There has been much discussion around the future of our national suckler herd. However, a clear strategy has yet to be put forward. Views have differed as to how the sector should be supported with some questioning the merits of providing any support at all. The only consensus is that the current structure is not economically viable for farmers.

Those who question the merits of supporting the suckler cow ignore its importance in underpinning economic activity throughout rural Ireland. As Prof Michael Wallace showed at the Irish Farmers Journal Beef Summit, the sector supports the equivalent of 55,000 full-time jobs throughout rural Ireland.

At the same time, we cannot dismiss the fact that an alternative view is gaining increased traction – within Government and the European Commission – which challenges the merits of supporting a sector from which most farmers do not directly profit but yet contributes to our climate change challenge.

As Amy Forde reports on page 1, comments made this week by European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan that suckler farmers need to be incentivised to another land use reinforces this point.

While the obvious temptation is to simply discredit the argument, is it time to adopt a different approach? Is it time to explore a support payment for suckler farmers that would be linked to reducing the suckler herd by 20-25% in a structured way?

Any decision to go down such a route would clearly require careful consideration, particularly in relation to how the scheme would be rolled out. Any requirement to reduce cow numbers would have to be on a graduated basis over at least a five-year period to avoid market disruption. A funding model, ring-fenced for this period of time, would have to be agreed at the outset.

A requirement to reduce cow numbers would have to be on a graduated basis over at least a five-year period

So, what would such a scheme look like? The overall objective would have to be to deliver a reduction in the national herd while at the same time improving the physical and financial performance of the sector. The scale of reduction would have to be agreed to ensure critical mass is not lost.

There would be an option to tier financial assistance. At a basic level, support could be provided for removing unproductive cows from the herd alongside the introduction of an annual targeted payment based on the remaining cows in the herd.

For some farmers, the requirement within any support scheme to reduce numbers would be highly unpalatable. However, for many, receiving a financial incentive to gradually reduce cow numbers over a set period would be welcomed – on the basis that they would receive a targeted payment that would make the remaining herd financially viable. A mechanism could be included that focused on achieving a national reduction rather than at individual farm level – therefore giving some the scope to reduce beyond the requirement of the scheme and others to maintain numbers.

Such a scheme would appeal to EU member states wary of the impact that increased volumes of beef coming from Ireland would have on their domestic beef price, especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

To some degree, the desire across the EU to support Ireland in reducing beef production could actually prove to be a silver lining within the otherwise dark cloud of Brexit. Under the EU Common Market Organisation regulation, there is scope to provide support for voluntary supply management measures such as a suckler reduction scheme and any move is likely to get political support.

Also from a political perspective, supporting a scheme focused on reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of the national suckler herd would sit well under the environmental and climate change pillar.

As unpalatable as it may appear, the concept of a targeted payment linked to reducing cow numbers in a structured way deserves further discussion at the very least. Is it better than a policy of doing nothing and letting the sector dwindle away?

There is no doubt that the current political landscape – nationally and across the EU – does present an opportunity to secure financial support for such a model.

Fears that Eurosceptic and far right parties would dominate the political landscape in the wake of the EU elections have not materialised.

We have seen pro-EU parties hold their ground, albeit that the alliance will consist of a much more diverse range of parties. The pro-EU bloc is now likely to include up to four parties, with the centre left and centre right losing a joint hold over the parliament that has been in place since 1979.

The Green Party revival witnessed in Ireland has been experienced across the EU with the party securing just over 20% of the vote in Germany.

While there is no doubt that the green agenda will have an increased voice in shaping the next CAP, it should also force the spotlight on the environmental impacts of any trade deals.

Recent data presented by a coalition of EU and Brazilian scientists showing EU imports to be directly linked to massive deforestation of the Amazon rainforest clearly shows where attention needs to be focused.

Solid engagement between the Green Party and farmers will yield more for the environment than a strategy of trying to undermine the respective viewpoints.

It has been another eventful week in UK politics, although little has changed. The country remains divided with pro-remain and pro-Brexit parties making gains at the expense of the Conservatives and Labour.

While the Conservatives are set to get a new leader, the same old problems will remain. Amid the political chaos, it is almost certain now that the Brexit deadline in October will not be met. In the meantime, Ireland needs to be using its political influence to prepare the ground needed to prevent a scenario where the UK leaves in October without a deal.

Earlier this week, Minister of State Andrew Doyle announced the Forestry Statistics – Ireland 2019 report.

By far the most stark among the figures was the low level of planting in 2019 – just 40% of the Government’s target of 10,000/ha per annum.

Such a low level of planting not only presents a threat to the forestry sector but also the opportunity to exploit the food production capacity of Irish agriculture.

We will only achieve this potential if we balance food production with environmental dividend by putting every acre of land to work. Achieving this will require a realistic approach by Government in reducing barriers to afforestation, returning to planting land in Munster counties and depressurising forest expansion in other counties, as well as removing the replanting obligation.

The replanting obligation is not the only reason for low planting levels but it is both a real and psychological barrier for some farmers faced with the decision to convert land to forestry in perpetuity.

It has been acknowledged in the Forest Land Availability Implementation Group report, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture.

The report maintains: “that relaxing the replanting obligation would reassure people and may positively impact on forested land values”.

The report also provides a number of suggestions on how to address the replanting issue, without a risk of deforestation.

The range of platforms available on social media provides an important service to rural communities. However, Hannah Quinn-Mulligan reports on the dangers associated with the inability to fact-check content on these platforms. On this occasion it relates to the false reporting of farm suicides. Prof Arensman of the National Suicide Research Foundation highlights the risks that these false reports present in relation to creating hysteria and potentially planting the idea into the minds of vulnerable people. There are several organisations which help people with mental health issues, with contact details also available here.