Unfortunately farmers are again in a very similar position to 2013 – fighting among themselves over the distribution of a CAP budget, that is completely inadequate.

There is simply not the funding available to safeguard the income of those optimising the productive capacity of their land, while also rewarding those who are maximising the environmental dividend.

In a debate that creates winners and losers, it is difficult for both sides to unite in a common purpose. But that is exactly what needs to happen now if farming communities are to be protected. Farmers, big or small, east or west, beef or dairy, hill or lowland, intensive or extensive, IFA, ICMSA, ICSA or INHFA, must stop fighting over the CAP scraps. Instead they must come together to call out the extent to which the CAP no longer fits any farmer.

On our letters page, former IFA deputy president Derek Deane details the impact of the current policy direction on the low-income suckler and sheep sector – albeit with higher than average entitlements. Pointing out the financial impact on these farms is not to dismiss the legitimate claim that others have in seeking the environmental dividend of their farming enterprise to be supported. But to pit one set of farmers against another merely allows policymakers, who are continually demanding more for less, off the hook.

Vision

Almost a year ago, the European Commission released details of their vision for EU agriculture. The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies would see EU agriculture transition to a “fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system”. A utopian pathway was presented where a less efficient but environmentally enhanced production model would maintain food affordability and yet deliver a more sustainable livelihood for the primary producer.

But just two months later at an EU leaders’ summit in July, any hope that farmers would receive additional support in transitioning to this new food production model quickly disappeared. Instead the CAP budget for the next seven-year period was cut by the equivalent of 12.5%, after taking into account the impact of inflation.

Green transition

At the same summit, EU leaders agreed a €750bn next generation EU fund. But despite the focus being on helping member states in the “green transition”, agriculture was forgotten: directly securing just 1% of the total fund through a rural development programme. Of this, Ireland secured 2.58% or €194m.

Additional funding came in the form of a €17.5bn Just Transition fund. Again its focus was environmental sustainability and to address the challenges posed by the green transition. However, Ireland received just 0.4% or €77m from this fund with only Malta and Luxembourg receiving less.

This compared to member states such as Poland, Germany, Romania and Bulgaria each receiving between 10% and 20%, the justification being their reliance on fossil fuels and energy-intensive industries. Why is supporting the transition to greener energy in Poland and Germany viewed more favourably than supporting the transition to greener food production systems in Ireland?

Core industry

The reason agriculture has such a disproportionately high share of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland is because agriculture is Ireland’s only core industry in the way that coal, steel and other heavy industries are in Germany and Poland. Transitioning to greener agriculture is no different to transitioning to greener industry and energy but this is not reflected in the funding allocated to Ireland.

Agriculture will be forgotten if the Irish Government and EU are allowed sit back and watch on as farmers fight among each other

The final piece of the jigsaw is the Recovery and Resilience fund. Of the €672bn, Ireland will be allocated €853m. Ireland must submit a National Recovery and Resilience plan in the coming weeks for EU approval. Again supporting the green transition is seen as a priority along with reducing economic disparity. The increased environmental demands plus the fact that farm incomes are just 50% of the average worker’s wage means there is a legitimate expectation that additional support for the agricultural sector would feature strongly in Ireland’s submission – as it would in the allocation of the €1bn Brexit adjustment reserve fund due to be finalised in the coming weeks.

United voice

But for this to happen, a united voice from farmers must be heard. Agriculture will be forgotten if the Irish Government and EU are allowed sit back and watch on as farmers fight among each other over how an inadequate CAP budget is distributed. Instead, farmers need to send a clear political message to both national government and Brussels that they are united in their demand – continually asking rural Ireland to do more for less is no longer an option and will not be accepted.

A failure to land this message risks Irish farmers losing out on both Brexit and Green Deal adjustment funds.

No one defending red meat

On page 13 we report on a major advertising campaign set to be launched by the National Dairy Council to address consumers’ environmental concerns around dairy farming.

They are to be congratulated on the initiative. But we should ask why such a campaign is focused on promoting a sector within Irish agriculture? Would harnessing the financial power of the entire industry not allow for a much wider and more impactful promotion and scientific defence of Irish agriculture?

However merited, it is unlikely to happen. While we see the dairy industry putting its money where its mouth is, our beef industry continues to bury its head in the sand.

At no point was this more evident than in recent weeks following the publication of research from Trinity College Dublin which reported that the substitution of beef with pea protein reduces the environmental footprint of meatballs by 90% while supporting human health.

Unsurprisingly, the report, which also went on to dispel the view that Irish beef was more environmentally sustainable than Brazilian beef, got prime-time billing on national radio.

Blind eye

What is totally unacceptable is that the entire industry simply turned a blind eye. Not one stakeholder came to the defence of the sector and challenged the findings of the report.

The Irish Farmers Journal asked Professor Alice Stanton to review the nutritional advice contained within the Trinity report.

Clearly there is a strong scientific basis on which to defend the role of beef in the diet over pea protein – but unfortunately there appears to be little commitment at any level within the sector to do so publicly.

Vote needed to quell shareholder ire in Kerry buyout

It’s crystal clear there is now a huge level of anger among milk suppliers on the speculation of a Kerry buyout proposal with no vote or engagement planned.

Unless some clarity is brought to proceedings this week there is likely to be a shareholder call for a special general meeting. Given their track record of voting, to not hold engagement and a vote of shareholders would seem absolutely ludicrous.

Especially if farmers are expected to potentially deliver €200m in funding for any proposal. It’s now almost nine months since we started reporting on speculation that options of a joint venture or a buyout were being discussed internally.

Since then, farmers have had almost no engagement on the subject from their elected representatives or Kerry Group.

The longer this continues the more likely the deal won’t work out and Kerry milk suppliers will potentially be supplying an outside investor. Unfortunately shareholder anger towards the board and the process it has followed could influence the outcome of any vote more so than the feasibility of the deal.