Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their opening statements.

There seems to be a little doubt cast on some of the science around rewetting. If the witnesses could be convinced of that science, would they then be prepared to say that it needs to happen, or is it the case that it is actually rewetting that they have an issue with, regardless of what the science says? I am just trying to understand that point. We all have farmers in our families and live in constituencies where there are many farmers. Well, I certainly do. Farmers want to make the moves in the right direction, I believe, and they need to be supported in doing that. However, there needs to be an acceptance of the science around this in order that we can move in that direction and build trust on each side. A question was asked about the place of the witnesses' organisations as farming organisations, and this is a question for the farming organisations. What will happen to farmers if we do not do some of this work? Mr. McDonnell seems to be suggesting that that is not really their job, as such, and that it is maybe for the Government to make that decision. If, however, his opening statement says that farmers will be the most impacted by the outcome of the NRL and by the land use review, is it not also the case that he could make the argument in his opening statement or to his organisation's members that farmers will actually also be the most impacted by doing nothing? We probably need to have both those conversations at the same time; I do not think we can ignore one over the other.

It is valid to say that farmers will be impacted but it is also valid to say that in doing nothing they will also be impacted.

Going back to the issue around EIPs that was mentioned, I will talk about the ACRES. When the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, was before the committee, we heard that the actual carbon reduction from the ACRES seems to be very small. We talk about the ACRES a lot, and as politicians we talk about its impact a lot, but a huge amount more will need to be done other than the ACRES. What I am hearing colleagues ask is what other suggestions the witnesses have. It is important that their involvement in this is part of the process. What more do they need, other than the ACRES, that they could get behind? What can we do around rewetting that would get the farming organisations on board?