The IFA and ICMSA have both claimed that the bioeconomy report was an academic exercise that is detached from farming reality.

IFA dismissed the report as “ideological nonsense”, while ICMSA questioned the absence of farmer input.

Pointing out that the report would “seriously undermine farming systems along the western seaboard”, the IFA said farmers could not be “expected to switch to uncertain green premiums, carbon markets or future policy supports”.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Any strategy has to be grounded in economic reality and provide clear, credible and viable business models for farmers,” an IFA spokesman maintained.

“This report is presented as a national strategic foresight report and is endorsed by the Department of Agriculture. This raises legitimate questions and concerns for farmers about the extent to which its assumptions and proposed pathways could inform future agricultural policy,” the IFA cautioned.

ICMSA president Denis Drennan bemoaned the plethora of conflicting land use strategies and initiatives that farmers are being asked to engage with and support.

“I presume nobody will object if we try and go on producing food off our farms?” Drennan asked.

“In which case, some of these competing land use strategies are going to have to ‘parked’,” he added.

“It would be our firm view that it’s time for a bit of reality and joined-up thinking to be displayed by those charged with these projects,” Drennan remarked.