Better to farm under the devilish EU subsidies we know than the devil we don’t

If you think Irish farming is over regulated and too reliant on subsidies, be careful what you wish for.

That’s not to dismiss these concerns — farmers across Europe share them, as demonstrated by protests such as the IFA’s ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign.

The reality though is that Europe has positioned itself as a leader in environmental policy, and we shouldn’t expect this standard to be dropped anytime soon.

What we can demand, however, are better-structured supports that reflect the social good provided by farms across rural Ireland.

There are farmers overseas who operate largely without subsidies, a model that comes with its own serious challenges.

Let me remind you of the seanfhocail: Is glas iad na cnoic i bhfad uainn ach más glas, ní féarach (far away hills are greener, but not necessarily grassier).

This came to mind last June in New South Wales, Australia, where I spent a week visiting farms as part of a group of international Nuffield scholars.

Capitalist system

Australia is home to incredible farmers who are highly skilled, committed to productivity and willing to take huge financial risks. Many prioritise environmental stewardship and deeply care about the quality of their products.

But the stark reality of operating in this unforgiving market system is eye-opening.

Take, for example, a farmer growing crops he wouldn’t feed to his own child due to the sheer amount of herbicide used in production.

No farmer should have to produce food they wouldn’t confidently eat themselves.

Yet, in a system where survival hinges on profit margins, ethical choices can be forced to take a backseat to economic pressures.

During another visit, I met farmers who were eagerly awaiting the financial downfall of their neighbours so they could buy up their land and expand. These are inherently good people, but this kind of sentiment is the product of an unfettered capitalist system where social safeguards are minimal and survival is cutthroat.

Push back

While writing this piece I consulted with Nuffield scholars in Australia, and they pushed back on my suggestion that they operate under a more laissez-faire regulatory environment.

They argued that, to compete in global markets, they must increasingly meet the same standards imposed on Irish farmers, but without the safety net of financial supports.

Meanwhile, the European model, where subsidies come with strict regulations, is often criticised for stifling productivity and innovation.

This is hard to dispute. Farmers in Ireland tend to be more cautious about experimenting with new methods, and Teagasc’s annual National Farm Survey consistently highlights the financial struggles many farms face.

However, what Ireland does have is an incredible social network, something sorely lacking in parts of rural Australia.

What we need is a balanced approach; regulations that protect the environment, financial supports that sustain rural communities and the flexibility to innovate so Irish farmers remain competitive on the global stage.

It’s fair to argue that Europe’s regulations are complex and that subsidies are losing their value. But as one of my Australian friends pointed out, the devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t.

I’m not blind to the flaws in the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but I believe regulation is the price we pay for subsidies, and those subsidies help keep rural Ireland vibrant.

What we need is functional regulation and well-structured supports that protect and enhance the good work Irish farmers do every day. So, if I had to choose between Europe’s CAP or the wide-open plains of New South Wales, you’d still find me on a drumlin in Smithborough, Co Monaghan.

Niall Hurson is a 2024 Nuffield scholar.