The threat posed by climate-related cuts to agricultural production will require a co-ordinated and unified response from the farm organisations.

That was the surprising closing message from a well-mannered farm leaders’ debate hosted by the Irish Farmers Journal on Tuesday evening.

While sharp differences on CAP reform and the merits of dairy beef resulted in some caustic exchanges, the existential challenge posed by the climate crisis, and the Government’s likely response, prompted a call for unity at the close of the debate.

IFA president Tim Cullinan warned that the sectoral target for carbon emissions cuts from agriculture was likely to result in the “most fundamental change” in Irish farming since the foundation of the state.

Cullinan said the farm organisations were going to have to “work together” to defend the interests of the industry.

This view was echoed by ICMSA leader Pat McCormack.

“Climate change is the one thing we can all unite on,” he agreed.

In an evening that was not short on unanimity, the farm leaders broadly agreed on environmental issues.

Carbon and forestry

Both the IFA and ICMSA leaders agreed that carbon sequestration rights of forestry plantations should rest with landowners, with Cullinan reiterating his association’s position that it was seeking legal advice on the matter.

“It is a fight we will take on,” Mr Cullinan claimed.

Meanwhile, Macra na Feirme president John Keane was critical of the “complete lack of engagement from the Government on solar power” and connectivity.

“This is a space [in which] the Government needs to support us,” Keane said.

ICSA leader Dermot Kelleher reflected the views of most farm leaders when he said that €1.5bn in additional funds from the carbon tax should be targeted at a dedicated agri-environment scheme.

However, Vincent Roddy of the INHFA cautioned that the inclusion of results-based elements in such a package could prove problematic.

Bobby Miller of the Irish Grain Growers repeated his organisation’s demand for a dedicated tillage-specific scheme.

Miller said the current Pillar II measures for protein crops and straw incorporation also needed to be rolled over.

While Cullinan’s call for investment in anaerobic digestion (AD) technology and the development of a bio-methane production capacity – which he suggested could be controlled by the co-op movement – was broadly supported, ICMSA’s Pat McCormack sounded a note of caution.

He accepted that AD units could provide a valuable outlet for slurry, but he maintained that they may have a “negative” impact if they created greater competition for grass.

CAP

However, the most profound differences between the farm leaders centred on CAP and the promotion of dairy beef.

This was illustrated by their contrasting position on the eco-scheme element of Pillar I payments, and by their attitude to CRISS and convergence.

While Roddy and Kelleher supported eco payments making up 25% of the Pillar I envelope, and it being paid on a flat-rate basis, this position was rejected by Cullinan, McCormack and Keane.

The positions of the farm organisations on CRISS followed a broadly similar pattern.

All the farm leaders, with the exception of Mr Roddy, opposed the continued convergence of Pillar I payments beyond 85%.

McCormack and Kelleher said the reduction in payments to farmers with small holdings but with high-value entitlements illustrated the unfairness of convergence.

Cullinan said the continued move towards flat-rate payments demonstrated how CAP was shifting from a policy tool that supported food producers to one which was more concerned with the environment and climate change.

Roddy said this shift reflected the reality that CAP was more concerned with the conditionality of schemes than with food production.

Coupling

Differences also emerged with regard to coupled payments.

Kelleher said a 13% clawback of Pillar I funds could deliver a €300/hd suckler cow payment, as well as €35/ewe payment and an environmental programme.

He said the need for these payments was evident from the Teagasc national farm survey, where 150-160% of income for suckler farmers came from direct payments.

However, McCormack questioned if the poor efficiency of many suckler cows was to blame for the poor income levels in suckling.

HE said he saw “great merit” in promoting dairy beef; but Kelleher insisted he could not recommend dairy beef to his members.

The ICSA leader said dairy cattle made poor beef animals, with negative values for carcase, and the stocking rates required for profitable dairy-beef systems were too high for most extensive suckler holdings.