Sir, – I have great respect for the scientific credentials and integrity of Teagasc's researchers but I must take issue with Prof Gerry Boyle's characterisation of Teagasc's involvement in climate change policy (June 15th).
Teagasc’s intervention in the discussion of the last government’s Climate Bill in 2011 did not convey “independence” nor was all their work “available for public scrutiny”. Farming interests opposing the Bill began quoting a Teagasc analysis that suggested the 2020 target in the Bill would mean a 40 per cent reduction in cattle numbers by 2020. When we asked Teagasc could we see its analysis, we were told it was not yet published.
When Prof Boyle then appeared before an Oireachtas Committee it transpired, under questioning from TDs, that the analysis was based on an assumption that the national target would be applied equally to every sector.
The TDs were quick to point out that the legislation did not stipulate that and that no-one else believed agriculture would face the same reduction effort as other sectors, but Prof Boyle went on to describe the targets as having a “catastrophic implication for the economy”.
This narrative influences the political debate on the Bill. Indeed, by the time of that Oireachtas hearing, at which the IFA were also invited to outline its concerns, the Government had already moved to address them by announcing it would amend the Bill to give Teagasc an automatic seat on the expert advisory council.
In its pre-legislative scrutiny of the current Government’s Bill, the Oireachtas environment committee has recommended that all the proposed ex-officio members of the council form a technical secretariat to provide expert input but that none would be voting members of the council. This would be more in line with international best practice.– Yours, etc,
OISÍN COGHLAN,
Friends of the Earth,
Upper Mount Street,
Dublin 2.