There is a well-known management consultancy maxim that suggests that a policy based only on using a hammer, sees every challenge as a nail. We appear to have reached this ludicrous situation with regard to any and all reports on climate change and Irish agriculture.

The latest report from the EU Court of Auditors (ECA) was given the full anti-agriculture treatment this week across the mainstream media platforms.

A closer examination of the report, which has a number of flaws in its own right, does not support the anti-agri headlines… unsurprisingly.

Report by EU Court of Auditors

The stated intent of the (ECA) report is to examine EU direct payments that have been attributed to climate action, and measure the actual impact of these payments in terms of EU agriculture emissions.

The period covered by the analysis is from 1990 to 2018.

In terms of the actual detail in the report, the broad analysis indicates (as per chart below), that EU agriculture emissions have declined quite dramatically.

Indeed, several times in the report, mention is made of the fact that emissions, per unit of livestock, have declined even more dramatically than gross emissions.

The anti-agriculture headlines in Irish media, which ignore those broad facts as set out above, seem to be based on those parts of the report that state that EU livestock numbers have increased since 2010, and that EU consumption of meat and dairy products has not fallen.

Indeed the major reveal from the auditors’ report is that the ECA believes that EU climate policy is deficient, as long as it is not promoting a reduction in livestock numbers and a reduction in consumption of meat and dairy products.

The origins of this belief are not revealed however and certainly no science is applied to shore up the belief.

However the belief is then translated into an accusation that EU payments did not lead to lower numbers and lower consumption and thus climate action funding in the CAP is ineffective and a waste of money.

The first point to make here is that as of now, and most definitely in the period from 1990 or even since 2010, neither EU climate action policy nor EU agriculture policy specify reductions in livestock numbers, nor reductions in the consumption of meat and livestock products.

Furthermore, as is well known, the payments that the auditors’ court is suggesting should cease or be curtailed, constitute income supports for livestock farmers at the very lowest income levels.

What we have here is a report which analyses EU spending on climate action measures, and misrepresents what they were intended to achieve.

An inconvenient truth

More crucially, while mentioning EU commitments under the UN Paris Accord, the ECA report is completely silent on Article 2 of accord, which EU member states and the EU Commission are parties to.

It sets as a goal: “Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production”.

The report also skims over carbon leakage effects, whereby suppression of EU production leads to increased production elsewhere.

It quite farcically quotes a number of EU studies that show an impact, in terms of reduction in EU livestock numbers / emissions, if coupled payments were to be abolished, that is wiped out through carbon leakage.

The report quotes EU studies showing impacts of between 2% and 7% in the reduction of GHG emissions, if EU farmers get less income through these supports.

However the final part of this analysis states: “These reductions do not take into account the possible leakage effect, which these three studies estimate between 48% and almost 100% (in the absence of trade barriers).”

So, no global emissions reductions, because regulated EU production would be replaced by unregulated production elsewhere.

Bandwagon

One has to question which is the more reprehensible: the report which incorrectly misrepresents EU policy intents and outcomes, or Irish mainstream media who will jump on any bandwagon that mischaracterises agriculture in a climate change context?

Especially, as I mentioned previously, when the payments that the court is suggesting should be curtailed, constitute income supports for livestock farmers at the very lowest income levels.