Opinion: rewetting rules a triple threat, but tariffs more immediate worry

Thursday evening’s Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) meeting in Athlone saw farmers gathered in response to the triple threat to farming on peatlands.

From the perspective of a farmer trying to make a living on what is officially termed 'organic soil', the challenges come from the Nature Restoration Law, GAEC 2 and now the Climate Action Plan.

Organic soil is that with over 20% organic matter, as opposed to 'mineral soil' which has less than 20% organic matter.

Sandy and loamy soils are mineral, peatland is organic. As a rule of thumb, the darker the colour of soil, the more organic matter it holds.

Sponge

Think of peatland as a sponge. It has a great capacity to absorb water, but when it dries out, it is looser than mineral soil would be.

The problem this creates is that gases trapped in the soil can escape, adding to global warming. The solution being prescribed is to raise the water table of land, soaking the sponge and keeping the gases trapped within and beneath the topsoil. This is known as rewetting.

Rewetting does not necessarily mean saturation of the soil. In fact, absolute saturation can lead to the release of other greenhouse gases.

Farmers were reassured that this target could be met, at least in the medium term, on State-owned land

But farmers are concerned that raising the water table will make their land less productive and much harder to graze. The Nature Restoration Law that passed through the European Parliament in the summer of 2023 requires, among many other things, that rewetting take place on one-third of drained organic soils by 2050.

At the time, farmers were reassured that this target could be met, at least in the medium term, on State-owned land, and that any rewetting on private land would be voluntary and supported.

This stance was buttressed by the fact that the inventory of drained peatland was massively reduced from 332,000ha to 141,000ha.

This was due to previously drained peatland having naturally rewet, largely due to drains not being maintained. The 30% target thus fell from 100,000ha to 42,000ha.

Different matter

GAEC 2 is a different matter. Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition of Land (GAEC) are a requirement for any farmer who participates in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

In all, there are nine GAECs, covering all types of farmland and land use. GAEC 2 is specific to peatland and comes into effect this year. It imposes conditions and/or restrictions on drainage, reseeding and ploughing.

Farmers in Athlone expressed the fear that it is “rewetting by stealth”. The proposals will take some management options away from them.

In particular, drainage maintenance is vital to prevent peatland from submergence. Finding the sweetspot is the key

Third wheel

The third wheel on the rewetting Robin Reliant is the Climate Action Plan (the CAP acronym is already taken, so we have to use the full term at all times).

Naturally, minimisation of greenhouse gas leakage from all soils is an issue. Many efforts are being made to improve the carbon sink ability of grassland and tillage ground.

Inevitably, peatlands are a focus, with a target to raise the water table on 80,000ha. That’s twice the target set in the Nature Restoration Law.

Farmers are confused and they are suspicious that they will get tangled up in the overlap between these separate strategic targets.

Government guarantees

Bill Callanan is the chief inspector with responsibility for provision for scientific advice for agriculture and the environment within the Department of Agriculture. That’s quite a mouthful, but it means, I think, that this area is ultimately Bill’s baby.

He attended the meeting on Thursday night and committed that any rewetting scheme will be voluntary.

“The responsibility is on the State, not the law,” he said. "I want to be clear on that."

You can read Amy Forde’s report here.

There is no reason to believe that farmers will be hostile to a well-founded and well-funded scheme to encourage voluntary re-wetting.

In fact, farmers have shown that they are enthusiastic adopters when it makes financial sense for them to take on new schemes, new techniques and new technologies. With massive penalty fines looming if we miss our environmental targets, a generous scheme makes a lot of sense.

It is a transformative change of land use, but the queue of farmers seeking planning for solar farms on their land shows that transformative, medium-term land-use change is something farmers will happily do, if there’s money in it. The same, incidentally, applies to forestry.

A lot of farmers are concerned about potential knock-on effects for neighbouring farmers of rewet land. In that regard, it would help if farmers could see water table adjustment of land for themselves. Pilot schemes and open days work well in this regard, they are urgently needed.

Trade war looming closer

On Friday evening, we saw the latest barrage from Donald Trump on trade. Canadian dairy products are in the firing line now, along with Canadian lumber.

The US president indulged in his favourite pastime of conflation, talking of the two products as if they were linked or comparable in some way. They aren’t really.

Canada does impose tariffs on dairy imports, as Irish co-ops well know. They have been a sticking point through the whole CETA process, but Canada are unapologetic.

They do so for strategic reasons; their priority is protecting their domestic dairy production. It is high cost due to the long, cold winters, but Canada sees being self-sufficient in food as vital.

It’s a relatively small trade relationship in terms of volume and value of product. Canada exported less than $300m of dairy products to the US in 2023, while the US exported slightly over one billion dollars worth in return.

To put that in context, overall US exports to Canada were worth $354bn in 2024, while Canada exported $413bn worth of goods and services to the US. Canada doesn’t really have that much to lose from the imposition of reciprocal tariffs on dairy.

Lumber (which as far as I can ascertain is unprocessed timber, it’s a term that isn’t used on this side of the Atlantic) is a different matter.

It’s the single biggest export sector from Canada to the US, with over $11.5bn of Canadian lumber crossing southwards. That’s a sector that is 350 times more valuable to Canada.

The US exports almost as much lumber across their northern border, with €10.5bn. Multiple sources report that there are no tariffs on US lumber exports to Canada, but there is a 14.5% tariff on Canadian lumber exports to the US.

So Donald Trump bundled two entirely different products together, one a small trade by value where Canada imposes tariffs, the other a much more significant sector, where the US is the one imposing tariffs, and threatened further tariffs. He probably did enough to convince his supporters of his position, and he couldn’t careless what anyone else thinks.

Influence

In 1995, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was set up as the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). An Irishman - Peter Sutherland - oversaw this transition as the director general from 1993 to 1995.

As the name of the original organisation suggests, WTO is where the countries of the world come together to agree trade rules and regulations. It has been a very influential organisation.

In the 1990s, the EU’s system of farm subsidies centred around production payments such as the suckler cow, special beef, beef slaughter and ewe premia and area aid for cereals. The US appealed against these payments as anti-competitive. The WTO ruled that they were trade distorting.

Older readers may remember the 'red box' and 'green box' terminology. That was a primary driver of the decoupled payment system introduced by Franz Fischler in the 2002 CAP reform.

The basic payment was paid irrespective of the type or amount of production on a hectare and thus was designated a 'green box' non-trade-distorting payment.

Someone like Trump . . .

But what will the WTO do with someone like Donald Trump, who has no respect for international institutions, be they the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, NATO or the WTO.

Trump despises what he characterises as globalism. He has already pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

It seems highly likely that Donald Trump and his regime will ignore the WTO and its rules, and will impose tariffs with little regard for whether they comply with WTO regulations or not.

So how does Europe respond to this approach? And what does Micheál Martin do when he visits the Oval office this week?

There are probably some officials in Government thinking a strategically timed case of COVID-19 mightn’t be the worst option.

The Taoiseach is an experienced politician and I expect he will be courteous and relaxed, not rising to any bait around Ireland’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, on trade and tariffs or on the presence of US multinational companies in Ireland.

It wouldn’t achieve anything - there isn’t much point saying things to the US president, because he just doesn’t listen.

But the clock is ticking towards the 2 April deadline Donald Trump has set for the imposition of swinging trade tariffs on Irish and European goods.

And Ireland and Europe need to be ready. Because this is bareknuckle boxing - the gloves are off and the rules no longer apply.