On Monday, the Government adopted its Climate Action Plan 2019. It includes over 180 actions that will be taken to meet EU targets for 2030.

Agriculture has been tasked with reducing emissions by 10% from 2017 levels. With transport required to cut emissions by 35-40% and heating in buildings by 25-30%, some will argue that the target for agriculture should have been higher. This argument ignores the fact that national policy has to look beyond merely achieving national targets.

In tackling the global challenge, the Government has a responsibility to develop a strategy that maximises the contribution our carbon-efficient beef and dairy production systems can make to global food security.

Curtailing Ireland’s carbon-efficient production systems to achieve national targets while shifting production to more emission-intense parts of the world makes no sense.

In the national debate, some fail to recognise that over the term of the Government’s plan, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecast that, globally, farmers will have to produce 70% more food from an ever-reducing land area and availability of fresh water.

In setting a 10% target, the Government has recognised the scope to significantly improve emissions within the sector while acknowledging the role Irish farmers will play in sustainably meeting the needs of a growing global population.

The Teagasc marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) is being presented as the blueprint. However, it is just a list of ambitions. Turning these into reality will require real commitment at national and EU level.

The EU focus needs to be on allowing the use of new technologies to help farmers reduce emissions – particularly in relation to feed additives in reducing methane from livestock. Meanwhile, in the context of climate action, the EU must commit that the global environmental footprint of any EU trade negotiations will be established and made a condition of concluding any future trade deals.

All farmers need to be aware that failure to exploit the potential of our forestry sector will curtail our food production ambition

At national level, nowhere is the impact of policy barriers in preventing ambition from turning to reality more evident than in forestry. Largely due to an unfavourable policy landscape, the rate of afforestation in 2018 fell to one of the lowest levels in decades, just 40% of the Government’s 10,000/ha per annum target. This is despite the fact that increasing the rate of afforestation has been identified as one of the key strategies in offsetting emissions from agriculture.

Under the Climate Action Plan, the Government’s objective is to increase the rate of planting to 8,000 ha per annum over the next 10 years. It is a target that will not be achieved unless restrictions on the planting of unenclosed land is amended and the replanting obligation is removed.

All farmers need to be aware that failure to exploit the potential of our forestry sector will curtail our food production ambition due to an inability to strike a balance between production and the environment.

If we are to turn the ambition outlined in the Teagasc MACC into reality, a different approach will also be required for farm schemes. In CAP, schemes that incentivise farmers to drive efficiency should no longer be seen as running contrary to achieving environmental objectives. As Prof Frank O’Mara detailsdetails, the main measures that can be implemented at farm level to reduce emissions are aligned to driving farm productivity and profitability.

The onus extends beyond policy-makers and farmers. Processors and retailers also have a key role in developing specifications that encourage production systems that are more efficient. At present, we have the opposite happening with heavy penalties being used to drive farmers out of young bull beef production, yet emission research shows bull beef systems to be 10-15% more efficient than steer systems.

The burden of responsibility to meet the emission targets set down for agriculture in the Government’s action plan extends far beyond farmers. It will require an industry-wide strategy that maximises the potential of every acre of land – whether this be in food production or delivering an environmental dividend.

Trade: will Mercosur come to define Hogan legacy?

Reports from Brussels that a Mercosur trade deal could be concluded next week were given extra weight when European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan went on record saying it could be possible.

In the week Ireland launched ambitious targets for agriculture to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% in the next decade, it would be ridiculous to encourage a region of the world to continue clearance of forest and savanna land to supply beef to the EU.

Last week, we reported on how an area the size of Leitrim was cleared in Brazil in May. It is reckless from a climate change perspective to facilitate if not actually encourage this activity by offering tens of thousands of tonnes of beef quota access to already oversupplied EU markets.

From an economic perspective, a trade deal including beef access makes no sense. Brexit and its implications are back on the agenda with 31 October approaching. In the event of a no deal, which is ever more likely, the UK is committed to the creation of a 230,000t zero-tariff beef quota for all comers, including the Mercosur countries.

For these reasons, beef must be excluded from any Mercosur deal. Commissioner Hogan has been in sync with the interests of EU farmers for the duration of his time in Brussels. In the final weeks of his term, he faces possibly the biggest challenge of all in resisting inclusion of beef in a Mercosur trade deal, and this can cement his legacy as a robust defender of farmers.

By the same token, if Mercosur secure beef access to the EU at this time, farmers will judge his term in Brussels as unsuccessful. Irrespective of his previous achievements, throwing the door open to beef from cleared rainforests at a time when EU markets are under severe pressure can only be viewed as selling out EU farmers.

Finance: recognising variations in farm sectors

Elsewhere this week, Lorcan Allen details the findings of a new report – published by IFAC – on the profitability of Irish farms.

With the capacity to interrogate data from over 22,000 sets of farm accounts, IFAC is ideally positioned to take the financial pulse of Irish agriculture.

The analysis once again shows the ability of the dairy sector to financially outperform the other land-based sectors within agriculture. However, it also identifies the risk of generalising the financial performance of farmers based on sector.

The report reinforces the income challenges facing the beef, sheep and tillage sectors with the average farmer either breaking even or returning a negative margin prior to the inclusion of premiums.

However, when the top 10% of farmers within each sector are isolated, the picture is very different with all sectors generating a profit before the inclusion of premiums – once again reinforcing the point that technical efficiency on farm is key to returning a profit.

Even in the case of dairying, profit per litre in 2018 on the top 10% of dairy farms was 53% higher than the average farm.

Recognising these financial variations within sectors is key when giving advice on future farm development and investment strategy.

Competition: Galway farmer wins Isuzu D-MAX jeep

We're delighted to reveal the winners in the Irish Farmers Journal’s reader competition. This was the largest and most successful reader competition we have ever run. It would not have been possible without the Harris Group, which provided the top prize of an Isuzu D-MAX worth €37,000.

We wish our winner, John Curran from Athenry in Co Galway, many years of happy and safe driving.

We would also like to thank FBD Hotels & Resorts for providing €5,000 in runner-up prizes to be used across its five hotels. Finally, I want to thank readers for entering in such record numbers and for the many kind letters and creative entries we received.