Ireland's UN SDGs - Goal 2 Zero Hunger 2024

SDG 2.3.1 Volume of Production per Labour Unit by Classes of Farming/Pastoral/Forestry Enterprise Size

SDG 2.3.1 Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size indicative information is presented from the CSO, Census of Agriculture and Eurostat.

Definition

The SDG indicators metadata repository provides the following definition in the SDG 2.3.1 metadata document:

Volume of agricultural production of small-scale food producer in crop, livestock, fisheries, and forestry activities per number of days worked. The indicator is computed as a ratio of annual output to the number of working days in one year. As the indicator is referred to a set of production units - those of a small scale - the denominator needs to summarize information on the entire production undertaken in each unit. This requires that volumes of production are reported in a common numeraire, given that it is impossible to sum up physical units. The most convenient numeraire for aggregating products in the numerator is a vector of constant prices. When measured at different points in time, as required by the monitoring of the SDG indicators, changes in constant values represent aggregated volume changes.

Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results

Information in this section is from the CSO Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results, Agriculture Labour Force chapter.

Census of Agriculture (CoAg) results show that an annual work unit (AWU) is 1,800 hours or more of labour input per person per annum. 

Farm Holders

There was 130,206 farm holders in 2020. Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 indicate the annual work units by the number of farm holdings. Approximately 43.3% (56,326) of farm holdings had one annual work unit. Almost 31.8% (41,396) of farms had over half an annual work unit (0.50 to 1.0 AWU), and 25% (32,494) of farms had less than half an annual work unit (<0.50 AWU). See Figure 5.1.

More than half (69,456 or 53.3%) of farm holders stated that farming was their sole occupation while over one quarter (34,063 or 26.2%) regarded it as a subsidiary occupation. 

Mid-East and Dublin (60.2%), South-East (58.5%) and Mid-West (55.9%) regions had a larger proportion of farm holders where farming was the sole occupation compared to other regions. All had over 55% of holders that were the sole holder in 2020.

The Border and West regions had approximately 50% of farm holders farming as a sole occupation in 2020. In the West, 20.5% of holders farmed as a major occupation and 29.0% farmed as a subsidiary occupation. In the Border, 18.9% farmed as a major occupation and 29.8% farmed as a subsidiary occupation.

The South-West and Midlands regions had close to 52% of farm holders farming as a sole occupation in 2020. Just below 24% of the farm holders in the South-West farmed as a major occupation and just above 24% farmed as a subsidiary occupation. In the Midlands, approximately 22% of farm holders were farming as a major occupation in 2020 and just below 26% were farming as a subsidiary occupation. See Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2.

Farm Workers

There was 278,580 farm workers in 2020. Table 5.2 shows that 74,550 (26.8%) of farm workers contributed one annual work unit. About 70,392 (25.2%) of farm workers contributed over half an annual work unit (0.50 to 1.0 AWU), and 133,658 (47.9%) of farm workers contributed less than half an annual work unit (<0.50 AWU). See Table 5.2, Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4.

The regional distribution across gender was similar for persons and annual work units in 2020. The South-West region had the largest proportion of female persons (30.4%) working on farm holdings and had the largest female contribution (23.2%) to AWUs of all regions. See Table 5.3, Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6.

Eurostat Agricultural Factor Income per Annual Work Unit (AWU)

Eurostat’s SDG_02_20 indicator ‘Agricultural factor income per annual work unit (AWU)’ is a partial labour productivity measure in agriculture. Agricultural factor income measures the income generated by farming, which is used to remunerate borrowed or rented factors of production (capital, wages and land rents) as well as own production factors (own labour, capital and land). Factor income corresponds to the deflated (real) net value added at factor cost of agriculture. The implicit price index of GDP is used as deflator. Annual work units (AWUs) are defined as full-time equivalent employment (corresponding to the number of full-time equivalent jobs), i.e. as total hours worked divided by the average annual number of hours worked in full-time jobs within the economic territory.

Table 5.4 shows that Agricultural factor income per annual work unit (AWU) was €23,646 in 2021, an increase from €20,311 in 2020.

The Index (2010=100) was 173.60 in 2021 and increased to 202.59 in 2022, and was estimated to have fallen to 141.25 in 2023. See Table 5.4.

SDG 2.3.2 Average Income of Small-Scale Food Producers, by Sex and Indigenous Status

SDG 2.3.2 Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status indicative information is presented from Teagasc National Farm Survey and the CSO, Census of Agriculture.

Definition

The SDG indicators metadata repository provides the following definition in the SDG 2.3.2 metadata document:

SDG indicator 2.3.2 measures income from on-farm production activities, which is related to the production of food and agricultural products. This includes income from crop production, livestock production, fisheries and aquaculture production, and from forestry production. The indicator is computed as annual income.

Teagasc - National Farm Survey 2022

Information here is extracted from the Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022.

Family Farm Income

Family farm income (FFI), the return from farming for farm family labour, land and capital, is the principal measure used in the Teagasc National Farm Survey. This follows the approach of the EU Farm Accountancy Data Network of which the NFS is a part. FFI varies considerably by farm system, with dairy farms consistently being the most profitable.

Taking account of the income developments across the various farm systems, the average family farm income in Ireland rose by almost 32% in 2022 to €45,809. However, it is important to emphasise that this increase is almost entirely attributable to the sharp rise in dairy and tillage farm incomes in 2022. A different perspective emerges when looking at income development in the drystock farming systems, with lower farm incomes reported on about half of all drystock farms in 2022. See Table 5.5 and Figure 5.7.

As all of the income figures in this release are presented in nominal terms, the high rate of general inflation that has emerged over the last 18 months needs to be taken into consideration, as this has reduced the real value of those incomes. In 2022 inflation in Ireland was almost 8%.

For further details see the full Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022 report.

Teagasc - Small Farms Survey 2015

The Teagasc National Farm Survey Small Farms Survey 2015 shows results from a survey of farms in Ireland whose standard output is less than €8,000.

• The average small farm is 14 hectares in size. Average family farm income (FFI) on small farms was just €2,917 in 2015 and three quarters of small farms earned a FFI of less than €5,000.
• The average small farm employs less than half a labour unit. The average income per full-time labour unit equivalent was €6,238 in 2015.
• Small farms are less productive than larger farms. On a per hectare basis gross output on small farms was just €800, 30% less than larger farms.

For further information see the Teagasc National Farm Survey: The Sustainability of Small Farming in Ireland report.

Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results

Information in this section is from the CSO Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results, Standard Output chapter.

The standard output (SO) of an agricultural product is defined as the average monetary value of the agricultural output at farm-gate prices. Standard output is not a measure of farm income. It does not take into account costs, direct payments, value added tax or taxes on products.

Median values indicated that over 50% of farms in the South-East region as well as Tipperary had a standard output of over €25,000 in 2020. Kilkenny (€34,525) had the largest followed by Wexford (€31,876), Waterford (€31,001), Tipperary (€26,701) and Carlow (€26,268).

Northern and Western NUTS2 region counties (Donegal (€7,316), Leitrim (€7,395), Mayo (€8,683), Sligo (€9,021), Galway (€10,457) and Roscommon (€10,929)) with the exception of Cavan and Monaghan had median standard outputs of less than €11,000 in 2020. See Table 5.6 and Map 5.1.

Economic Size by Farm Size

The proportion of farm size changed as standard output increased in 2020.

81% of farms that had standard output of less than €8,000 were either <10 hectares (60.3% of '<€4,000' and 32.4% of '€4,000-€8,000') or 10-20 hectares (25.9% of '<€4,000' and 40.7% of '€4,000-€8,000') in 2020. 

81% of farms with standard output between €8,000 and €50,000 were in the 10 and 50 hectare size categories. Farms with standard output between €8,000 and €15,000 had 82.6% of farms between 10 and 50 hectares. Farms with standard output between €15,000-€25,000 had 86.3% of farms between 10 and 50 hectares and farms with €25,000-€50,000 had 73.5% of farms between 10 and 50 hectares in 2020.

Over 60% of farms that had standard output of greater than €50,000 were either 50-100 hectares (42.5% of '€50,000-€100,000' and 48.6% of 'over €100,000') or 100+ hectares (7.6% of '€50,000-€100,000' and 23.7% of 'over €100,000') in 2020. See Figure 5.8.

Economic Size by Farm Type

Other and specialist dairying farm types had the largest mean standard output in 2020. Other farm types had a mean of €338,416 and specialist dairying farm types had a mean of €209,006.

However, median standard output for the other farms was much lower than the mean in 2020. It is likely that the mean was skewed upward by large standard output for the other farm types. There were 709 other farms with standard output less than €4,000 and 786 other farms with standard output over €100,000 in 2020.

Farm types that had the next largest mean and median standard outputs in 2020 were specialist tillage (mean of €101,262 and median of €45,295), mixed crops and livestock (mean of €78,539 and median of €50,491) and mixed grazing livestock (mean of €49,468 and median of €28,174).

Specialist beef production, specialist sheep and mixed field crops had the lowest mean and median standard output in 2020. All means were less than €20,000 and all medians were less than €13,000. See Table 5.7.

Economic Size by Characteristic of Holder

As the standard output bands got larger, the average age of the holder decreased in 2020.

Farms that had a standard output of over €100,000 in 2020 had holders typically aged 52 years.

Farms that had a standard output of less than €8,000 in 2020 had holders typically aged over 60 years. 

The remaining farms that had standard output between €8,000 and €100,000 in 2020 had holders typically aged between 55 and 60 years. See Table 5.8 and Figure 5.9.

The gender proportional breakdown of farm holder changed as standard output increased in 2020.

There was a higher proportion of female holders in the lower standard output bands; 21.2% and 16.2% of holders were female in the less than €4,000 and €4,000-€8,000 standard output bands respectively in 2020.

As standard output increased, the proportion of female holders decreased in 2020. For standard output bands of €8,000-€15,000, €15,000-€25,000, €25,000-€50,000, €50,000-€100,000 and over €100,000, the proportion of female holders was 13.0%, 10.9%, 9.4%, 7.7% and 7.8% respectively. See Table 5.9.

Further information on gender and age of holder is in the Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results, Standard Output chapter.

SDG 2.4.1 Proportion of Agricultural Area Under Productive and Sustainable Agriculture

SDG 2.4.1 Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture indicative information is from the CSO, Census of Agriculture and Teagasc National Farm Survey.

Definition

The SDG indicators metadata repository provides the following definition in the SDG 2.4.1 metadata document:

The scope of indicator 2.4.1 is the agricultural farm holding, and more precisely the agricultural land area of the farm holding, i.e. land used primarily to grow crops and raise livestock. This choice of scope is fully consistent with the intended use of a country’s agricultural land area as the denominator of the aggregate indicator. Specifically, the following are:

Included within scope:

• Intensive and extensive crops and livestock production systems
• Subsistence agriculture
• State and common land when used exclusively and managed by the farm holding
• Food and non-food crops and livestock products (e.g. tobacco, cotton, and sheep wool)
• Crops grown for fodder or for energy purposes
• Agro-forestry (trees on the agriculture areas of the farm)
• Aquaculture, to the extent that it takes place within the agricultural land area. For example, ricefish farming and similar systems.

Excluded from scope:

• State and common land not used exclusively by the farm holding
• Nomadic pastoralism
• Production from gardens and backyards. Production from hobby farms
• Holdings focusing exclusively on aquaculture
• Holdings focusing exclusively on forestry

Census of Agriculture 2020 Preliminary Results

Information in this section is from the CSO Census of Agriculture 2020 Preliminary Results, Farm Structure chapter.

The number of farms decreased between 2010 and 2020 from 139,860 to 135,037 farms.

The total Agricultural Area Utilised (AAU) on farms in Ireland has been over 4.5 million hectares since 2010. There was a slight increase from 1991 to 2010 and AAU fell to 4,509,256 (-1.3%) in 2020.

Mean farm size increased from 32.7ha to 33.4ha over this decade.

June livestock populations have increased for cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry from 2010 to 2020. See Table 5.10 and Figure 5.10.

Teagasc - National Farm Survey Sustainability Report 2022

Information here is from the Teagasc National Farm Survey Sustainability Report 2022 (PDF 13.1 MB)

Executive Summary

This report provides the latest available information on the sustainability performance of farms in Ireland, based on detailed analysis of data collected through the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Economic, social, environmental and innovation sustainability metrics are produced for dairy, cattle, sheep and tillage farms in 2022. The report also includes time series results over several years, which allows an assessment of how farm sustainability has changed temporally.

Economic Sustainability

• Consistent with the established trend of earlier years, dairy farms remain an economic powerhouse in Irish agriculture. Average economic returns per hectare in dairy tend to be multiples of those in the other farm systems in Ireland and the gap between dairy and the other farm systems has tended to widen since the EU decided to eliminate the milk quota system. The report indicates that this gap widened further in 2022, which saw a significant spike in milk prices, due to the slow growth in milk production globally, allied with strong international dairy demand.
• Varying amount of labour are required across different farm systems. Expressing farm incomes on a unit of family labour basis addresses this issue. On making this adjustment dairy and tillage farms can be considered as relatively comparable in income terms. The results show that both of these farm system types considerably outperform the drystock farm systems in economic terms.

Social Sustainability

• Again reflecting established trends, dairy continues to exhibit a stronger performance in terms of social sustainability relative to other farm systems. Dairy tends to be associated with a lower isolation risk (living alone). Fewer dairy farm households have a high age profile in comparison with other farm systems. Tillage farms also tend to generally outperform livestock farms on these social sustainability metrics.
• However, dairy farming is typically a very labour intensive system. In terms of labour input, on average the main dairy farm operator works significantly more hours per year than the average farm operator in the other farm systems. Given the hours required on farm, relatively few dairy farmers work off farm. However, even when the labour from time spent working off farm (which can be significant for drystock systems) is combined with time spent working on-farm, the labour input of dairy farm operators tends to exceed that of farm operators of all other farm systems.

Environmental Sustainability

a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Dairy: Even though herd sizes increased in 2022, total farm and per hectare GHG emissions on the average dairy farm declined, largely due to a significant decrease in chemical N fertiliser use. The GHG emissions intensity of milk production (CO₂ equivalent per kilogramme of fat and protein corrected milk) also improved. Effectively this means that the average kilogramme of milk on Irish dairy farms was produced with a lower carbon footprint in 2022.
• Non-Dairy Systems: Farm level and per hectare level GHG emissions on cattle, sheep and tillage farms also declined in 2022 on the back of reduced chemical N fertiliser use. In percentage terms, the reduction in N fertiliser use was larger on drystock farms than on dairy farms, but in absolute terms, the reduction on dairy farms was larger. This reflects the fact that the average dairy farms typically use close to 3 times as much chemical N per hectare compared to the average drystock farm. The decline in chemical N use was most likely driven by the high N fertiliser prices, which emerged in the second half of 2021 and persisted throughout 2022. However, the advice to farmers now strongly emphasises reduced fertiliser use on both economic and environmental grounds, which may mean that the observed reduction in fertiliser use in 2022 could well be maintained. See Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022 Sustainability Report xvi.

b) Ammonia Emissions

• On dairy farms ammonia emissions per farm and per hectare increased in 2022 relative to 2021, but the level in 2022 was below the longer terms trend of years before 2021. The increase was driven by the composition of N fertiliser used, with a move away from the use of CAN towards straight urea, which is a much bigger emitter of ammonia. Ammonia emissions on other farm system tended to decline in 2022 on due to reduced chemical N use and increased adoption of technologies like low emission slurry spreading (LESS). In spite of the increased usage of LESS on drystock farms, the use of that technology is still less prevalent than on dairy farms, indicating that there is room for further progress in this area on drystock farms.
• Across all farm systems, N surpluses declined and N use efficiency improved in 2022. This improvement was achieved through reduced chemical N use and increased best practice technology adoption. These metrics tend to be significantly influenced by variability in weather conditions from one year to the next, although improved N management on farms also plays a role.

c) Nitrogen Balance and Use Efficiency

• Across all farm systems, N surpluses declined and N use efficiency improved in 2022. This improvement was achieved through reduced chemical N use and increased best practice technology adoption. These metrics tend to be significantly influenced by variability in weather conditions from one year to the next, although improved N management on farms also plays a role.

 Innovation

• There was an increase in the percentage of dairy and cattle farms applying lime in 2022. Lime application is important in optimising the soil’s pH level, which affects the availability of nutrients in the soil and can lead to a reduced requirement for fertiliser use.
• There was also a significant transition towards the use of LESS equipment for slurry application. In 2022, 75% of slurry on the average dairy farm and 34% on the slurry on the average cattle farm was applied via LESS.
• However, while the percentage of chemical N applied in the form of protected urea is growing on dairy and cattle farms, it remains at a relatively low level in absolute terms.

See Table 5.11.

For further information on the description of sustainability indicators see table in Background Notes.

Farm Types

The Teagasc report also provides detailed information on economic, social, environmental and innovation sustainability metrics for all farm types: Dairy, cattle, sheep and tillage farms in 2022. See the detailed report Teagasc National Farm Survey Sustainability Report 2022 (PDF 13.1 MB) for more information.

Teagasc - National Farm Survey 2022

Viability 2022

According to the National Farm Survey 2022, a farm business is defined as being economically viable if the family farm income (FFI) is sufficient to remunerate family labour at the minimum wage in 2022 (which is assumed here to be €20,129 per labour unit), and provide a 5% return on the capital invested in non-land assets, i.e. machinery and livestock. It follows that farms with relatively modest incomes can be viable if the labour input and capital investment is low, and similarly farms with seemingly large incomes may not be viable if there is a substantial labour input and/or significant capital invested in machinery and livestock.

Farms that are found not to be economically viable, but have an off-farm income source within the household (i.e. either the farmer or spouse are employed off farm) are considered to be economically sustainable.

Farm households are considered to be economically vulnerable if they are operating non-viable farm businesses and neither the farmer or spouse have an off farm job.

The data indicates that 43% of the farm population represented by the Teagasc National Farm Survey in 2022 were classed as being economically viable. The categorisation of farms is highly dependent on FFI performance and the off farm employment situation in a given year. The proportion of viable farms remained relatively stable in 2022 (up 1 percentage point), to 43%. The proportion of farms categorised as sustainable (due to the presence of income from off farm employment) also went up 1 percentage point, to 32%. The proportion of vulnerable farms declined by 2 percentage points year on year, to 25%.

The viability of Irish farms varies across system. Figure 5.11 illustrates the wide differential between the viability of dairy and tillage farms, on average, compared to their drystock counterparts.

In 2022, 93% of dairy farms were found to be viable (up 8 percentage points on 2021). The proportion of dairy farm households deemed to be sustainable, due to the presence of an off farm income source within the household, is small, and declined in 2022 to just 3%. Only 4% of dairy farms were considered vulnerable in 2022, also down compared to 2021.

Only 27% of all cattle farms were defined as economically viable (See Table A2 in appendix of this Teagasc report). On cattle rearing farms only 13% were deemed viable, and a further 52% sustainable. Just over one-third (34%) of 'cattle other' farms were classified as viable in 2022.

There was a large decline in the proportion of viable sheep farms in 2022, falling from 33% in 2021 to 25% in 2022. Almost a half (46%) of sheep farms were sustainable, while 29% were vulnerable. 

The proportion of viable tillage farms stood at 79% in 2022, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, reflective of the improvement in tillage farm incomes in 2022. In turn, those in the sustainable category declined from 14 to 11%, with those found to be vulnerable also declining from 14 to 10%, on average. See Figure 5.11.

SDG 2.5.1 Number of (a) Plant and (b) Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Secured in Either Medium or Long Term Conservation Facilities

SDG 2.5.1 Number of (a) plant and (b) animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium or long term conservation facilities is reported in the UN SDG database.

Definition

The SDG indicators metadata repository provides the following definition in the SDG 2.5.1a metadata document:

The conservation of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA) in medium- or long-term conservation facilities (ex situ, in genebanks) represents the most trusted means of conserving genetic resources worldwide. Plant and animal GRFA conserved in these facilities can be easily used in breeding programmes as well, even directly on-farm.

The two components of the indicator 2.5.1, (a) plant and (b) animal GRFA, are separately counted.

SDG 2.5.1 (a) Plant Genetic Resources

The plant component is calculated as the number of accessions of plant genetic resources secured in conservation facilities under medium- or long-term conditions, where an ‘accession’ is defined as a distinct sample of seeds, planting materials or plants which is maintained in a genebank.

Genebank Standards for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture set the benchmark for current scientific and technical best practices for conserving plant genetic resources, and support key international policy instruments for the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. These voluntary standards have been endorsed by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PDF 25.1 MB) at its Fourteenth Regular Session.

SDG 2.5.1 (b) Animal Genetic Resources

The animal component is calculated as the number of local (i.e. being reported to exist only in one country) and transboundary (i.e. being reported to exist in more than one country) breeds with material stored within a genebank collection with an amount of genetic material which is required to reconstitute the breed in case of extinction (further information on “sufficient material stored to reconstitute a breed” can be found in the Guidelines on Cryoconservation of Animal Genetic Resources, FAO, 2012). The guidelines have been endorsed by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PDF 28.6 MB) at its Thirteenth Regular Session.

There were 39 local breeds kept in Ireland in 2023. Genetic resources were not stored for any breeds. A total of 1,620 plant genetic resources were stored in 2021. See Table 5.12.

SDG 2.5.2 Proportion of Local Breeds Classified as Being at Risk of Extinction

SDG 2.5.2 Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk of extinction is reported in the UN SDG database.

Definition

The SDG indicators metadata repository provides the following definition in the SDG 2.5.2 metadata document:

The indicator presents the percentage of local livestock breeds among local breeds with known risk status classified as being at risk of extinctions at a certain moment in time, as well as the trends for this percentage.

Local Breeds Risk of Extinction

An unknown risk status was recorded for 33 local breeds. All local breeds with known levels of extinction risk were at risk in 2023. There were 38 local breeds not extinct in 2023. See Table 5.13.