Sir, – Catherine Conlon’s analysis of the relationship between farmers and biodiversity (Letters, April 13th) broadly describes the dilemma. It is the default solution of incentives and subsidies that I have issue with.
Farmers do more (by nature or by accident) for biodiversity than most other sections of society. The diversity of biology in their workplace is phenomenal. Given the chance, they willingly protect this for all our benefit. Incentives and subsidies to coax them to do so are unnecessary.
They strive to produce food for a world with unrestrained population growth, and they strive to be viable.
So, is it a surprise that they use their farmland to produce what we, the consumer, is willing to pay for? There are so many documented cases of crop farmers going out of business for want of a few extra cent on a bag of Brussel sprouts or lettuce. Yet we have no qualms about paying for non-fresh, carbon footprinted imports.
Mike Scott: ‘Ireland is recovering from a long trauma, and opening out in to a liberal future. I feel very at home’
A Minecraft Movie review: Jason Momoa and Jack Black have a ball in a proudly silly family adventure
Pulse review: Plot is far from a priority in this Greys Anatomy-inspired soapy distraction
The Irish Times view on Trump’s tariffs: a turning point in economic history
Just thinking: there would be no need for any other incentives (or indeed hand wringing) if we paid the grower a fair price – biodiversity would naturally happen. – Yours, etc.
PATRICK HOWLIN,
Milltown,
Dublin 14.
