Kieran Coughlan: Just keeping the derogation is too narrow a position for candidates seeking farmers' votes

Every voter eats and drinks. What do candidates suggest can be done to address food inflation as the two issues of farmers' futures and consumer food inflation are intrinsically linked. Picture Chani Anderson

It’s amazing how politicians seem to have become interested in retaining Ireland’s Nitrates Directive. It’s one of those hot topics that those seeking to get elected know that will resonate with farmers. 

Whilst farmers are not quite the lobby group that they once were, it would be remiss of any election candidate to not at least say the right things to farmers. Keeping the derogation is but one of the things that are causing farmers frustration, and whilst it will get air time and possibly will be seen as the focus of whether a particular candidate is on or off side when it comes to farmers, it really is only the tip of the iceberg.

Even if we do get to retain the derogation what about all the other regulatory burdens that have been imposed on farmers over recent years? Soil testing, nutrient management plans, increased slurry and soiled water spreading restrictions, medicine, fertiliser and feedstuff databases, increased TB testing requirements, cover crops and post-harvesting tilling, prescribed reseeding time windows and banding of dairy production and reduced nitrate allowances in certain catchments are just a few of the new regulations that have hit farmers over the past couple of years.

Yes,” keeping the derogation” is the prize from jumping through all of these hoops should our EU neighbours accept our grovelling, and of course, candidates are going to be asked whether they are in support of keeping the derogation or not as part of the election campaign but the media is doing farmers and to an extent the wider public a great disservice in narrowing down a prospective politicians position to the issue of whether they are pro or anti derogation. You’d want to be fairly thick as a prospective politician to say you were anti-derogation. 

I’d much rather see the detail on where politicians see farmers' future vis a vis the layers and layers of bureaucracy that have crept in on an incremental and cumulative basis. I’d much rather see where a candidate comes down on the importance of food security and what ideas and funding models they espouse to guarantee food security faced with potential threats of conflict and potential climate change issues that can impact food production. Lest it has gone unnoticed, the number of full-time farmers in Ireland and Europe has decreased at a significant rate. Lest it has gone unnoticed, the number of farmers who now supplement their farm income with off-farm income or pension income has increased significantly. 

Lest it has gone unnoticed, the average age of farmers has increased beyond that of almost any other cohort of working people in society. Absent a change of direction, the number of farmers will continue to decline and a tipping point will come where farm income becomes an insignificant part of household income and or farmers become older and older and will turn away from maxing out production faced with the wall of regulation that already exist and are set to come on stream. 

Every single voter eats and drinks. If you want to tap into the wider electorate frame the questions in the context of what election candidates suggest can be done to address food inflation as the two issues of farmers' futures and consumer food inflation are intrinsically linked. Regardless of who gets elected, my hope is that the regulatory burden affecting farmers is simplified, that farmers are valued and are assisted in conforming rather than admonished, that food security is given the priority it should have and that farmers can make a decent living from what is ultimately a fundamental that society cannot function without.