Two key lines stand out from the Government press release announcing the sector emissions ceilings last week.

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said of the 25% ceiling agreed for Agriculture: “Meeting the target will be challenging.”

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Charlie McConalogue said: “Our focus now must be on implementation.”

Farmers are more used than most businesses to dealing with uncertainty, in particular the vagaries of markets.

However, in general terms changes to the regulatory system in which farming operates are typically well flagged and transition gradual.

This is certainly the case in relation to CAP and European Policy.

Pace of transition

However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector by 25% over the next seven years will demand a pace of transition possibly unlike that seen before.

It is likely to be uncomfortable for many.

While the sector can take comfort comments that there will be no coercion or compulsion and changes for agriculture will be voluntary, significant change is required to meet the binding emissions ceilings.

However, if the sector is to be successful, it needs to be set up with a clear plan that gives as much certainty as possible.

Agriculture must now decrease GHG emissions from the sector by 25% based on a 2018 baseline of 23.1 mt CO2e (Carbon Dioxide equivalent).

According to the EPA, agriculture’s emissions for 2021, were 23.1 mt CO2e which was an increase of 3% on 2020.

The challenge now for the farming sector is that there is only a roadmap within existing technologies for approximately 18% of the 25% cut required. Achieving the agreed level of reduction will require a significant uptake of existing technology together with changes in farming practices.

It certainly will not come easy.

Going beyond that, at this point, necessitates livestock cuts. All of this while the sector has been comforted that the changes for agriculture will be voluntary.

Some would question if all changes should be voluntary.

Using protected urea instead of calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) is known to reduce emissions, and could be done at farm level quite easily if CAN were no longer available to purchase.

While the mechanism to achieve livestock cuts may be voluntary over time, clarity on how this will be implemented must come fast.

It’s not just farmers who need clarity. Processors, particularly in the dairy sector dealing with increased milk supply and new entrants, need absolute clarity. It is not for them to regulate growth in the sector.

Similarly, banks dealing with farmers who are converting, expanding or entering dairying, in particular, cannot regulate growth. But again they will need clarity on how they support the sector in this environment.

They need to be assured that their lending activity does not impact on achieving the required cuts.

Farmers, particularly young farmers, need an understanding of the livestock formula that will deliver the required emissions cuts.

They need to know in what conditions they can grow and develop their farms.

Or if in fact they can’t grow and develop their farms.

While there is some comfort in knowing that your business will not be forced into action, there can be no comfort in a lack of clarity.

Giving farmers and the sector clarity will enable the sector to progress and make decisions for the good of both business and the environment.

The alternative is setting the sector up for failure in at least one of these areas.

Irish farmers have proved time and time again their capacity to adopt science and technology and not just survive but thrive following challenging periods.

Sector can deliver

If the sector has a clear plan, which receives adequate funding, it can deliver on the emissions reductions.

That may well position Irish farmers ahead of international counterparts into the future.