles, enteric emissions, their manure and other issues. So, there are sources, but there are also sinks. And to me, who has been to Ireland twice over the last few years and talked about these topics several times. I want to emphasise that it is important for a country like Ireland that is largely pasture-based to know under what conditions throughout your geography lands can trap and capture carbon to what extent. At some point carbon capture is plateauing, no longer increasing. There are some lands that capture more than others. But I think it is very important that you assess not just the sources, but also the sinks and how you can amplify the importance of your sinks. How you can increase soil carbon sequestration, for example through improved pasture management, grazing management and so on. I think that is very important. I emphasised the need for that two years ago when I visited and again last two weeks ago. I would like to thank you all for your comments, but certainly there is a problem. In the current debate, farmers are being demonised and scapegoated, unfortunately. And there needs to be, I think, a change in terms of mindset. Because they are playing their role, believe it or not, in terms of protecting our environment, but that is not recognised. With respect, we have brought in these men today and ladies, sorry. No, but it was just to take up on the point of the misperception at that point. I am just concluding. We have brought in these witnesses to answer questions on the calculations and meeting. I understand, Chairperson, I have the briefing in front of me and I spoke on the calculations. I spoke on that specifically, but I just want to end on that point. That is a point that we are all trying to get across as rural TDs. You know, I did speak to the briefing note, very much so. I accept that. And I would like to thank you all for your time.