Teagasc

Background

Teagasc (pronounced “Cha-gask”) is the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. It is a state agency and charity established in 1988,¹ which provides “integrated research, advisory and training services to the agriculture and food industry and rural communities”, according to its website.²

Headquartered in Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland, Teagasc operates³ two food research centres, six other research centres, and eight research farms.⁴ The agency was due to receive €168 million from the Irish government in 2024, an increase of €10 million from the previous year.⁵

Teagasc has “five strategic goals”, including to “provide science-based evidence and technologies” to help Ireland “meet commitments in regard to gaseous emissions, water quality and biodiversity”;⁶ Its charitable purposes include “protection of the natural environment” and “the advancement of sustainability”.

As a state agency with expert status, Teagasc is central to developing agricultural policy and measures for reducing emissions and pollution. Since 2010, Teagasc’s recommended mitigation measures have been directly accepted as a basis for policy, incorporated into five yearly ‘agri-strategy’ plans, and Ireland’s 2024 Climate Action Plan.⁷ In this time, agriculture emissions have risen substantially, in parallel with an expansion of agricultural production.⁸

The UN’s leading science body the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are clear that absolute cuts to limit cumulative total emissions are required by nations to meet climate commitments.⁹ However, instead of outlining policy or regulatory options to curtail total emissions, such as limiting emissions-intensive production by reducing herd sizes, Teagasc has emphasised improving agricultural emissions efficiency, the emissions per kilogram of milk or meat..¹⁰

Teagasc defends the retention of Ireland’s derogation from the EU Nitrates directive, which aims to limit nitrate water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, despite reporting from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that show Ireland’s abject failure to improve water quality, largely due to increased agricultural nutrient losses, especially from dairy expansion.¹¹(For more detail, see DeSmog’s background note on the EU Nitrates Directive).

The livestock sector accounts for 38 percent of national GHG emissions and 99 percent of ammonia air pollution, while nitrate and phosphate nutrient losses from the livestock sector are the largest contributor to water body pollution.¹² (For more detail, see DeSmog’s background note Climate, air and water pollution from intensive agriculture).

Teagasc hosted in 2022 meat and dairy industry representatives at a conference that produced the “Dublin Declaration”. This statement has been used to target EU officials against environmental and health policies, and is viewed by leading climate scientists as “propaganda”.¹³ Signatories of the document have condemned critiques as a “smear campaign”.¹⁴

A Teagasc report on its strategic pathways for 2015-2020 states that the agency is “independent of commercial pressures or bias”, and that its “advice is based on rigorous scientific research”.¹⁵

Environmental NGOs in Ireland have called on the Irish government to “review the legal mandate” of Teagasc and to “reorient” its research and advisory activities “towards a sustainable agro-ecological model, ensuring that environmental expertise is immediately represented on its board and management”.¹⁶

Policy-supported agriculture growth in Ireland

Since 2010, successive governments and the Department of Agriculture have consistently relied on Teagasc data to indicate that climate goals and pollution limits would be met despite animal agriculture expansion.¹⁷

For example, in a 2015 Teagasc report, a section on “Dairy expansion, GHG emissions and sustainable milk production” states that “Farmers can increase output per cow and grow their farm businesses while still controlling their emissions production by adopting the right technologies.”¹⁸

In fact official emissions reporting by Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)¹⁹ confirms a substantial increase in agricultural emissions since 2010.²⁰ Relative to 2005, the EU baseline reference year for agricultural emissions, Ireland’s milk production has increased by over 73 percent and a 52 percent rise in dairy cow numbers, resulting in a 65 percent increase in dairy methane emissions, according to calculations in a recent analysis from environmental advocates An Taisce.²¹

Teagasc’s research underpins policy plans which have substantially increased Irish exports of milk and meat products.²² Revised every five years, these ten-year plans – Food Harvest 2020 (published 2010), Food Wise 2025 (2015), and Food Vision 2030 (2021) – are developed by an “agri-food strategy policy-development committee”, which is appointed every five years by Ireland’s Minister of Agriculture and where Teagasc’s chair is always represented.

Other than state agency officials, these committees are dominated by agri-food lobby representatives. Teagasc’s current chair, Liam Herlihy, also chairs FBD, the financial group associated with the Irish Farmers Association, and is a former director of large dairy food processors Glanbia and Ornua.²³

Since 2010, Teagasc has issued three climate mitigation reports – in 2012, 2018, and the latest in 2023 – that have adopted the approach of the so-called “Marginal Abatement Cost Curve” (MACC), a tool that aims to rank the relative cost effectiveness of different measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the agriculture and land use sectors.²⁴

These mitigation assessments have been key to enabling the expansion of animal agriculture achieved by Ireland’s decadal policy plans, by insisting that technical efficiency measures and their voluntary adoption by farmers would enable sector-wide absolute emission reductions, despite the growth of the sector. In fact, since 2009, annual GHG emissions, ammonia air pollution, and nitrate water pollution due to agriculture have all increased overall, especially due to dairy expansion.²⁵

A 2018 article published in the journal Critical Public Health criticised the 2010 ‘Food Harvest 2020’ policy, which mentions Teagasc 43 times. It concluded:

“Food Harvest 2020 was developed by a limited number of food industry professionals and government agencies focused entirely upon food as a tradable commodity stripped of any health considerations outside that of health marketing, functional foods and traditional food safety concerns. Participation beyond that of industry and producer organisations was minimal, and public health engagement in the process was minute.”²⁶

Tara McCarthy, the former CEO of Ireland’s state food agency Bord Bia, described the Food Wise 2025 policy as “industry-owned” in a 2017 interview with professional services firm GrantThornton.²⁷

Ireland’s most recent agri-strategy development committee, appointed in 2019, includes 17 committee members representing farming and industry groups, as well as a number of government officials, primarily from Teagasc and the food marketing body, Bord Bia.²⁸

In a February 2021 statement, the Environmental Pillar, an umbrella group of green NGOs, announced it had “reluctantly withdrawn” its one seat from the “problematic 2030 Agri-Food Strategy Committee”. It called on the Government “to take full responsibility for agricultural policy to radically change course”.²⁹

In the statement, the group described the draft strategy as “woefully inadequate to meet the social and environmental challenges we face”, adding: “This industry-led process has ultimately failed to meet the moment and the draft document it produced provides no evidence that it is based on the EU Green Deal, including the EU Farm-to-Fork Strategy or the EU Biodiversity Strategy.”

In August 2021, the Government announced it had endorsed³⁰ the “Food Vision 2030”³¹ DeSmog archived pdf. strategy, which it described as “a major new decade-long and pioneering strategy for Ireland’s food and drinks sector”.

Stance on Climate Change

Ireland has committed to a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by 2030. Agriculture was responsible for 38 percent of Ireland’s total national emissions in 2023, primarily due to methane from cattle burps and animal manure, as well as nitrous oxide from spreading fertiliser and nitrogen excretion by farm animals.³²

Teagasc acknowledges the need for climate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. On its website, Teagasc states that the “climate challenge” requires a “co-ordinated response to move the industry forward”. Teagasc also says it “support[s] the need for early and decisive action at farm level” by “accelerat[ing] its research, advisory and education activity” on reducing nitrogen and methane emissions; enhancing biodiversity and adaptation; increasing carbon capture; and “supporting policy”.³³

In 2022, Teagasc launched its Climate Action Strategy (2022–2030), which states that 2C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures would have “the potential to have a devastating impact on the world’s environment and food security” and that “urgent action is needed in all countries and sectors including agriculture to reduce emissions, increase carbon removals/sequestration and prepare to adapt to the changing climate”.³⁴

The strategy also notes:

“The world also faces food and nutrition, energy, and biodiversity crises, and our actions must deal with all the challenges in a co-ordinated manner. Agriculture must therefore maintain/increase food production, reduce emissions, increase sequestration, improve biodiversity and contribute to energy security, whilst also ensuring economic and social sustainability.”

Teagasc’s Climate Action Strategy also sets out a roadmap for the sector to achieve the government’s target to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2030 “without impacting on the competitiveness of the agri-food sector”.³⁵

Approach to reducing agricultural emissions

Prior to 2010, Teagasc’s own research on mitigating the sector’s climate impact and improving water quality acknowledged that imposing national limits on the number of farm animals and fertilisers was an effective way to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.³⁶

A 2009 Teagasc study quantified how beef and dairy cattle numbers would need to be reduced for the sector to align with the EU’s goal for a 20 percent reduction in total sector emissions by 2020 relative to 2005.³⁷

Relatedly, Teagasc economist Trevor Donnellan pointed out in 2009 that Irish agricultural greenhouse gas emissions had been decreasing, that they could continue to fall over the next decade, and that on this trajectory a reduction of 10 percent relative to 2005 levels would be possible.³⁸

Instead, the sector’s emissions have risen substantially since 2010. Teagasc has concentrated on encouraging farmers to adopt technical measures that reduce the “carbon footprint” of milk and meat production, including policies that support the “intensification of animal agriculture”.

The Signpost³⁹ and AgNav⁴⁰ advisory programmes advise farmers how to limit emissions rather than assessing policy alternatives to effect system change.

‘Marginal Abatement Cost Curves’ (MACC)

Since 2012, Teagasc’s technical analyses use a ‘Marginal Abatement Cost Curve’ (MACC) approach, a tool that ways up costs or savings expected from different emission reduction pathways. Teagasc’s MACC analysis does not consider policy to limit total system nutrient inputs or total animal-type numbers’ directly through regulation or taxation.

A research report in 2020 noted that MACC analysis methods have been “strongly critiqued” in academic literature, but that “these flaws are often overlooked in policy use of MACC curves”.⁴¹ Teagasc’s MACC climate mitigation reports do not acknowledge these flaws.

MACC reports primarily recommend technical measures for voluntary adoption by farmers to improve the “carbon footprint” (emissions intensity in emissions per kg of output) of their milk and livestock production.

Aideen O’Dochartaigh, assistant professor in accounting at Dublin City University, told Irish investigative website Noteworthy in 2021 that focusing on emissions intensity (efficiency) measurements was “a red herring”. She was reported saying “it has been a “massive problem” for years that companies are “increasing their activity while increasing their efficiency and it all cancels out”.⁴²

Irish environmental charity An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, strongly criticised Teagasc’s 2023 MACC report as failing to “appropriately acknowledge the escalation of agriculture emissions almost every year since the first MACC was published in 2012, despite all MACCs being considered the ‘roadmap’ for agricultural action on climate and cutting emissions”.⁴³

For a more detailed analysis, see DeSmog’s MACC background note.

Justifying animal agriculture expansion

Teagasc has stated that “much of the answer [to cutting emissions] lies in farm efficiency”.⁴⁴

It continues to hold this position – rather than calling for reductions in or livestock numbers – even though its own 2023 “MACC” detailed analysis found that measures to increase productivity had resulted in a very large “backfire” rebound effect that had substantially increased dairy emissions.⁴⁵

To justify the ongoing expansion of Ireland’s herds, Teagasc’s public statements repeatedly express a “carbon leakage” concern, ie. that if Ireland reduces production, it will simply move to countries with less stringent regulation and result in more emissions intensive meat or milk production overall.

For example, in an April 2021 written statement, Teagasc told the parliamentary agriculture committee that: “Given the low carbon footprint of Irish milk and meat, Ireland can continue to strive to meet growing international market demand for food so as to contribute to global food security and avoid carbon leakage [production shifting to other countries with laxer emission constraints] whilst at the same time meeting environmental obligations including those related to climate change.”⁴⁶

A 2024 research paper notes that “contrary to the vague assertions commonly made in industry and advisory documents, if anything, carbon leakage has thus likely been more toward Ireland (as agriculture has consistently ignored agreed emissions goals), not away from Ireland to other nations.”⁴⁷

The same paper concluded that these talking points – such as efficiency claims, carbon leakage, or “feeding the world” – that had featured heavily in agricultural advice over the past decade lacked “quantitative or regulatory substance” and served to “distract from the primary requirement for advice that will help enable a dependable transition pathway for Ireland’s agri-food system within the agreed commitments to meet absolute emission reduction targets and pollution ceilings.”

Key Actions

May 2024

On May 24, Teagasc’s weekly online Signpost Series hosted⁴⁸ a webinar ⁴⁹ presentation entitled “Sustainable Livestock, Sustainable Future”, with a following audience Q&A session, by the controversial Professor Frank Mitloehner from the Department of Animal Science, University of California.

The Irish Farmers Journal reported that in the webinar Mitloehner had said “productivity increases on farm is the number one way of reducing emissions related to livestock farming”.⁵⁰

By contrast, analysts at the 2021 Global Methane Assessment – the most detailed analysis of methane mitigation methods to date – state that policy has more power than technical measures to reduce emissions. They state: “given the limited technical potential to address agricultural sector methane emissions, behavioural change and policy innovation are particularly important for this sector”.⁵¹

October 2022

Teagasc hosted and financed⁵² a Dublin “Summit” for meat and dairy industry representatives and academics titled “The Societal Role of Meat – What the Science Says”.⁵³

The PR agency Red Flag – which has worked for the agribusiness and tobacco industries previously – was also involved in planning the conference, according to emails obtained by investigative outlet Unearthed.⁵⁴

The conference was used to launch the “Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock”, which claimed that livestock systems “are too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry”.⁵⁵

Declan Troy, now Teagasc’s assistant director of research, is listed on the authorship page as an ‘initiator; of the “Dublin Declaration” alongside agribusiness consultant Peer Ederer, the food scientist and outspoken meat advocate Frédéric Leroy, Collette Kaster (CEO of the American Meat Science Association) and two others.⁵⁶ As of July 2024, 17 of the 27 Dublin Declaration signees from Ireland note their affiliation with Teagasc.⁵⁷ Other signatories include UC Davis professor Frank Mitloehner.

Peter Smith, Professor of Soils & Global Change at the University of Aberdeen and a lead author for the UN’s IPCC, told The Guardian that the Dublin Declaration “reads more like livestock industry propaganda than science”.⁵⁸

In response to criticism resulting from reporting by Unearthed and The Guardian, Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue said he “see[s] no conflict in Teagasc’s involvement with the recent ‘Dublin Declaration’” while appreciating that “as a science-based organisation, it is important that Teagasc’s research integrity and independence is maintained at all times”.⁵⁹

A symposium held in Brussels in 2023 to share the Dublin Summit outcomes was opened by Teagasc’s director, Frank O’Mara, who is also president of lobby group the Animal Task Force (ATF) which co-organised the meeting with the Belgian Association for Meat Science and Technology (BAMST).⁶⁰

A November 2023 opinion piece with over 20 Dublin Declaration signees among its authors condemned critiques of the document as a “smear campaign” and stated that “it was written in protest to persistent attempts to undermine the credibility of established experts and organizations in the domain of animal source foods and livestock agriculture”.⁶¹

According to the article, “Neither the Declaration nor the Dublin Summit received financial backing from the industry, nor was their content influenced”. The authors noted that Teagasc provided “the sole financial support, a modest sum of 40,000 Euros to facilitate organization of the Summit.”⁶²

In the Oireachtas (Parliament), Neasa Hourigan TD raised a number of concerns around Teagasc’s role in supporting the declaration’s launch, citing the minister of state’s attendance at the summit, and possible biases of the declaration’s lead authorship.⁶³

Hourigan specifically noted that lead author Peer Ederer had commented, “What started the [Dublin Declaration] coverage in Ireland is not the brilliance of our science but the fact that we had a minister and a commissioner there”, referencing the findings of Unearthed.

Hourigan stated, “Most lobbyists pay the State for access and consideration but Ireland must be in a unique position of paying those same lobbyists €39,000 for the privilege of being manipulated and hoodwinked by an unethical and anti-science industry operative. Teagasc was founded as a research and industry development body. If we cannot rely on the data and scientific objectivity of Teagasc, where does that leave us?”

Responding on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, deputy Sean Fleming said that, while Teagasc had hosted the Summit and agreed to pay some of the cost of it, it “did not host the Dublin Declaration”.

Fleming stated, “The declaration emerged subsequent to the summit; it was not overseen by Teagasc at the event […] Teagasc has assured me that as a State agency it has no conflict of interest when it comes to these matters”.

However, a Teagasc press release appears to contradict Fleming’s claim. The document, which was issued on the first day of the conference, and features a photograph of Fleming with the Teasgasc leadership, links directly to the Dublin Declaration website and states that “Summit attendees, with academic and scientific credentials, will be invited to endorse the evidence base by signing the ‘Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Meat’”.⁶⁴

May 2022

George Ramsbottom⁶⁵ – a farmer, and dairy specialist employed by Teagasc, and president of farming trade group Ireland’s Agricultural Science Association – told the Irish Times that agricultural greenhouse gas emissions “have remained relatively unchanged since the 1990s” and that he saw “no signs of any increase in the dairy herd”.⁶⁶

Ramsbottom leads Teagasc’s Signpost Advisory Programme,⁶⁷ which focuses on farmers adopting technical measures as the primary means of climate action in agriculture.⁶⁸ It focuses on farmer’s calculating their GHG production intensity using the AgNav toolkit developed by Teagasc, the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF), and Bord Bia.

Ramsbottom said, “You’d imagine from what’s being reported that there was kind of an explosion in stock numbers and an explosion in emissions going on but the reality is probably not quite as dramatic as that,” adding, “the reality is it hasn’t changed that much really.”

December 2020

In 2020, an independent evaluation by climate governance experts of Ireland’s Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) – of which Teagasc’s director is an “ex officio” member – warned against the continued granting of ex officio council seats, specifically stating that “Teagasc is additionally regarded by us as representing a sectoral interest in the [low carbon] transition.”⁶⁹

Despite these concerns, the Government’s amended Climate Act 2021 reconfirmed Teagasc’s ex officio CCAC seat, even though the state energy agency and the leading economic advisory lost theirs.

9 December 2020

At a webinar event on December 9, researchers presented Teagasc Sectoral Roadmaps 2027, providing its outlook for the next seven years by agricultural sub-sector: dairy, beef, sheep, pigs, tillage (arable crops), forestry, horticulture and environment.⁷⁰

While Teagasc’s overview report acknowledged the “significant challenge” posed by emissions reductions, its 2027 Sectoral Road Map: Dairy projected an increase in dairy cow numbers from 1,465,000 in 2019 to 1,650,000 in 2027, with a rise in milk output from 7.99 billion litres to 9.49 billion litres.

The environment roadmap did not acknowledge that total emissions from the agriculture sector had already risen substantially since 2011 (largely due increases in fertiliser use and dairy farming), and did not align with the EU 2020 target of reducing national emissions including agriculture by 20 percent.⁷¹

However, the Teagasc roadmap did note that, “In recent years water quality has disimproved”, contrary to the ultimate objective (under the EU Water Framework Directive), of “Achieving good or excellent status in 100% of ground and surface water.” As for emissions mitigation, the sectoral roadmaps primarily proposed efficiency measures to improve water quality and reduce ammonia emissions.

For more detail, see DeSmog’s background note on Sectoral Road Maps (Dairy, Beef, Agriculture and the Environment).

March 2019

Trevor Donnellan,Teagasc’s head of economics and farm surveys, presented at a seminar hosted by the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF), a group that claims climate science “is not yet settled”, as reported by DeSmog.⁷² Ireland’s former Green Party leader Eamon Ryan criticised Teagasc for attending the event, describing the ICSF as the “main centre for climate scepticism” in Ireland.⁷³

In response, a Teagasc spokesperson told DeSmog: “Teagasc has presented results from its research to multiple organisations. This is another opportunity to outline which mitigation measures can contribute to reducing Ireland’s emissions from the land-use sectors.”

Funding

Teagasc receives nearly €200 million in funding annually, of which around 75 percent comes from the EU and Irish government. Teagasc say that “40% of the [Teagasc] budget is devoted to research with the remainder split half and half between advisory and education services.”⁷⁴

In 2024, the Irish government increased its funding to Teagasc from €158 to €168 million. Commenting on the additional funding, agriculture minister Martin Heydon said: “Farmers cannot deliver on environmental sustainability unless they are economically sustainable” adding that he believed the answer to environmental challenges “lie in science and innovation”.⁷⁵

Moorepark Technology Ltd (MTL), a joint venture company at Teagasc’s Moorepark Food Research Centre in Fermoy, County Cork, has received substantial government and private funding for dairy processing research,⁷⁶ with two separate public-private investments of €10 million in 2015⁷⁷ and in 2019.⁷⁸

Teagasc is the majority shareholder in MTL, with 57 percent. Nine dairy processing companies, Enterprise Ireland and Ornua hold the remaining shares.⁷⁹

In 2023, major Irish farming insurer FBD contributed €6 million to the development of a new Centre for Sustainable Animal and Grassland Research at Teagasc Moorepark.⁸⁰ The largest shareholder in FBD is Farmer Business Developments plc,⁸¹ whose board members are appointed⁸² by lobby group the Irish Farmers Association (with two seats) and farmer cooperative processors (with four seats).

Charitable Status

Unlike other state-funded sectoral expert agencies in Ireland Teagasc was also established as a charity. Teagasc’s listed charity trustees also make up Teagasc’s board.⁸³

The Irish Charities Regulator lists Teagasc’s charitable purposes as: “Advancement of education; Protection of the natural environment; Advancement of environmental sustainability; [and] Prevention or relief of suffering of animals”.⁸⁴

Teagasc’s charitable status has been questioned in the Irish parliament. In 2022, Irish Social Democrats politician Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Agriculture how the original functions of Teagasc are compatible with its obligation under the Charities Act 2009 to solely pursue its charitable purpose.

She went on to question whether it was “appropriate that Teagasc’s trustees have personal liability for a State body with an annual budget of just under €200 million per annum”.⁸⁵

The Minister answered that Teagasc’s charitable status had been held since 1988 “to avail of certain tax exemptions”, that the “registration is ultimately a matter for the Charities Regulator”, that Teagasc’s board of directors are “collectively responsible … and … appoints the charity trustees”, and that his department “has no role in the matter”.

Lobbying

Teagasc does not appear as a lobbyist in Ireland’s official register, which primarily records lobbying through documented meetings and written submissions.

However Teagasc is one of 62 public bodies that will be added to Ireland’s Lobbying Register in January 2025, after which date communications between agriculture and food lobbyists and Teagasc representatives will be officially recorded in the Lobbing.ie register.

As a public body, Teagasc is required to list senior officials who may be targets of lobbying as “Designated Public Officials” (DPOs). As of August 2024, five Teagasc office holders are listed.⁸⁶

News articles show that agriculture industry representatives have attended multiple events and committees alongside Teagasc DPOs.

Teagasc has itself been accused of lobbying on behalf of the dairy industry by the NGO An Taisce, after comments made by Teagasc’s then-director Dr. Gerry Boyle at an agricultural college graduation ceremony, in which he stated:

“We don’t want quotas coming in by the back door, particularly in dairy, and that is the risk. You only have to go to the North of Ireland to see what a restriction in relation to ammonia has done (in putting) the brakes on developing a dairy industry. We are far better off if we control the agenda down here. We have the technologies but now need farmers to engage with them”.⁸⁷

An Taisce said that Boyle’s comments meant the body was moving “well beyond Teagasc’s legal remit and into the realm of agri-politics”.⁸⁸

Affiliations

Teagasc’s board of directors, also called the Teagasc Authority, has 11 members appointed by the Irish Minister of Agriculture. It includes representatives from farming organisations, the food industry, universities, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Teagasc staff.⁸⁹

As of July 2024, the board includes three dairy farmers, one beef and tillage farmer (the Deputy President of the Irish Farmers Association), a Department of Agriculture official, two agri-food academics, a agri-business consultant, a fertiliser company director, the president of Macra na Feirme (an organisation representing young farmers), and a Teagasc staff member. The board does not include any environmental NGO representatives.⁹⁰

Previously, in 2019, An Taisce had noted that the Teagasc Authority was “dominated by dairy farmers”, with five of the then-board’s eleven members – including the chairman – being dairy farmers.⁹¹

In July 2020, prior to joining Teagasc, its current director, Frank O’Mara became president of the Animal Task Force (ATF), which is a “public private platform”⁹² aiming to “work for benefit of the livestock sector”,⁹³ acting “as a representative of the EU livestock sector”, and with the objective to “promote the livestock sector in EU initiatives”.⁹⁴

Lobbyfacts.eu records show that ATF also lobbies the EU to promote livestock sector interests, spending €50,000 to €100,000 per year on lobbying activities.⁹⁵ An FAQ on ATF’s website includes the question “Are you a lobby organisation?” with the answer, “Yes, we lobby for the European livestock sector. While doing this, we follow the official EU Code of Conduct.”⁹⁶

Memberships

Teagasc is represented on all agriculture and land use stakeholder groups appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to cut emissions and reduce pollution, including the Food Vision policy and its dairy,⁹⁷ beef and sheep,⁹⁸ and tillage⁹⁹ implementation sub-groups, which were set up to report on options for climate mitigation.

Teagasc staffs the ASSAP water pollution mitigation advisory for farmers, which it operates alongside dairy industry representatives.¹⁰⁰

Teagasc’s director was one of four institutional stakeholders granted automatic ex officio council membership of the Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC), which was established by Ireland’s 2015 Climate Act as an independent panel of experts to critically advise governments.¹⁰¹ This position was renewed in 2021 despite an independent evaluation of the CCAC warning that Teagasc represented a sectoral interest in the [low carbon] transition”.

As well as the director Frank O’Mara’s place on the CCAC, two other Teagasc economists sit on the council’s Carbon Budgets Working Group¹⁰² that will recommend Ireland’s next five year carbon budgets.

Teagasc is a member of Animal Health Ireland, alongside government and state agencies, farm representative organisations, milk and meat processors, advisory support services, and artificial insemination companies. AHI is a not-for-profit, public-private partnership between private sector organisations and businesses in the agri-food sector.¹⁰³

Sustainability Awards

In 2024, Teagasc launched its Environmental Sustainability Awards to “promote environmentally sustainable farming”. The awards are organised alongside Bord Bia, Ireland’s state food agency, and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF), and are sponsored by insurance company FBD. The ceremony gives cash awards to individual farmers for initiatives including “Reducing gaseous emissions” and “Improving soil health and carbon”.¹⁰⁴