If the unholy alliance of farm bodies and industry is successful in its lobbying, the price will be our rivers and lakes

For those of us who lived through the Beef Tribunal (1991-1994) the current alliance of interests campaigning to retain the nitrates derogation is a stark reminder of where we should not let politics go. Even for those of us who followed it closely at the time, it is hard to remember what it was all actually about and what the Tribunal report concluded. There was a vague sense afterwards that something had been brought to light, but there were no serious consequences, and no criminal prosecutions were sought. Except of course, the attempt to prosecute journalist Susan O’Keefe for refusing to reveal her sources.
The 1980s were indeed different times in terms of the level of crookedness that was both legally and generally acceptable. Fintan O’Toole, writing in 2001 noted the decision of the Tribunal chairman Justice Liam Hamilton to dismiss consideration of political contributions led to the normalisation of behaviours that we would now regard as deeply corrupt. Because Justice Hamilton accepted the idea that political donations could not have been anything other than “normal contributions”, therefore “whatever is normal, in other words, cannot be wrong.”
The economic success of the agrifood sector in recent years has thankfully not relied on shady political donations. After the Tribunal reported, the sector cleaned up its image, and focused instead on getting the State and its agencies to adopt its preferred policies. The relationships between industry, farm bodies, State agencies, political parties, and academic expertise have been painstakingly mapped by the investigative outfit DeSmog and a comprehensive “influence map” has been published this week.
The complex web of alliances means anyone questioning the overall strategy is viewed as disloyal, if not treacherous. Political pressure from bodies like the IFA and ICMSA make it almost impossible for any rural TD to question industry policies because they are portrayed as being synonymous with farmers’ interests. Industry strategies and government policy are yoked together and articulated via an ecosystem of influence so complex and deep it can control the pace and extent of environmental and climate policy at will.
Yet there is a yawning gap between winners and losers. On the beef processing side there is very little competition and suckler farm incomes are so low that just 11 per cent of them in 2023 were deemed viable. Dairy farmers’ ownership of coops has been whittled away such that the sector’s vast profits are largely going to anonymous shareholders, while dairy farmers themselves are saddled with huge debts, as the most recent Teagasc farm survey showed.
Political leaders actively co-operated with industry in anticipation of the lifting of milk quotas in seeking to ensure nothing got in the way, first by denying that there would be any additional environmental impacts as a result of a 25 per cent increase in the dairy herd, and then seeking to undermine the EPA water quality data which has shown precisely that there were. Now, with the nitrates derogation under review by the European Commission, the unholy alliance of farm bodies and industry is lobbying to shore up the entire fantasy. If they are successful, it is unlikely that our rivers and lakes will recover anytime soon or that Ireland will meet climate targets. If they are unsuccessful and the derogation ends, thousands of farmers will find themselves crushed by debt.
Regulatory capture occurs when agencies created to act in the public interest are dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate. Its longer-term effects include higher prices, inefficiencies and lagging behind policy or market developments. If unchecked, regulatory capture can lead to policy failure: where a policy cannot be implemented or where it leads to adverse consequences.
But for this to happen, no one must notice. Regulatory capture occurs when it is so normal that no one remarks upon it, nor is it controversial. It is normal that the board membership of Teagasc has for years been dominated by the farm bodies and dairy and beef industry and that research budgets are skewed towards livestock farming instead of towards strategies that would improve the resilience of our food systems. With representation on the Climate Change Advisory Council, Teagasc is able to influence how agriculture’s climate impact is evaluated.
It is normal that an Bord Bia, the state’s marketing body for food producers, is likewise dominated by dairy and beef industry representatives and whose Origin Green marketing campaign has been widely criticised for failing to promote genuinely sustainable food production. It is a given that the taoiseach of the day must be seen to declare at the Ploughing Championship that the derogation is a “national asset” and an “important part of our farming infrastructure”. It is normal that there is a revolving door between farming bodies and political parties.
But these farming organisations, with origins in the idealistic early years of the Irish State, now appear to be more aligned with industry, not farmers. When a tribunal of inquiry is eventually set up to find out why we allowed our rivers and lakes to be sacrificed I just hope that it will ask the right questions this time.
Sadhbh O’Neill is a climate and environmental researcher