Climate council focuses on the ‘easy option’

This week, the Climate Change Advisory Council recommends in its annual review that an accelerated decline in the national suckler herd is required to offset increased emissions from the dairy sector.

For a number of years now, suckler farmers have suspected an agenda within Government to reduce the size of the national suckler herd to facilitate growth in dairy. However, this is the first time we have seen it spelled out so clearly in a report that will play an important role in shaping future agricultural policy.

Unless a sharp reduction in suckler numbers is achieved, the independent advisory body, chaired by Prof John Fitzgerald and including Teagasc director Prof Gerry Boyle, warns that Ireland’s ability to meet 2030 targets for a reduction in national emissions would be seriously undermined.

This view is in stark contrast to comments made previously by both Fitzgerald and Boyle. When addressing the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security in 2011, Boyle indicated that it would probably be “economic heresy” to try and bring about emission reduction targets for the agricultural sector by reducing suckler cow numbers. He also stated that if the burden of adjustment were to fall on the beef herd, it would have a “catastrophic implication for the economy”.

More recently, in September 2018, the Irish Farmers Journal carried comments on its front page made by Fitzgerald in a presentation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action.

He said: “When I was appointed chair of the council, my understanding of the science was that I was going to have to basically tell farmers they would have to get rid of their cows. It turns out, however, that the scientific evidence on this issue is more complicated … agriculture needs a more nuanced solution.”

Despite these comments, both men, along with an advisory panel consisting of nine others, have this week submitted a report to Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Richard Bruton that puts a dramatic reduction in suckler cow numbers centre-stage in achieving emission reduction targets.

There is no doubt that forcing such a drastic reduction in the national suckler herd would see Ireland bringing agricultural emissions in line with 2030 targets

The document contained three scenarios looking at a 15%, 30% and 53% reduction in the national suckler herd, the latter seeing suckler cow numbers fall below 500,000 head for the first time in almost 35 years.

There is no doubt that forcing such a drastic reduction in the national suckler herd would see Ireland bringing agricultural emissions in line with 2030 targets. However, for the Government to go down such a route would totally ignore the socioeconomic impact on rural Ireland. Despite previous warnings raised by Prof Gerry Boyle in relation to the dire economic consequences of the suckler herd carrying the can on emissions, the advisory council failed to carry out an economic impact analysis on their recommendations.

The merits of even considering such a fundamental and rapid shift in the direction of agricultural policy on the basis of science, which the report identifies as not totally accurate, must be challenged. The authors state that the use of alternative metrics to reflect emerging science could have implications for the prioritisation of mitigation options involving methane within the livestock sector.

No one can defend maintaining unproductive cows within the national herd and a focus/policy aimed at removing these is logical in the context of reducing emissions

Against this scientific backdrop, is it credible to put forward recommendations that could have such severe implications for rural Ireland and would totally undermine years of investment by farmers and the State in promoting efficiencies within the national suckler herd? As Matt Dempsey reports, a very different approach has been adopted in New Zealand.

No one can defend maintaining unproductive cows within the national herd and a focus/policy aimed at removing these is logical in the context of reducing emissions. But a report that makes broad sweeping statements in relation to the future of a sector that has been shown to underpin over 50,000 jobs in rural Ireland needs to be challenged.

Some will see a defence of the national suckler herd as burying the head in the sand in relation to tackling agricultural emissions

In the absence of a coherent strategy for the future of the sector, we can expect more of the same broad sweeping statements and risk a knee-jerk policy reaction with long-lasting consequences.

Some will see a defence of the national suckler herd as burying the head in the sand in relation to tackling agricultural emissions. However, there are a wide range of policy measures open to the Government. Looking at any of these issues through a single lens such as environment and not encompassing socioeconomic factors or long-term implications on land use as Prof Gerry Boyle has touched on in the past is not the way to operate. Supporting measures under the Teagasc MACC has the potential to reduce emissions by 16.5Mt CO2eq while there is the potential to abate 26.8Mt (2021-2030) CO2eq by removing the roadblocks to afforestation and incentivising better land management practices.

Ultimately, recommending a drastic reduction in the national suckler herd to achieve emissions targets is the easy option. If the Government accepts that the solution should centre on such a move then serious questions will have to be asked of the research and advisory failings within Teagasc, SEAI and the EPA, all of which are represented on the Climate Change Advisory Council.

In his first day as British prime minister, Boris Johnson has done nothing to allay fears of a no-deal Brexit. Dire consequences of this for farming are explained by Phelim O'Neill.

If this happens, it is clear it is as big a problem for Northern Ireland. The new prime minister’s clumsy intervention in promising an increase in CAP reallocation payment to Scotland without making clear it won’t be taken from Northern Ireland farmers does little to suggest he has an appreciation for farming.

Brexit uncertainty has contributed to poor market prices across the EU but particularly in the UK. The supply side of the business was distorted in the lead-up to the original Brexit date and the overhang of product made a bad market worse. Now we face a further period of uncertainty in the lead-up to 31 October.

To date, the EU and Irish Government have recognised the market difficulty with the €100m fund.

While it is correct that a debate takes place on how it is allocated, it is even more essential that the Government and the EU reflect the ongoing cost of Brexit to farmers and begin work on a follow up support scheme.

What a difference a year makes. This time last year, farmers were scrambling for fodder. Today, we see silage pits full and hay bales on every farm. We often talk about the need for tools to manage volatility. Volatility tools come in many forms and don’t always need to be highly sophisticated pricing mechanisms.

In New Zealand, we see farmers boosting soil nutrients in a good year only to deplete reserves when milk prices are poor. The current fodder situation provides the opportunity for farmers, particularly those who are heavily stocked, to build a feed buffer into the system and reduce risk. Eighteen months ago, hay was being imported from the UK at a cost of €100/bale.

Hay can be purchased today at 25-30% of this price.

Certainly, highly stocked farms should be taking all steps possible to build up a fodder bank for the next weather event. Perhaps co-ops should also consider holding reserves.

We would like to thank the thousands of farmers who attended our open day on Tullamore Farm on Wednesday. The message was simple – for the Tullamore Farm model to have an economically viable future, three key elements are required – a base beef price for young bulls of over €4.20kg, a high level of technical efficiency and a coupled payment.

Even where the system is operating in the top 5% across the key technical areas, a coupled payment is required to underpin a sustainable level of profit. We would also like to thank all our stand holders for supporting the event and for the ongoing support of FBD.