by Méabh Breen

Ireland’s agricultural industry has long been cited as the ‘make or break’ factor when it comes to Ireland’s capacity to operate fully as a relatively sustainable country.  In 2021, the agricultural sector was responsible for 37.5% of our greenhouse gas emissions. We have the second-lowest percentage of land farmed organically in the EU. With immense pressure from top-down regulations (i.e. the European Effort-Sharing regulation), as well as bottom-up pressure from the increasingly climate-conscious Irish people, there has been a huge trend towards the imposition of policies which aim to reduce the business-as-usual production capacity of Irish farms. These policies have, unsurprisingly, been met with push-back from many in the agricultural community and traditionally ‘pro-agri’ political parties. The push-back for some of these policies was so intense that it nearly caused a complete collapse of the government. It has appeared as though, in the mind of the farmer,  ‘green’ agricultural policies must always involve a huge level of sacrifice on their part; indeed, these sacrifices are rarely accompanied by support from the government, and, more generally, these policies are rarely constructed in the holistic manner which allows for profitable, long-term sustainable farming. In a sense, it’s no wonder these proposed policies are met with such pushback. Undoubtedly, the uprooting of the modus operandi in any industry or practice will involve some initial sacrifice in the name of sustainability; however, the success of recent ‘green’ policies in the Irish government has suffered greatly from the ‘something must be done syndrome’ and a lack of support from the appropriate auxiliary policies. Policies should always attempt to account for all stakeholders, but in the case of many recent ‘green’ policies, the foundations are not rooted in any broader holistic approach to transitioning toward a sustainable economy and society, making them largely ineffective. 

 Last year’s proposed Green Party Policy, which aimed to reduce agricultural emissions by 30%, was met with much resistance from the agricultural community, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael alike. Following an intense battle, the target was negotiated down to a 25% decrease. IFA President Tim Cullinane cited this policy as “a potentially devastating blow for Irish Farming.” The core of this anger seemed to result from both the lack of budgeting for farmers to enable this transition as well as the lack of a clear pathway by the government to implement such an ambitious policy. As of April 2023, the Agricultural Committee has still not specified how these targets should be met. While the high agricultural emissions should no doubt be addressed, it appears as though policy proposals for such a task are lacking in both realism and clarity. It is foolish, lazy, and counterproductive to impose ambitious environmental policies without also providing adequate support during their implementation. 

Private car use is another issue that often dominates environmental discourse. It was only recently that Minister for Transport Eamonn Ryan came under fire after a set of models published by the National Transport Authority (NTA) indicated that stringent measures discouraging private car use would form the basis of his memo on reducing transport emissions, which was to be discussed at cabinet. Some of the standout measures include €10 congestion fees and increased parking fees. While the environmental impacts of our over-reliance on cars needs to be addressed, these measures deter attention from what many see as the primary cause of this over-reliance: an underdeveloped, inaccessible public transport network. This raises the same concern as stringent agricultural policies— that is, people can only be expected to abide by progressive new practices when they have the necessary support to do so. In this case, people can only reduce their car usage if they are provided with a sufficient alternative- i.e. public transport- to fulfil the role their private car used to. Likewise, farmers can only be expected to implement new, environmentally-conscious farming practices if they are given proper compensation, be it in the form of temporary income supplementation, grants, education schemes or tax cuts, to name a few examples. 

These two cases illustrate a broader issue with climate policy. It seems as though the vast majority of climate policy is largely isolated from other forms of government policy, hindering its implementation and longevity. This issue is, of course, reflected at the micro-level, as is discussed above; the 25% agricultural emission target is not accompanied by the necessary supporting policies to make these demands feasible for the average farmer. Clear, supportive subsidisation policies should be implemented alongside these ambitious targets. Furthermore, resources should be put aside to fund education on sustainable farming practices in order to aid the agricultural community with this transition. At the macro-level, policymakers should also endeavour to take a more ambitious and all-encompassing approach to the climate crisis; that is to say, sustainability should be incorporated into every sector of the economy and society, not just agriculture and transport. Only after policies which allow for the development of a truly sustainable economy become mainstream will environmentally friendly farming policies be incentivised. Research indicates that demand for organic, sustainable produce is expected to soar in the next few years. This increased demand presents an opportunity for farmers to diversify their product, engage in less carbon-intensive farming practices, and reap substantial monetary rewards. In the meantime, the government should endeavour to address the issue of below-cost selling in Irish supermarkets— a phenomenon which renders the horticulture business financially unattractive and therefore disincentivises this less carbon-intensive practice. 

If the Irish government truly wishes for farmers to meet these ambitious targets, then they must do their part and enact policies that work in tandem with these goals. For their part, there is a whole host of measures that can be taken. For one, the government might consider incentivising the planting of clover on farmland, the practice of which has been known to reduce the need for artificial fertiliser, increase dry matter intake, and increase milk solids production. This would decrease the need for artificial fertilisers (a major contributor to our greenhouse emissions), increase the milk matter produced per cow (meaning fewer cows will be needed to produce the same output), and refute the assumption that sustainable farming is inherently less profitable, as it has been estimated that the introduction of clover into farmland increases profit by €150/ha per year. Were the government to distribute clover to farmers all over the country, it would be a small but significant step towards sustainability. This act is both a passive and relatively feasible contribution towards the reduction of emissions that has been largely overlooked as a possible widespread initiative by the government.

It would also be beneficial for the government to embark on a major marketing campaign aimed at educating members of the agricultural community about the benefits of sustainable farming and challenging the existing narrative around sustainability and financial losses. Less than half of producers feel that there is enough information about sustainable farming practices to enable them to reach the current ambitious targets; while this is a substantial figure, it is not particularly surprising. Though the introduction of clover is a relatively simple way to improve sustainability, most farmers do not have an immediate incentive to implement such measures; this is likely because many farmers are not aware of the benefits of such policies or, if they are, they are unwilling to make the initial sacrifices in the name of sustainability if future returns cannot be guaranteed. Research has also shown that many farmers have refrained from investing in sustainable farming practices until they are certain they will be rewarded for such an action— either by the market or by the government. The introduction of an ambitious, realistic, and accessible education and marketing programme would show the agricultural community that they have the support of the government to implement more sustainable practices, and that they will be rewarded for doing so. 

The policy opportunities outlined above will contribute toward a more sustainable Ireland in two ways: firstly, they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentally damaging practices in the immediate future; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these policies will challenge the idea that sustainability always involves a sacrifice on the part of farmers. They will show that profitability and sustainability are not mutually exclusive, especially when the quest toward sustainability is supported by robust and ambitious government policy which supports equally robust and ambitious sustainability targets.