Taoiseach recognises flaws in measurement of agriculture emissions

It is surprising that comments from An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at the Government’s Climate Action Plan report last Thursday did not receive more attention – either within national media or from farm organisations. For the first time, there was a clear indication from Government that the approach taken to calculating Ireland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is flawed and that the allocation of emissions from our export-focused agricultural sector should be treated differently in accounting methodology.

At the launch, the Taoiseach said:

“We are a country of five million people that feeds 50 [million] and yet all the food production gets accounted for in Ireland as a contribution to global warming, but that food production is going to have to happen, it’s going to have to happen somewhere.

“We are going to need to look at that on an international level and see if we need to treat food production differently to the way we treat transport or electricity and that we can actually move fully over to the renewables and away from fossil fuels.”

The Irish Farmers Journal has been highlighting the serious flaws in the methodology used to calculate our national emissions inventory for years – it not only includes emissions from the food we produce for export but also the emissions from the oil and gas we import.

The argument was repeatedly dismissed on the basis that, under UN convention, national emissions are calculated at the point at which GHG is released into the atmosphere. Also, according to the criteria set down by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), countries where products are consumed take no responsibility for the emissions produced by the exporting countries, therefore the emissions linked to trade are ignored.

The statement by the Taoiseach is highly significant in that he publicly questions this approach, highlighting the extent to which it leaves Ireland carrying the emissions liability for the food consumed by 50m people.

The Taoiseach should be acknowledged for being one of the first EU leaders to publicly question the procedures in place

As Colm McCarthy writes this week, the Taoiseach’s remarks represent the first acknowledgement that Ireland is a victim of an internationally inconsistent approach to measuring and controlling emissions – with the agricultural sector hardest hit.

The Taoiseach is not alone. A move to a consumption-based approach to calculating emissions has been gaining momentum. Such a model would see the responsibility for the associated emissions shared between the exporting and importing country.

Consumption-based accounting is also seen as a way of preventing countries from simply outsourcing their emissions in a bid to achieve national targets – regardless of the impact on total global emissions.

Controlling emissions

Colm McCarthy argues for a universal policy to discourage consumption of carbon-intensive products everywhere in a bid to control emissions. This would effectively place a carbon tax on food at the point of consumption, and would result in global production naturally migrating to the most carbon-efficient regions of the world. It’s a view that makes sense – but only if a universal approach is adopted when calculating the complete carbon life cycle and carbon footprint of products and supply chains from various regions.

There is no doubt that flaws are being identified in how the current IPCC criteria calculates national emissions inventories. The extent to which these flaws, alongside an intense focus to deliver individual country targets, are impacting negatively on the global ambition to reduce GHG emissions is being increasingly recognised.

The Taoiseach should be acknowledged for being one of the first EU leaders to publicly question the procedures and criteria currently in place when calculating national emissions inventories.

Attention must now turn to securing support at EU level in order to start to reform policy within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Rather than standing silent, he should be receiving the full support of farm organisations and indeed environmentalists that are focused on actually tackling the challenge of reducing global emissions.

Also this week, Pat O’Toole looks at how the lobbying landscape has changed in the past five years. Between 1993 and 2014, there was little change with the IFA, ICMSA, ICSA and Macra na Feirme representing farmers. Since 2014, five new groups have emerged.

Life for what were the four main lobby groups has changed dramatically – particularly the IFA, which aims to represent all farmers. Representing the interests of all has become increasingly challenging with successive CAP reforms seeing money moving between sectors and farmers.

The question facing farmers is whether this new landscape best serves their interests. It is easy to gain a following and harness support if offering hope at a time of desperation – but with leadership comes the responsibility to deal in facts and deliver on commitments.

Beef protests

There is no doubt that many farmers are questioning if the beef protests of the summer months delivered. Beef prices have slipped further and, as Darren Carty reports, the backlog created from 95,000 less cattle being slaughtered during this period is seeing farmers struggling to sell stock. Unfortunately, those who marched farmers to the gates of factories on the promise of a rise in beef prices failed to deliver.

There is also the need to ensure proper procedures are in place so that we do not have a situation where unelected “overnight” leaders can claim to represent the views of any sector or group of farmers. In the current environment, it is worth considering whether farm organisations or groups should now be registered before they can claim representation.

Any registration process would require the need to show proper procedure in relation to a membership register, electoral process and financial transparency – much in the same way as trade unions must be licensed. Of course, the wider question is whether a plethora of diverse groups delivers for farmers or merely dilutes their voice.

With the majority of livestock now housed, costs on farms will be starting to ramp up. One of the biggest costs will be the purchase of concentrates.

There has been an industry built around making concentrate feeding complicated when in fact it is a relatively simply process. The foundation stone for any ration should be rolled barley/wheat.

With the exceptions of maize meal, anything else added to the ration only dilutes its energy value. Where low levels are being fed to store animals alongside grass silage, a simple two-way mix of rolled barley along with a protein source is adequate.

When feeding higher levels, the inclusion of a fibre source is necessary. Where rations with a long list of various ingredients are being offered, farmers should question the reasons for their inclusion.

In all cases, the percentage inclusion rates should be provided when comparing rations.

Next Tuesday sees this year’s Irish Farmers Journal beef and sheep mart demo series kick off in Gortatlea Mart, Co Kerry.

The themes of this year’s events are health, housing, breeding and feeding – getting it right this winter.

Our livestock team will outline practical tips on how to get things right this winter on drystock farms.

The Irish Farmers Journal is offering farmers the opportunity to have their blood pressure measurements checked, pulse checks, individualised healthy eating, exercise and lifestyle advice, completed personal record card and educational materials, a referral to a GP where necessary in accordance with best practice guidelines and follow-up support with identified high-risk individuals where necessary.

Nurses from Croí will be available to carry out the consultations from 5-7pm at each event.