Serenity and equity key to securing urgent climate action in agriculture
The Climate Action Bill (or Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021 , to give it its full title) is expected to be signed into law before the summer recess. Among a few new amendments already accepted by Minister for the Environment Eamon Ryan, are two which respectively will
allow the taking account of carbon removals in carbon budgets – allowing carbon sequestrations from hedgerows, trees, crops, etc. to be deducted – and the deduction by a Minister from their sector’s GHG emission ceiling of the said removals. This must now be taken into account by the Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) in designing the next three national 5-year carbon budgets, before each government department sets out its sector’s carbon ceiling. Agriculture is unique in having the ability to remove carbon through its activity, and the amendments may well delay the CCAC process a little, as it requires the assessment of the carbon sequestration capacity of existing farmland, hedges, trees and other features.
Regrettably, the amendments have reignited an antagonistic, and sometimes downright toxic, public and media debate between farmers and environmental activists. The main points are around the importance of carbon emission reductions v carbon removals and who gets credit for the carbon sequestration achieved by farmland, hedgerows and other features managed by farmers.
It is absolutely crucial that the necessity to reduce emissions in agriculture would not be lost sight of, but it is equally important to find a way to credit and remunerate farmers for the good work they have been doing in managing and maintaining carbon sinks on their farms, and to encourage them to further increase their carbon sequestration capacity. Fostering farmers’ goodwill will go a whole lot further, faster, in ensuring important farming practice changes and new technologies are adopted at scale and at speed.
Securing farmer buy-in
We must first recognise that there has been a dramatic change in the direction
of policy for farmers. Under the previous two food strategies – Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025 – they had been urged to improve efficiency, grow production, export value and jobs, with environmental sustainability in food production coming in only as the 3rd priority. The latest Agri-Food 2030 Strategy rightly reflects the stronger global policy focus, and puts climate and environment first. But after a decade of being encouraged to develop efficiency and production, farmers will need solid technical and financial support, as well as proactive and respectful engagement, to help them respond to the new expectations.
Farmers understand fully the need for urgent action and have proven that they can and want to play their full part, but they face additional costs and/or reductions in productivity, and reduced CAP payments with higher conditionality. And unfortunately, they appear to be facing a lot of criticism, much of it unwarranted – so how do we improve the serenity of the debate to get increased climate, biodiversity and water quality improvement action as fast as possible?
Survey of attitudes to sustainability of Irish agriculture
To inform our submission to the national consultation on the Agri-Food 2030
Strategy last month, we undertook a very simple survey using the online tool Survey Monkey. The survey, advertised through social media, aimed to gain some insight into the attitude of farmers, agribusiness people, environmental activists and the general public to the sustainability of Irish agriculture. As it was self-selective, it cannot and does not claim to be representative. The majority of participants to the survey (51%) were farmers, with another 20% working in agribusiness. Only 10% self-described as environmental activists or similar, and 15% as ordinary members of the public. The following is a summary of its findings, but the full results can be found in annex to our submission here.
More common ground than one might expect
Respondents’ views of farmers’ attitudes to the environmental sustainability
and climate mitigation of Irish agriculture were largely that farmers want to do the right thing, but either don’t know how to (18%), can’t afford to (25%) or do their best but need to do more (31%). These views suggest an appreciation from all respondents that farmers realise the importance of environmental and climate sustainability. Only 1% (a single answer) believed farmers do not care, and 10% stated farmers should be left alone, and let other sectors do their bit.
Some of the commentaries reasonably stressed the importance of policy in guiding farmers’ behaviour, and the failure of earlier policies to sufficiently emphasise climate and the environment.
The three issues seen as most relevant to the sustainability of Irish agriculture were improved biodiversity, air and water quality on farmland (81%), reduction in carbon emissions and increased carbon sequestration (64%) and improved economic viability of farms (51.5%). There was a stronger weight given to carbon emissions and carbon sequestration by respondents working in agribusiness (72%) and environmental activists (87%) than by farmers and ordinary members of the public (59-60%). Similarly, improving biodiversity, air and water quality on farmland was a high priority for farmers (76%), and higher still for agribusiness respondents (80%), environmental activists (93%) and the public (83%). The improved economic viability of farms was seen as relevant to sustainability by 59% of farmer respondents, but only by 13% of environmental activists.
Disappointingly, the health and wellbeing of farmers was only in 5th place, scoring with 26% of respondents, and animal welfare scored 6th, with just under 10% of respondents making it one of their top three.
However, a few respondents used the “Other” section to comment, not unreasonably, that all issues listed are important, with some adding the reduction of the livestock herd, the shift from animal farming to plant crops, the need to educate consumers to the value of their food, and paying farmers for carbon sequestration.
When asked what they believe the main motivators for farmers to adopt more sustainable farming practices to be, 33% of respondents cited the
economic argument (improving farm sustainability will make savings and increase produce value); a combined 39% went for the emotional (passing land to the next generation in better condition) and ethical (the greater good) motivators. 17% believe the main motivator to be regulatory (taking action or face penalties), while only 12% believe it is the intellectual understanding of the need for urgent action on climate mitigation and biodiversity.
54% of farmers saw the ethical and emotional factors as their main motivators, but only 20% considered that improving their farms’ economic sustainability was it, perhaps revealing the perception by farmers that environmental sustainability is a cost, not an added value.
On the other hand, only 7% of environmental activists believe ethical and emotional factors count, while nearly half (47%) believe the motivator to be the risk of penalties.
The economics factor is the main motivator of farmers as far as people
working in agribusiness are concerned (48%), and even more so for ordinary members of the public (57%) – which shows a clear mismatch with farmers’ perception of environmental sustainability as a net cost.
With regards to the best way to encourage improvements in the sustainability of Irish agriculture, financial supports come well ahead at 31%, followed by improved produce prices at 25%, and at 17% of respondents, education of and targeted communication to farmers about the environment/climate.
One in three of environmental activists favour financial supports for on-farm investment in improved practices/technology, while 27% favour rigorous enforcement.
Farmers strongly favoured the economic/financial side, with 30% identifying financial supports, and 32% higher produce prices reflecting the higher costs of production.
In the “other” answer option, many respondents from all walks of life commented that all of the suggested methods would be required to encourage progress.
Asked about the three most impactful actions by farmers to reduce carbon emissions, improve biodiversity/air/water/animal welfare, 69% of all
respondents opted for the maintenance, restoration and developments of natural/planted habitats (hedgerows, riparian edges, pollinator plots, trees, ponds, wet/peatland…). This was followed by reduced chemical fertiliser use (47%), adoption of all MACC measures (46.5%) and change to LESS slurry spreading.
The suggestion to reduce ruminant livestock numbers found favour with 24% of respondents – at the same level as the reduction in pesticide use. Perhaps predictably, reducing cattle numbers is supported by 80% of environmental activists, 50% of ordinary members of the public, and only 16% of agribusiness and associated respondents, and 7% of farmers.
Farmers chiefly support the maintenance and development of habitats (75%), with that action also scoring strongly (73%) with environmental activist respondents.
Farmers’ next preferred action is the adoption of the MACC measures (56%), which is not rated by environmental activists, with only 7% including this measure. This certainly reflects a preference for a reduction in the ruminant livestock herd among that group, but might it also show some ignorance of what is included in the MACC?
Farmers also support the move to LESS slurry spreading (51.5%) and reduced chemical fertiliser use (48.5%).
Environmental activists (33%) and the general public (23%) support going organic, against only 3% of farmers and 4% of agribusiness respondents.
The final question in the survey asked respondents to indicate their level of optimism of Irish agriculture delivering its fair share of climate mitigation and environmental improvement. It is encouraging that 56% of all respondents describe themselves as optimistic, or extremely optimistic. However, the level of the challenge is revealed by the 22% who are pessimistic, or extremely pessimistic, and the 18% who are uncertain.
The more optimistic are those employed in the agri-food sector (76%), closely followed by the farmers (73%) and those employed in agri-food adjacent businesses (60%). Perhaps predictably, the most pessimistic are the environmental activists (87%) and the members of the public (60%).
Conclusions from the survey
The survey has its limits, but it confirms that, while farmers already do quite a
lot, they and other respondents understand that improving the sustainability of Irish agriculture will require more actions to be taken urgently, and at scale, on all farms.
Also, the majority of respondents, regardless of how they self-describe, believe farmers to be well intentioned when it comes to environmental and climate action. There is a mix of motivators – the heart, the mind and the pocket – and a multiplicity of actions which will have to be adopted to deal with carbon emissions and removals, and biodiversity. Farmers and environmental predictably differ on the desirability/necessity of using carrot versus stick.
Some suggestions to shift from animal farming to food crops display some naivety – much of our agricultural land is not suitable for crop growing, and our fruit and vegetable-growing sector has been shrunk by imports and retail competition. It is revealing of the focus on the frequently repeated need to reduce livestock numbers despite Ireland’s natural production advantage.
However, there seems to be an insufficient understanding of the importance of economic sustainability on farms among environmentalists and the public. It may be a well-worn cliché, but it is difficult to be green while in the red. Even allowing for the financial supports from CAP or national sources to support climate and environmental investment and action, the intrinsic economic sustainability, or profitability, of their farm businesses is an essential precondition for farmers to make those investments.
It is very telling farmers in majority perceive environmental sustainability to be a net cost, not an added value, and this is because their sustainability work is not rewarded by the marketplace. This can change by capitalising on the greater public interest in climate and environmental action, through better marketing of food production sustainability to consumers: sustainable food which matches their values costs more to produce, and so comes with a higher price tag.
I believe our survey, as limited as it is, shows a level of common ground among all parties that can and must be built upon to achieve urgent on-farm and broader action in the agri-sector, but it does require a calm and fair approach.
© Catherine Lascurettes, Cúl Dara Consultancy
