The ongoing climate debate has so far focused on the need for farmers to do more to reduce the environmental footprint of food production. This week, Minister for Communications, Climate Action & Environment Richard Bruton moved to bring into law the targets outlined in the Climate Action Plan.

As Hannah Quinn-Mulligan reports, Minister Bruton warned that agriculture will have to make very substantial contributions in terms of land use and farming practices.

Once again, reference was made to money within the CAP being used to help encourage farmers to adapt to more climate-friendly methods of farming.

The minister’s comments are closely aligned to those made at the launch of the European Commission’s Green Deal before Christmas. CAP was once again seen as the support model to either compensate farmers for the costs of delivering environmental dividends or any associated losses in production.

With moves to significantly curtail pesticide and fertiliser usage as part of the Green Deal, the impact on farm output could be significant.

The calls on CAP to deliver more come as the Commission proposes a 5% reduction in the budget – a move that will see the amount of money flowing onto Irish farms reduced by €100m per annum. Defending the proposed budget cuts is becoming increasingly challenging with a number of member states opposed to increasing contributions to offset the impact of the UK withdrawal.

Reducing the environmental footprint of food production is not the problem – the real issue is that no one wants to pay for the added cost

There is an obvious need to challenge the Commission and Minister Bruton on the logic of expecting a reduced CAP budget to be stretched even further. These new demands on CAP come at a time when there was never more of a need for it to deliver on one of the specific objectives for which it was established: to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers.

The degree to which farm incomes are now reliant on CAP reflects the extent to which it has been successful on its objective to deliver reasonable prices for consumers. Before Christmas, we reported on the fact that just 12.1% of total expenditure by EU households was on food.

Recently, our Northern Ireland editor David Wright highlighted figures from the UK Office of National Statistics showing total weekly household spend in the UK at £554.20. Of this, just £58 or just 10.4% was spent per week on food and non-alcoholic drinks – falling from 33% over the past 60 years.

In the context of environmental footprint, it is worth noting that UK consumers now spend an average of £26.90 per week on package holidays.

While the economic viability of many farms is being undermined by the demands to deliver more from a reduce CAP budget, consumers on the other hand have clearly never had it so good. It is against this backdrop that we should question why EU and national policy is focused on pushing the costs associated with the environmental footprint of food production completely on to farmers.

It is time for the price of food to become part of the climate debate. From a political perspective, there will be obvious resistance. After decades of consumers being conditioned to cheap food, politicians will be acutely aware of a potential backlash to food price inflation from large parts of society. But if EU policy is to deliver an environmentally sustainable food production model, then consumers need to contribute – either directly through increased food prices or indirectly in the form of member states contributing to an increased CAP budget.

It is not credible for either the EU or Government to expect a smaller CAP to support an environmentally sustainable food production model that also delivers cheap food to consumers. Reducing the environmental footprint of food production is not the problem – the real issue is that no one wants to pay for the added cost.

Beef Plan has questions to answer

At a base price of €3.60/kg, farmers selling cattle are continuing to incur heavy losses of over €150 per head. It is clear that factories have been successful in ensuring the full costs of the protests last summer are being paid by farmers. Unfortunately, those who led farmers to the gates on the promise of delivering so much are now more focused on in-fighting rather than fighting for the farmers they claimed to represent.

Twelve to 14 months ago, the Beef Plan Movement went around the country collecting money from farmers at mart events. The lack of delivery raises the question as to whether these events were focused on tackling the income challenges in beef production or were part of a popularity contest staged by a small group telling farmers what they wanted to hear.

Claims around membership figures would suggest well over €100,000 may have been collected from farmers. As Caitriona Morrissey reports, there is currently little transparency around how these funds have been managed and questions are now being asked by some people.

If the group is to survive and have any credibility among farmers, those at the top must address transparency and governance issues immediately. But perhaps the biggest change required is for the Beef Plan to realise that leadership is not about simply telling people what they want to hear.

Trade: record year for food exports but not those who produce food

So 2019 ticked the box for an excellent year in terms of volume production and subsequently exports on the dairy side. While positive, it is worth pointing out two things.

Firstly, the extra volume is being traded in the traditional products, mainly butter. Ten years ago, most co-op chief executives would not have painted a rosy picture for fat sales. Yes, specialised whey sales have grown but still only represent 10% of the butter sales value and less than 1% of the total dairy export pool. As an industry, we need diversification and growth in products that sell in Asia in particular.

Secondly, volume records are fine but 2019 will not go down as a record year on milk prices. Through the peak months in 2019, the base milk price for all the big players was 29c/litre ex VAT at 3.3% protein and 3.6% fat, or €4/kg milk solids in the new currency at 3.47% protein and 4.1% fat.

We have always held the line production growth is fine but the return must come to the bottom line for farmers who make the long-term investment at farm and industry level.

Oxford Conference: UK grappling with new reality

In her first major public outing since the UK general election, secretary of state for the environment and food Theresa Villiers had few answers to the key Brexit issues. Her one firm commitment was that the budgetary provision included in CAP payments for UK agriculture would continue for the life of this parliament. However, they will be tilted towards paying for public good and in England will begin to be phased out from 2021.

It is not clear how these payments will be handled in Scotland or Northern Ireland as agriculture is a devolved function, unlike trade.

It is on trade that confusion is most apparent. Villiers maintained that Britain would not sacrifice its food standards in the interests of trade with other countries but added that part of the way of controlling food imports produced to lower standards could be by imposing higher tariffs on their entry into Britain. The conclusion was that there is an enormous amount of work in reviewing the UK agricultural policy – especially on the international trade aspects. Villiers was even uncertain as to whether GM technology would be used in British farming in future and retreated behind the Tory election manifesto by saying science would set the policy.

The highly articulate Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union in England and Wales, was much more direct in her demands for unfettered access to EU markets but she also came up with the interesting idea of wanting some stability payments for farmers to cope with volatility and risk.