Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The climate and biodiversity crises are the single biggest threats to the world and to farming, but not in the way that this motion would have us believe. The only way farming will remain a viable livelihood for generations to come is if we take immediate measures to safeguard and protect our natural environment. The politicians who wrote this motion and those outside the Chamber who are pushing the same anti-environment narrative underestimate farmers. We desperately need to open up the conversation about the future of agriculture in this country, and the farming community knows that better than anyone else. There is an opportunity here for an exciting transformation of our farming model, but we have to be brave, we have to be honest and we have to have an open conversation about it. Honesty is key in this debate. It is no wonder farmers are afraid of what might happen to their family farms and their businesses, because the Rural Independent Group Deputies are failing to be honest with them. Scaremongering about culls is not honest. There is no proposed cull on cattle. It is a cynical political fiction designed to ramp up fear and drum up votes. I am from one of the most rural constituencies in the country, I grew up on a farm, I still live on that farm and I was working on the farm until I got into politics and came into the Dáil. I, and many others like me, do not feel represented by the views expressed by the Rural Independent Group Deputies. I was raised on a small farm with a small dairy herd, which would be impossible now due to decades of failed policies, which is one aspect of this motion I do agree with.

Pushing farmers into more and more intensive models of farming has resulted in not only the destruction of our biodiversity and our water quality but also the destruction of so many small family farms around the country which were once at the heart of our agricultural model. The Government's current policy prioritises economic output over environmental protection and still fails to provide proper compensation to large parts of the farming community. We need to have a sustainable and successful agricultural sector to fight the threats of the climate crisis, and to have that we have to fix this imbalance. We cannot continue to focus on headline-grabbing national herd numbers and not talk about beef prices and the impacts and the cost of fertilisers. If farmers were guaranteed fair prices for the cattle they raised to the highest quality, there would not be the same need for more cattle. We need to reform the meat processing sector, including a statutory beef regulator, for which many of us have consistently called and who could clean up the industry once and for all.

The beef tribunal in the early 1990s highlighted widespread improper relationships between the beef industry and the Government. It also stressed the lack of regulation and the massive impact that had on the sector. Today, 30 years later, what has actually changed?

The system is still designed to enrich the beef barons while small farms fade away and young farmers have no choice but to pursue other careers.

We need to shift to a more sustainable model of farming, and part of that is the need to reduce the number of cattle gradually and in a way that does not reduce farmers' incomes. The same Department that incentivised farmers to increase their herds exponentially must now incentivise them to reduce those herds. Farmers have to be compensated as part of a just transition. There need to be a guaranteed income stream and alternative profitable schemes available to them, such as forestry and horticulture, that produce food in a fair way, sequester carbon and protect biodiversity. There are alternative types of farming that are profitable and more sustainable. We are genuinely lucky to have so many options to turn to in order to reduce our agricultural emissions without reducing our income, if we do it right.

Ultimately, we have to reduce our emissions. It is the overwhelming view of the scientific community that the agricultural sector will need to reduce emissions by 30% before 2030. Pushing back against that in order to keep the status quowill only cause extreme harm to the farming community in the long run, a reality that the Government and the Rural Independent Group seem to refuse to acknowledge. If we do not take difficult decisions now, they will inevitably be made closer to the 2030 target date. That will mean a sudden and difficult transition for family farms around the country. To avoid that, we must start now. Why would we choose to walk farmers to that cliff edge?

We all recognise the potential of forestry in addressing our climate targets. However, farmers and landowners continue to be swayed by Government policy into emission-generating areas of agriculture. This is evident in the sectoral targets of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and how it prioritises same. The ambitious milk target in Food Harvest 2020 was met in 2017 and the beef target was met in 2011. At its highest level, though, only 50% of the forestry target was ever reached. Today, it is closer to 20%. There are already cultural and logistical barriers to planting trees on farmland. Instead of working with farmers to overcome them, the Government and the Department actively continue through other policies to push more families towards dairy while the same incentives are not there for the likes of tillage and horticulture. This is despite the fact that forestry provides a better financial return than livestock on marginal land. More than half of the cattle and sheep farms in the country would be better off with forestry, but there is a drought of ambition in the Government to encourage that transition.

Tillage farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to rent land as other farmers, especially those adjusting to changes in the nitrates derogation, have the capacity to pay much more to lease it. Tillage farmers cannot compete and are being priced out, yet we are importing feed for cattle from South America and food from all over the world. We need interventions to enable the tillage sector to compete in renting land. The Government needs to address the policies that are forcing farmers to rent more and more land, not necessarily to use it, but to apply more nitrates on the land they are already using.

We need to have a candid and honest conversation about the nitrates derogation. There is a false assumption that it is an essential policy for rural Ireland. My focus is on ensuring the viability of family farms and promoting sustainable agriculture. In many ways, the derogation is an obstacle to these goals. The nitrates derogation needs to be phased out in a fair and orderly way. Ireland is one of only three countries with this arrangement. It is likely that the European Commission will not extend the derogation past 2025. The Government should be putting in place plans now to help family farms that may be adversely impacted. I am concerned about small farms. The farmer with 40 or 50 cattle should not be treated the same as the farmer with more than 400 or 500. The Department needs to put in place targeted supports to help family farms whose viability may be affected by changes to the derogation. Unless the Minister takes responsibility for the decision to ensure a fair transition now, he is taking the risk of leading many farms to a cliff edge in 2025.

The Government needs to support more sustainable farming models rather than forcing farms into more intensive methods just to make ends meet. This results in farming communities being blamed for poor Government policy and being pitted against one another and a major negative impact on the environment. It is disgraceful that, in 2023, elected representatives are debating whether we should take the necessary climate action rather than trying to figure out how to do it in a fair way. Farmers deserve better. They deserve more engagement and more honesty.

See this speech in context