The greater scheme of things

Was it a sleight of hand or practical politics? Either way, there was little doubt that, as asserted in a previous Irish Farmers Monthly editorial, the long-promised, or threatened, adoption of the EU’s Nature Restoration Law had only been postponed for the duration of EU parliamentary elections. For the time being, Irish State-owned peatland will suffice to account for Ireland’s contribution towards nature restoration, at least up to 2030. After that, and especially after 2040, all bets are off as to how much land will be required to comply with the new European law, and where that land will be sourced. In all likelihood, drained and farmed peatland will be required to make up shortfalls in the land area designated as in need of restoration. Much of that drainage, carried out decades ago, is already compromised, so decisions of what changes are required to comply with restoration standards may mean little change in land management in many cases when the time for decisions comes around.
Anyway, the somewhat cynical, politically motivated postponement of the now enacted law, may only be a foretaste of what is to come. The deliberate absence of cost/benefit analyses on many of the EU’s propositions on changes in agricultural practices and trade negotiations would suggest that the economic effects on farm families across Europe are relatively incidental in the greater scheme of things. Policy contradictions abound. A trade agreement with the Mercosur countries of South America is contingent on no deforested land being used to produce beef or grain destined for Europe. Already, the South Americans are developing strategies to comply with this requirement. Only produce from non-deforested land will be sent to Europe. With targets set to increase output substantially in the coming years, these countries may continue to cut down Amazonian rainforest and send the produce from the newly available farmland to other countries with less stringent concerns around where the food is sourced. It is another variation on carbon leakage. The EU negotiators will clap themselves on the back for their firm stance on deforestation, while the rainforests will continue to be denuded. The only virtuous policy would be to ban all produce from countries that continue to expand their production base through ongoing deforestation. That, however, is not a pragmatic option for the European Union which has an urgent need to increase exports of high-tech products, services and intellectual property to the vast consumer markets of South America. Resultant reductions in beef, grain or milk prices for European farmers are of little consequence in this greater scheme of things.
What is most unforgivable are the ongoing demands for urgent livestock reductions on Irish farms in the name of climate change mitigation, while there is an inexplicable silence from the same people around increases in livestock production, globally. The South American ambition in that regard is well recognised. Elsewhere, India is expanding its dairy herd at an exponential rate. Likewise, China is developing industrial-scale dairy farms that are so far removed from Irish family-farmed milk-production enterprises that they bear no comparison. Even the largest Irish dairy farm is an infinitesimal fraction of the size of China’s largest dairy farm.
Bengbu Farm in Anhui province, owned by Modern Farming, has 40,000 animals, including 20,000 lactating cows that are milked in eight rotary parlours. The entire farm takes up only 600 acres. How does that compare to stocking rates under our Nitrates Derogation regulations?