Irish agriculture is on the brink of its biggest opportunity to develop since the decade between joining the EEC in 1973 and the introduction of milk quotas. While there is argument about the extent of the potential increases, there is agreement that the increase will be substantial. Increased output and intensification should be good for the economy and the farming sector, but some are already asking about potential negative impacts on the environment.
Farmers have made huge efforts in recent years to comply with new policies and practices to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment.
This is now beginning to show a return in terms of better environmental outcomes, so policy makers are unlikely to allow this positive trend to be reversed. This forces the question: Will environmental issues be the new quotas?
It is tempting to look for a simple yes or no answer, but it is impossible to give one. Let’s broaden the question for clarity:
Are we likely to see production limits (quotas) imposed on farmers to achieve environmental goals? The answer – probably not.Will farmers have to ensure that their production is achieved side-by-side with positive environmental outcomes that may have impacts on output? The answer – definitely yes.This latter question provides a good starting point for a conversation that needs to take place within farming and the wider community.
Sustainable intensification
The term which encompasses the national objective for Irish agriculture is sustainable intensification. At its simplest, this is defined as “the process of increasing agricultural yields without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land”.
The blueprint developed for the agri-food industry, Food Harvest 2020, espouses a similar objective of smart green growth. This objective is supported at both European and global levels by the emerging consensus around the grand challenge of feeding the world’s population into the future, while, at the same time, achieving environmental targets, especially in relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
To date in Ireland some progress has been made in improving environmental outcomes where output was constricted by quotas. From April 2015, delivering sustainable intensification will get more difficult as output from the industry increases rapidly. Continuing to achieve environmental improvements will get significantly more challenging.
So in asking “will environmental issues be the new quotas?”, the answer lies in the industry’s capacity to deliver the sustainable part.
Greenhouse gas emissions
By far the biggest threat of environmental output restrictions has arisen from the need to cut GHG emissions. Ireland has a target to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. More than 30% of Ireland’s emissions come from agriculture and most of these are from dairy and beef production.
Reducing GHG emissions from agricultural production is difficult. Predictions of large increases in dairy output have added to fears of further substantial GHG increases from the sector. Therefore, limiting or cutting cattle numbers was seen by some as an obvious solution. However, like many things in life, it is just not that simple.
There is little doubt about the seriousness of the global problem. There is growing consensus that the prevention of catastrophic climate change requires a long-term reduction in global net emissions of 80% by 2050.
The stepping stones that have been put in place are a reduction in Irish greenhouse gasses of 20% by 2020 and a 40% reduction at EU level by 2030.
However, the agreement on the 40% reduction acknowledges that agriculture is not just another polluting industry, that food security concerns need to be addressed and that farmers, through changing their land use, can take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
While this agreement buys some time for agriculture, it also puts the onus on Irish farmers to deliver significant mitigation within their production systems. Ireland’s dairy and beef production systems are among the most carbon-efficient in the world and it makes sense to produce these products where it is done most efficiently. However, with imminent expansion forecast, efficiency increases will be required.
A lot of research has been done to identify practices and technologies which have the capacity to reduce GHG emissions. Most of these are win-win, where increasing efficiency leads to lower emissions and, at the same time, put more money in farmers’ pockets.
Emissions reducing technologies include extending the grazing season, improved breeding, improved nitrogen use efficiency, changes in slurry application, earlier first calving, better calving rate, increased growth rate and improved energy efficiency.
There is also the prospect that new technologies could further reduce emissions. Meeting longer-term GHG emissions targets will also be dependent on higher levels of afforestation and the use of land to produce renewable energy.
The challenge to farmers is to adopt practices which reduce emissions and this is being recognised through support in new initiatives under the Rural Development Programme. These include actions under the proposed discussion group initiative, the beef genomics scheme, GLAS and TAMs.
The agri-food industry is putting a huge emphasis on emissions reduction through industry-led sustainability and quality assurance schemes led by Bord Bia and through a series of other initiatives.
While the immediate threat of emissions-based quotas has abated, they remain a possibility in the future. In the interim, how farmers and the broader industry perform in delivering the mitigation that is technically possible will be a key factor as to when this may happen.
Water quality
The water framework and nitrates directives led to a body of regulation which aims to reduce the impact of agriculture on water quality. Over the last two reviews of the nitrates action plan, modifications to the initial provisions have made it more fit for purpose.
The regulatory framework has been supported by measures in REPS and AEOS and by the investment in slurry storage facilities that was supported by the farm waste management scheme. These measures have played a significant role in stopping the decline in water quality and in delivering some level of improvement.
During the same period, there has been a significant national expenditure on research in relation to water quality, supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine through the stimulus programme and the Teagasc agricultural catchments programme (ACP).
This research continues to improve the understanding of the sources, pathways and impacts of pollutants of our water and continues to demonstrate the positive impacts of the current regulatory framework.
The ACP is also highlighting another challenge to the industry. It is putting forward a thesis that the next level of improvement in water quality can better be delivered by two main approaches:
Implementing targeted measures in precisely targeted vulnerable areas rather than by a further level of regulation applied equally across the landscape. Achieving better practices at farm level, supported by knowledge transfer.These vulnerable areas, often called critical source areas (CSAs), that could be targeted would generally make up a relatively small proportion of farmland and would often be in a wetter or more steeply sloping area.
Alternatively, they could be larger areas with particular soil characteristics or in proximity to high status water.
The challenges can be very different for the two extremes. For small CSAs within the farm, the challenge is often to identify them and to identify and implement mitigating actions.
Targeting large areas poses a significant dilemma for policy makers, farmer organisations and individual farmers.
It can lead to the development of a different, more stringent set of rules for farmers in the vulnerable area, putting farmers in these areas at a competitive disadvantage to others. At European level, most countries have identified nitrates vulnerable zones and not adopted a whole territory approach to nitrates.
Ireland has adopted a whole territory approach and has implemented some of the most stringent regulation in the EU, including regulation on phosphorus. If large area targeting is to be implemented, there is a requirement for very strong evidence of impact combined with comprehensive cost benefit analysis of the action.
There is also an emerging consensus that achieving future improvements in water quality is less likely to be dependent on further regulation than on achieving a higher level of compliance with current legislation.
And this must be combined with the development of a better understanding and ownership amongst farmers and other rural dwellers of their potential to impact water quality negatively or positively.
Research and observations from the ACP indicate that farmers are interested in the quality of their local watercourse. Turning this goodwill into decisions and actions at farm level requires appropriate services to be put in place, such as effective nutrient management planning and assistance in identifying and managing critical source areas.
Will achieving water quality targets lead to the establishment of new quotas? For the vast majority of farmers, the answer should be no unless, as an industry, we fail to achieve continued improvement in water quality.
Biodiversity
Halting the decline in biodiversity is a key environmental objective and has led to the establishment of a network of protected habitats designated as natural heritage areas (NHA), special areas of conservation (SAC) and special protection areas (SPA). The majority of these designated areas are on land which is not farmed intensively.
Restrictions do apply to farming practices in these areas. Many of these farmers take part in agri-environment schemes where they are compensated for protection measures which they implement to support endangered species.
There are a substantial number of areas identified as potential NHAs, which will be classified as NHAs. However, there is unlikely to be a mass designation of areas in the more commercial farming areas.
Under greening rules, measures to protect biodiversity have been established in tillage areas with a requirement for 5% to be designated as ecological focus areas (EFAs). It is important that grassland farmers work to maintain and improve habitats so as to be in a position to demonstrate positive outcomes for biodiversity. If this is achieved, it is unlikely that significant restrictions, which would be seen as constituting as quota, will be placed on production.
The environmental toolbox
This country has a toolbox of measures to support the achievement of positive environmental outcomes. The most commonly used tools to date have been:
Regulation. Agri-environment schemes.Grant schemes. These tools have helped build a fairly solid foundation from which to deliver improvement in environmental outcomes. But there is a need to continually improve our policy framework and to look at what other tools can bring when attempting to meet our environmental challenges. The other tools at our disposal include:
Research to develop a better understanding of the sources and pathways of problems and to develop technological solutions to deliver better outcomes.Education and knowledge transfer to improve the understanding of farmers and rural dwellers with regard to both the negative and positive impact they can have so as to support the adoption of positive practices.The mobilisation of groups to support ownership in communities of the problems and solutions they face.Marketplace support for environmental improvement.
Irish agriculture is on the brink of its biggest opportunity to develop since the decade between joining the EEC in 1973 and the introduction of milk quotas. While there is argument about the extent of the potential increases, there is agreement that the increase will be substantial. Increased output and intensification should be good for the economy and the farming sector, but some are already asking about potential negative impacts on the environment.
Farmers have made huge efforts in recent years to comply with new policies and practices to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment.
This is now beginning to show a return in terms of better environmental outcomes, so policy makers are unlikely to allow this positive trend to be reversed. This forces the question: Will environmental issues be the new quotas?
It is tempting to look for a simple yes or no answer, but it is impossible to give one. Let’s broaden the question for clarity:
Are we likely to see production limits (quotas) imposed on farmers to achieve environmental goals? The answer – probably not.Will farmers have to ensure that their production is achieved side-by-side with positive environmental outcomes that may have impacts on output? The answer – definitely yes.This latter question provides a good starting point for a conversation that needs to take place within farming and the wider community.
Sustainable intensification
The term which encompasses the national objective for Irish agriculture is sustainable intensification. At its simplest, this is defined as “the process of increasing agricultural yields without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land”.
The blueprint developed for the agri-food industry, Food Harvest 2020, espouses a similar objective of smart green growth. This objective is supported at both European and global levels by the emerging consensus around the grand challenge of feeding the world’s population into the future, while, at the same time, achieving environmental targets, especially in relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
To date in Ireland some progress has been made in improving environmental outcomes where output was constricted by quotas. From April 2015, delivering sustainable intensification will get more difficult as output from the industry increases rapidly. Continuing to achieve environmental improvements will get significantly more challenging.
So in asking “will environmental issues be the new quotas?”, the answer lies in the industry’s capacity to deliver the sustainable part.
Greenhouse gas emissions
By far the biggest threat of environmental output restrictions has arisen from the need to cut GHG emissions. Ireland has a target to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. More than 30% of Ireland’s emissions come from agriculture and most of these are from dairy and beef production.
Reducing GHG emissions from agricultural production is difficult. Predictions of large increases in dairy output have added to fears of further substantial GHG increases from the sector. Therefore, limiting or cutting cattle numbers was seen by some as an obvious solution. However, like many things in life, it is just not that simple.
There is little doubt about the seriousness of the global problem. There is growing consensus that the prevention of catastrophic climate change requires a long-term reduction in global net emissions of 80% by 2050.
The stepping stones that have been put in place are a reduction in Irish greenhouse gasses of 20% by 2020 and a 40% reduction at EU level by 2030.
However, the agreement on the 40% reduction acknowledges that agriculture is not just another polluting industry, that food security concerns need to be addressed and that farmers, through changing their land use, can take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
While this agreement buys some time for agriculture, it also puts the onus on Irish farmers to deliver significant mitigation within their production systems. Ireland’s dairy and beef production systems are among the most carbon-efficient in the world and it makes sense to produce these products where it is done most efficiently. However, with imminent expansion forecast, efficiency increases will be required.
A lot of research has been done to identify practices and technologies which have the capacity to reduce GHG emissions. Most of these are win-win, where increasing efficiency leads to lower emissions and, at the same time, put more money in farmers’ pockets.
Emissions reducing technologies include extending the grazing season, improved breeding, improved nitrogen use efficiency, changes in slurry application, earlier first calving, better calving rate, increased growth rate and improved energy efficiency.
There is also the prospect that new technologies could further reduce emissions. Meeting longer-term GHG emissions targets will also be dependent on higher levels of afforestation and the use of land to produce renewable energy.
The challenge to farmers is to adopt practices which reduce emissions and this is being recognised through support in new initiatives under the Rural Development Programme. These include actions under the proposed discussion group initiative, the beef genomics scheme, GLAS and TAMs.
The agri-food industry is putting a huge emphasis on emissions reduction through industry-led sustainability and quality assurance schemes led by Bord Bia and through a series of other initiatives.
While the immediate threat of emissions-based quotas has abated, they remain a possibility in the future. In the interim, how farmers and the broader industry perform in delivering the mitigation that is technically possible will be a key factor as to when this may happen.
Water quality
The water framework and nitrates directives led to a body of regulation which aims to reduce the impact of agriculture on water quality. Over the last two reviews of the nitrates action plan, modifications to the initial provisions have made it more fit for purpose.
The regulatory framework has been supported by measures in REPS and AEOS and by the investment in slurry storage facilities that was supported by the farm waste management scheme. These measures have played a significant role in stopping the decline in water quality and in delivering some level of improvement.
During the same period, there has been a significant national expenditure on research in relation to water quality, supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine through the stimulus programme and the Teagasc agricultural catchments programme (ACP).
This research continues to improve the understanding of the sources, pathways and impacts of pollutants of our water and continues to demonstrate the positive impacts of the current regulatory framework.
The ACP is also highlighting another challenge to the industry. It is putting forward a thesis that the next level of improvement in water quality can better be delivered by two main approaches:
Implementing targeted measures in precisely targeted vulnerable areas rather than by a further level of regulation applied equally across the landscape. Achieving better practices at farm level, supported by knowledge transfer.These vulnerable areas, often called critical source areas (CSAs), that could be targeted would generally make up a relatively small proportion of farmland and would often be in a wetter or more steeply sloping area.
Alternatively, they could be larger areas with particular soil characteristics or in proximity to high status water.
The challenges can be very different for the two extremes. For small CSAs within the farm, the challenge is often to identify them and to identify and implement mitigating actions.
Targeting large areas poses a significant dilemma for policy makers, farmer organisations and individual farmers.
It can lead to the development of a different, more stringent set of rules for farmers in the vulnerable area, putting farmers in these areas at a competitive disadvantage to others. At European level, most countries have identified nitrates vulnerable zones and not adopted a whole territory approach to nitrates.
Ireland has adopted a whole territory approach and has implemented some of the most stringent regulation in the EU, including regulation on phosphorus. If large area targeting is to be implemented, there is a requirement for very strong evidence of impact combined with comprehensive cost benefit analysis of the action.
There is also an emerging consensus that achieving future improvements in water quality is less likely to be dependent on further regulation than on achieving a higher level of compliance with current legislation.
And this must be combined with the development of a better understanding and ownership amongst farmers and other rural dwellers of their potential to impact water quality negatively or positively.
Research and observations from the ACP indicate that farmers are interested in the quality of their local watercourse. Turning this goodwill into decisions and actions at farm level requires appropriate services to be put in place, such as effective nutrient management planning and assistance in identifying and managing critical source areas.
Will achieving water quality targets lead to the establishment of new quotas? For the vast majority of farmers, the answer should be no unless, as an industry, we fail to achieve continued improvement in water quality.
Biodiversity
Halting the decline in biodiversity is a key environmental objective and has led to the establishment of a network of protected habitats designated as natural heritage areas (NHA), special areas of conservation (SAC) and special protection areas (SPA). The majority of these designated areas are on land which is not farmed intensively.
Restrictions do apply to farming practices in these areas. Many of these farmers take part in agri-environment schemes where they are compensated for protection measures which they implement to support endangered species.
There are a substantial number of areas identified as potential NHAs, which will be classified as NHAs. However, there is unlikely to be a mass designation of areas in the more commercial farming areas.
Under greening rules, measures to protect biodiversity have been established in tillage areas with a requirement for 5% to be designated as ecological focus areas (EFAs). It is important that grassland farmers work to maintain and improve habitats so as to be in a position to demonstrate positive outcomes for biodiversity. If this is achieved, it is unlikely that significant restrictions, which would be seen as constituting as quota, will be placed on production.
The environmental toolbox
This country has a toolbox of measures to support the achievement of positive environmental outcomes. The most commonly used tools to date have been:
Regulation. Agri-environment schemes.Grant schemes. These tools have helped build a fairly solid foundation from which to deliver improvement in environmental outcomes. But there is a need to continually improve our policy framework and to look at what other tools can bring when attempting to meet our environmental challenges. The other tools at our disposal include:
Research to develop a better understanding of the sources and pathways of problems and to develop technological solutions to deliver better outcomes.Education and knowledge transfer to improve the understanding of farmers and rural dwellers with regard to both the negative and positive impact they can have so as to support the adoption of positive practices.The mobilisation of groups to support ownership in communities of the problems and solutions they face.Marketplace support for environmental improvement. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: