After weeks of finger pointing, the dust is settling on the 25pc target agriculture has to reduce its emissions by.
ut the devil is, as always, in the detail and that’s the elephant in the room — how exactly can it be achieved?
Since Thursday, when Ministers Eamon Ryan, Charlie McConalogue, Martin Heydon and Pippa Hackett broke the news collectively that an agreement had been reached, there is now perhaps a sense in the sector that at least it knows what it has to aim towards.
But it’s disappointing none of the ministers, especially Minister McConalogue, were brave enough to come out with the truth — the science is not there yet to achieve a 25pc reduction in emissions.
So where does that leave the sector? No one wants to talk about ‘blunt instruments’ such as a reduction in cattle numbers, or the ‘national herd’ as cattle are referred to — as if the State owned them, not individual farmers who are reliant on them to try to make a living.
But back to the problem and the obvious solution — a reduction in cattle numbers will be necessary before 2030 if the sector is to achieve the 25pc target.
Minister McConalogue and his colleagues can talk about feed additives and reduced fertiliser use till the cows come home, but it looks clear that heavy incentivisation, such as retirement schemes for farmers and their cattle and to move farmers away from farming livestock, lured by promises of alternative incomes in the likes of forestry or alternative energy, will be used to fudge the narrative.
‘Generous financial incentives’ and ‘voluntary’ measures are now the narrative of choice.
But if agriculture is to achieve a 25pc reduction in its emissions by 2030, there will have to be less livestock on the ground, while those left farming can no doubt look forward to increased regulations that will curtail livestock numbers.
Exactly how Government and the minister will achieve this will become apparent in the coming months and years, but in the meantime, a bit more honesty with the sector would be appreciated.