Copenhagen, the Commission, the IIEA and Sustainable Agriculture

10 Nov 2009

Joseph Curtin

It seems now almost inevitable. Copenhagen will not succeed in its ambition of securing a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. 

While this may be profoundly disappointing for the armies of scientists, government officials, research organizations and campaigners involved in negotiations for the past five years with only the light of Copenhagen at the end of the tunnel, all is far from lost. 

China and India are now making all the right noises. And while US domestic politics undoubtedly remains the single biggest obstacle, it is hard not to believe that President Obama will eventually lead his reluctant country to the promised land of a responsible climate agreement. 

Success therefore seems more likely than not before 2011, leaving just enough time to implement the agreement before Kyoto becomes redundant. 

At the risk of sounding a rather parochial note, what if anything might all this mean for Ireland? 

The broad dimensions of Ireland’s climate commitments have already been drawn within the EU – a 20 to 30% emissions reduction target for the domestic sector on 2005 levels by 2020. A reduction of 21-31% will be demanded of those who operate under the emissions trading sector and, in the case of many sectors, the rules governing the allocation of emissions permits has also now been decided. 

An international agreement will of course finally answer whether these targets are expected to be at the higher or lower level of these commitments, something that remains unclear. 

An agreement would also clarify what amount, if any, of additional resources will come from the Irish exchequer to finance mitigation and adaption in developing countries. Now that the Council has endorsed the Commission's communication on financing we have some idea of the numbers involved. 

There still remains, however, a lack of clarity on where these funds are to be sourced and how the overall burden would be shared among Member States. Possibly another issues that should be on the radar of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs? 

Technical issues relating to land use, land use change and forestry - which may have profound implications for Ireland - also remain to be resolved. With Ireland’s lob-sided emissions profile - 40% of domestic sector emissions come from agriculture which is uniquely high within the EU - our ability to count sequestered emissions from forestry was not assured under the EU’s own climate deal. 

This is an area that has great potential in Ireland. Forestry will sequester up 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020 and how these emissions are to be counted may not now be clarified until a global deal is achieved. 

The Irish delegation are also said to have been making the case that emissions related to agriculture should be somehow treated differently for various reasons (food security, “methane leakage” etc). Not surprisingly, this special pleading has been falling on deaf ears. This is probably an unwise expenditure of political capital which should perhaps be concentrated on the forestry issue. 

But it is not just developments on the road to Copenhagen that the Irish agricultural sector has been monitoring closely. Following the Commission working document on mitigation and agriculture a leaked communication from the Commission on budgetary reform would have huge implications for Irish agriculture post-2013. 

The main thrust of the reform would mean that Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could include a 'third pillar' on climate change. Support for farmers would be dependent on their provision of public goods such as biodiversity, carbon dioxide sequestration and sustainable farming practices. 

Thus the Commission clearly is of the opinion that the CAP in its current form is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century and that the principle of aligning income support to historic production is unsustainable. 

While this “non-paper”  was withdrawn as soon as it was leaked due to the howls of protests, the direction of Commission policy is clear. 

The Institute of International and European Affairs has been playing its own small role in this debate over the last year. Its sustainable agriculture working group was established following a successful conference on the topic this January.  

This group will publish a Sustainability Enhancement Report for Irish agriculture towards the end of November which will hopefully be launched by the Minister for Agriculture. It is an attempt at filling a gap that has long been apparent in Irish climate policy. With Copenhagen just around the corner, and the Commission’s plans for a closely connected agriculture and climate policy, the timing could not be better.

As an independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.