I’ve learned many things as chair of the Food Vision Dairy Group. I had the opportunity at last Thursday’s event on Food Vision 2030 in Dublin Castle, organised by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to air some of these learnings. Climate change is a complex process and that’s clear.

The contribution of agricultural activity to global warming is manifestly complex. Hence, the pathway to reducing net emissions from the sector is contentious.

There are two key misunderstandings that give rise to contention. One originates largely from outside the sector, while the other is largely internally generated.

The sector, I believe, is more than ready to make its contribution to the achievement of the target that’s been set for it. And the negotiation of a 25% reduction by 2030 has to be seen as a significant concession achieved for the sector. However, the sector still has not managed to persuade those influencers outside of the sector of the fundamental difference between agricultural activity and other economic activity.

We should take a leaf out of the New Zealand book as they’ve clearly recognised the uniqueness of biogenic methane

There is not a recognition that biogenic methane ought to be treated differently to other greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The basic message is that biogenic methane does not have to decline at the same rate as other GHGs. To arrest the impact on global warming it’s sufficient for the production of methane to stabilise. And Teagasc forecasts out to 2030 indicate that stabilisation is a highly likely outcome, largely because a moderating growth in dairy cows is likely to be offset by a continuing steady decline in beef cows.

The persistence of the view that methane has to decline in line with other gases can’t be justified by science.

The only logical explanation for it is that if methane declines substantially, then the burden of adjustment is reduced for other sectors. So agriculture is expected, according to this view, to be sacrificed for the benefit of other sectors.

Problems

There are many problems with this view but, for me, the biggest one is that it fails to recognise that livestock products can’t be produced without livestock. Livestock are, as economists say, a necessary production input. No other sector faces such an existential fate. Most carbon-intensive non-agricultural sectors will need to decarbonise and will accordingly incur additional costs in this transition but their existence is not under threat.

We should take a leaf out of the New Zealand book as they’ve clearly recognised the uniqueness of biogenic methane.

The second misunderstanding is largely internally generated. For too long, we haven’t been sufficiently precise in communicating with farmers about what actions count towards carbon reductions.

The only carbon scorecard that matters in terms of carbon emissions is what’s included in the so-called national carbon inventory as compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Intuitive

We all have an intuitive idea as to those on-farm actions that are carbon positive. However, some of these actions don’t count towards the national inventory. It’s important that farmers understand what counts and what doesn’t. Some actions that don’t currently count, for example, planting hedgerows, are well-known and farmers are rightly annoyed about these.

Others, such as the planting of energy crops or the installation of PV panels, are included in the energy inventory but not credited to agriculture. But there are a large number of other actions that don’t count towards the inventory and about which I suspect there is a significant degree of confusion.

We’ve labelled these “enabling” actions in the Dairy Group. Such actions include, for example, the use of LESS, liming and improved EBI.

These actions do, however, “enable” farmers to take “direct” actions that do count towards the inventory. Farmers have made great strides in improving nitrogen use efficiency over the last few years, most notably through substantially increased use of lime. They’ve also made great strides in the use of LESS.

The increased use of clover and multispecies swards are also “enablers”. But these actions of themselves do not count towards the reduction of the national inventory.

As a consequence of these actions, farmers are enabled to reduce chemical nitrogen and it’s only if chemical nitrogen is reduced that the agricultural contribution to the national inventory is reduced.

Increased EBI is also an “enabling” action. It will only count towards a reduction in the national inventory where stock numbers are stabilised.

There are two clear messages. All communications to farmers need to stress the distinction between “direct” actions (eg, chemical N or a switch from CAN to protected urea) and “enabling” actions.

Sustainability incentives should be designed to achieve reductions in what counts in the national inventory. The latter is, of course, going to change overtime as science and policy evolves.