Farmers our Kyoto saviours
Of the 15 “old” EU member states, only Spain, Portugal and Greece are rated as doing less than Ireland to protect against climate change. (The ten new member states are all on track to meet targets, because of the collapse of central European economies in the 1990s).
If it wasn’t for farming and other land activities, Ireland would be the environmental slowcoach of Europe. More than half of our greenhouse gas reduction is to come from our landowners, through their response to the Single Payment system, and from growing more trees and crops. In this way, landowners are expected to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 4.4 million tonnes per year. Small reductions in each of the other sectors of our economy will get rid of another 3.5 million tonnes.
Across the EU-15, agriculture’s gas emissions fell 10% from 1990 to 2004, mainly due to less nitrogen being used, better farm efficiency, the Single Farm Payment system, the Nitrates Directive, and reduced cattle numbers. These emissions are expected to fall to 16% below 1990, by 2010, thanks to farmers in the EU-15 continuing to respond to the Single Farm Payment system, and the Nitrates Directive.
Irish farmer leaders are at least partly right when they say the EU Nitrates Directive was put in place to get rid of livestock, and is tied in with the Kyoto Agreement on climate change.
How the European Commission would put this is that the links between agriculture and public goods such as the rural landscape, cultural or heritage features, biodiversity and greenhouse gas absorption are reflected in the EU model of a multifunctional agriculture which justifies Government and EU support. In other words, agriculture is expected to pull its weight in greenhouse gas absorption.
But is the EU really serious about greenhouse gas?
The ten warmest years on record all occurred since 1991, and this climate change, caused by greenhouse gas, has moved high on the international and European political agenda, resulting in many governments adopting the Kyoto Protocol of legally-binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas.
President Bush may have pulled the US out of Kyoto, fearing it would damage their economy too much, but the EU has committed itself to a global leadership role in the fight against global warming.
However, the EU also wants competitiveness, jobs and economic growth, so it can’t push climate change too far.
Farmers will have to guard against their sector of the EU economy being over-burdened with greenhouse gas targets. The EU could achieve a huge 30% of its gas reduction target simply by forcing landowners to plant more forest, and adjust manage crops and grazing differently. The extra vegetation would soak up about 116 million tonnes of carbon dioxide — three times more than is budgeted for — which would solve all the EU’s Kyoto worries.
Ireland’s stand on this is that greenhouse gas targets must be balanced against rural economy targets. But Ireland is under pressure, as one of the countries not doing enough to reduce gases.
European industry will also have its say, warning that climate change policy might undermine its competitive position in the world economy.
Which sector is the EU more likely to restrict? Agriculture which is economically less important, or transport, vital for business, but literally destroying the environment, pumping out nearly 26% more gases than 1990, a figure projected to reach 35% by 2010.
Carbon trading may be used to buy leeway. For example, building cleaner power stations in developing countries is one way EU members can get carbon credits. But Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has warned he may reject some member states’ carbon trading plans because they are too generous.
He may also take legal measures against members who are behind their gas reduction targets — such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
At the very least, additional pressure is likely to come on farmers to continue their good work in greenhouse gas reduction. Since 1990, extensification, the Beef Premium, the headage scheme and sheep destocking all helped to reduce numbers of the livestock blamed for damaging the environment by belching out methane.
In Ireland, the suckler heifer scheme, improving cattle fertility, and other new technologies also helped.
Up ahead, one of the reasons farmers can expect strict enforcement of the cross-compliance rules which accompany the Single Farm Payment and Nitrates Directive is to achieve Kyoto targets. The same objective is likely to put heavy emphasis on more environmentally friendly slurry spreading techniques, bio-energy crops; other forms of carbon neutral, renewable energy; and minimum tillage.
