Beware of political commitments

If ever there was a truism, this one fits for describing the political commitments to agriculture in recent months. In fairness, there was some positive support announced for food producers in the October budget. But it is the bigger picture that should be the focus of farmers’ scrutiny of the political parties’ agricultural manifestos in the coming general election. We have heard unequivocal support from politicians for the retention of the Nitrates Derogation. Taken at face value, that commitment should translate into a degree of certainty for the 7,000 farms operating at the current 220kg derogation threshold. However, as no decisions will be made until after the election, such commitments cannot be entirely depended upon, given the underlying fact that all decisions around maintaining a Nitrates Derogation at the current level are contingent on improvements in water quality. That, ultimately, provides political cover if the derogation is not maintained. In any case, we have given the decision-making process over to Brussels and Irish politicians’ support – while welcome – will be of limited value. The political philosophy of the next government in relation to Irish agriculture may be considerably different to the current one, depending on its make-up. In addition, the EU will have many demands, defense spending and otherwise, on its finances in the time ahead. While expressing a commitment to support environmental restitution across the Union, the reality of having scarce financial resources to make that a reality, may mean greater reliance by famers on domestic supports, either to support incomes or deliver public goods. While the Irish economy continues to perform, that may be both affordable and politically deliverable. It will be important to reinforce the need for long-term supports as distinct from ad hoc, temporary measures, especially where decisions taken may ultimately reduce the economic viability and profitability of mainstream farm enterprises. Would that it were different. It would be far preferable if the market provided the wherewithal for farming to survive and thrive on its own resources. Despite reassuring bullet points in the report commissioned by Ursula von der Leyen on the future of European food production, there is a considerable gulf between outlining what is preferable and what is politically and financially achievable. Irish farmers are particularly vulnerable, given our island status and the necessity to export most of the food we produce. A significant proportion of those exports go beyond the EU’s boundaries, making them even more vulnerable to global trading interruptions and price fluctuations. That said, we continue to excel at delivering high-quality food across the world, which, despite criticism from those who can afford to ignore the economic necessities of trade and productivity, should be a cause for praise and pride. In the immediate future we face serious challenges, none more so than the vulnerability of our livestock exports to Europe and beyond. We have a legal right under the Single Market to trade freely with our fellow EU states. That doesn’t mean we’ll be able to continue doing so without public goodwill. The ability to export livestock will also be undermined by continuously more restrictive and expensive regulatory protocols. The most viable solution would be a market for beef that delivers a profitable return for everyone involved. The trouble with that solution is that it appears to be neither a likely nor dependable outcome. Mercosur concessions on beef imports from South America alone will place a ceiling on beef prices in the EU. It augers badly for a profitable return for our existing or novel beef production systems.