Coveney explains stance on agriculture emissions

At first glance, the stance taken by Simon Coveney that agriculture should be regarded as an exception in terms of emissions reduction might seem like a Pavlovian reaction from a politician mired in a traditional view on climate change.

But Coveney is not a climate change sceptic and indeed was Fine Gael’s most active proponent of lowering emissions when the party was in opposition.

A key part of his New Era policy document was an ambitious plan to have scores of thousands of electric vehicles on Irish roads by 2020 (that ambition looks a little ragged now).

So for somebody with a bit of a track record, why is Coveney seemingly in denial about agriculture’s role? Is it a case of not in my back yard?

Agriculture comprises some 40 per cent of Ireland’s not-trading emissions, most of it coming from methane exhaled by cattle.

To achieve the EU 2020 target of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, it would essentially mean a reduction in the herd sizes.

Coveney’s argument is that unlike transport or electricity, there are no alternative forms available when it comes to food.

He said a reduction for Ireland would mean it would lessen its food production. But the demand for food would remain the same (indeed it is increasing) and it would be supplied by countries such as Argentina and Brazil which produce food far less sustainably and with a higher carbon footprint than Ireland.

The case the Government has been making is that Ireland produces milk, beef and pork from a low carbon footprint.

He said the carbon impact was the lowest in the EU for milk, among the bottom five for beef and also the best for pork.

“We have an efficient and intensive grass-based system,” says Coveney, who added that environmentalists might not like the intensity of the production but it was more sustainable and lower in emissions pro rata, he argued, than food produced in countries such as Argentina and Brazil.

In interviews, he often couples Ireland with New Zealand, a country of similar population and some climate similarities and which is one of the world's leading producers of beef and milk.

“In Ireland, 40 per cent of emissions outside traded sector come from agriculture. We cannot meet the ambitious targets unless we reduce output from agriculture or we categorise agrifoods in another category.”

"In transport, you can change from a car to a bike or from diesel to electric but it's not changing your ability to move around. The problem for food is if we produce less beef or milk, consumers will demand the same amount but will import it from somewhere else.. In Germany there is a growing market for Irish beef. If it no longer imports beef from Ireland it will go to Argentina or Brazil. I can say with certainty that it would be negative in terms of emissions," he said.

“It is one of the reasons we are moving down the road of measuring the carbon footprint of beef and milk. We know we have a competitive advantage and can sell it on that basis,” he said.

So is he arguing for a free pass for agriculture then, when he says that agriculture should be treated differently than other sectors.

"When I argue for agriculture and forestry and land use, under no circumstnaces am I arguing for a free pass for agriculture," he says. "We are already producing food at virtually the lowest carbon footprint in Europe and virtually in the world. The difference we are attempting to show is sustainability...

“We want to be come the most sustainable producer of food on the planet. We are implementing what other countries will be talking about in five years.”

Coveney argues that the reality is that there will be increasing demand for food production as global population increases and a country like Ireland with little stress on water resources and good animal husbandry practices can meet some of that demand in a sustainable way.