Thankfully the Government concluded negotiations on setting sectoral emission ceilings last week. Doing so will hopefully stem the ruthless shredding of farmers’ reputations that has gone largely unchallenged in recent months.

The strategic framing of the debate on the need to reduce agriculture emissions rather than the environmental footprint of food production conveniently allowed for farmers rather than consumers to become the focus of attention; the responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from meat production resting inside the farm gate rather than with the consumers who drove global demand to a record high in 2021. And as Phelim O’Neill reports, it is a trend that is going to continue with beef consumption forecast to increase by a further 10% by 2031.

25% target

Any respite from the reputational shredding is likely to be temporary. Last week, Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue did not commit farmers to a 25% emission reduction target – he committed the sector to a legally binding emission ceiling of 17.25m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e) by 2030. This means that over the next seven years emissions from the sector must be reduced by 5.75m tonnes of CO2-e.

In the same way as is currently playing out in The Netherlands, failure to deliver on this legally binding commitment will see environmental groups quickly challenge the government through the courts, creating a scenario where within the next decade, farmers could see judges having greater influence over the direction of agriculture policy than the Minister for Agriculture.

Scale of the challenge

As Anne Finnegan reports, it is difficult to understate the scale of the challenge to which Minister McConalogue has committed farmers. In 2021, data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed emissions from the sector to have increased by 3% and there is little to suggest that there will be any dramatic reduction in 2022.

In defending the 25% reduction, the minister has pointed to the fact that the KPMG report commissioned by the Irish Farmers Journal identified a roadmap to reduce emissions from the sector by 18%. But he failed to recognise that delivering on this roadmap will require one of the greatest technology transformations ever to take place on Irish farms and at a pace never before seen.

Reduction in national herd

In addition, technologies that are as yet unidentified will have to be implemented if a 25% reduction is to be achieved. KPMG data would indicate that a 10-15% reduction in the national herd would be required if these new technologies do not emerge and are not fully implemented in the years ahead. Is such ambition credible when we consider the pace of technology transfer over the last decade? What plan has Teagasc to fast-track technology transfer to such levels?

Furthermore, how will this technological revolution be delivered on a voluntary basis in line with Government commitments that no farmer will be forced to reduce cattle numbers or change practices?

Some have taken great comfort from the repeated reassurances from ministers that changes for agriculture will be voluntary. But does hiding behind “voluntary” measures simply allow Government to avoid putting in place proper funding to support farmers in the radical changes that will be required to farm practices?

Rather than enforce mandatory reductions in cattle numbers, which would require a compensation package similar to fishing, is the strategy to achieve the same outcome through the engineering of negative subsidies and policy changes – therefore avoiding the need for any payment?

Minister for the Environment Eamon Ryan.\ Philip Doyle

It should be noted that less than 24 hours after commitments that climate measures would be voluntary, the Department of Agriculture issued a press release warning that the maximum stocking rate on derogation farms in certain areas could be reduced to 220kg of organic nitrogen from 2024. This reduction alongside changes to the banding rates will force large numbers of farmers into reducing stock numbers – albeit the decision will be voluntary. We see the same tactic being used when it comes to farmers “voluntarily” reducing suckler cow numbers. The outcome of this CAP reform clearly exposes a willingness by the minister to use negative subsidies to engineer a voluntary reduction in cow numbers. The lack of willingness to provide any coupled supports to the sector plus the decision to move €250m into an organic scheme, which will require most farmers to reduce cow numbers to access it, shows clear intent.

Rising food demand

In this regard, the narrative presented by the minister recognising the need for Irish farm families to play an increased role in meeting the rising global demand for food would appear disingenuous when assessed against the policy measures he is implementing which, as detailed by Jack Kennedy this week, are clearly aimed at reducing stock numbers and farm productivity.

A so-called voluntary approach that forces change through regulation and negative subsidies must not be allowed absolve Government from the need to provide adequate funding support in whatever plan lies ahead. Unfortunately, when there was the opportunity to make a case for Irish farmers to receive funding under the EU €750bn stimulus, its voice was silent. Reassurances around voluntary measures should not distract from the urgent need for farmers to now have their voices heard.

At this critical juncture, farmers deserve honesty and clarity from Government on what the climate commitments agreed last week mean for the future of their business. It is not acceptable that over a year on from agreeing an overall 51% emission reduction target, farmers continue to await even the most basic outline of what the plan is for their sector and how the legally binding commitments will be achieved without decimating their livelihoods.