Ireland's livestock sector is facing one of the most serious health threats it has come across in decades. The arrival of bluetongue in Ireland during the winter season, of all times, is not simply another disease event, it is a direct consequence of climate change, shifting disease patterns and growing biosecurity pressures on farms. Bluetongue was once confined to southern Europe in warmer countries but is now moving steadily northwards carried by midges whose range and season are expanding due to warmer and wetter conditions. What we are witnessing is not bad luck. It is the new reality for farmers working on the ground in agriculture in a changing climate. For farmers, this is unimaginable. Bluetongue means animal illness, production losses, breeding impacts, movement restrictions and immediate market consequences. A single case can affect an entire region as movement restrictions are imposed. Export markets react overnight but farm incomes can be damaged for years. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Heydon, I know he has been working hard to get the exports to China reopened for hides and skins but beef exports are still suspended. I know that the Minister is aware of how important it is for farmers to get this market reopened and to minimise trade disruption but once again it is the farmers who are left exposed. The State and many groups involved in both the agri-sector and climate change rightly tell us that biosecurity is critical to protecting Ireland’s agrifood sector. Our cattle, sheep and other livestock underpin rural employment, family farms and Ireland’s international reputation as a first class food-producing nation. Biosecurity does not happen in a vacuum. It happens on farms, in sheds, in marts, during calving and lambing season, and through daily decisions made by farmers who are under immense pressure. In recent years, the threat from exotic animal diseases has increased dramatically. Avian flu now returns every winter. Foot and mouth disease has once again re-emerged in parts of Europe. African swine fever continues to devastate pig sectors internationally. Now bluetongue has reached Ireland in winter, which should be unheard of. This is the context in which farmers are being asked to operate. The Department has acknowledged this risk and has taken steps to strengthen preparedness. I welcome the national farmed animal biosecurity strategy 2025 to 2030, which sets out ambitions around surveillance, prevention and partnership with farmers. All-island co-operation with Northern Ireland is rightly recognised as essential. However, ambition alone will not protect herds or livelihoods. If bluetongue is to be managed, as it must be, farmers cannot be expected to carry the cost of management alone. Vaccination, where appropriate, is central to disease control, yet vaccines cost money. Housing, handling facilities, veterinary visits, movement planning and compliance all add expense and complexity. These are not optional measures; they are being demanded in the name of national biosecurity. That means the State must step up. We cannot have a situation where farmers are told that biosecurity is a public good but the financial risk is treated as a private problem. If movement restrictions are imposed, compensation must be automatic and timely. If vaccination is required or strongly advised, it must be affordable and supported. If markets close due to disease risk, farmers must not be left waiting months for clarity or assistance. Climate change is amplifying these pressures. Longer midge seasons increase the risk of bluetongue transmission. Wetter conditions complicate housing and animal health. Heat stress and nutritional challenges reduce resilience in livestock. These are not failures of farm management; they are systemic climate impacts. However, when we talk about a just transition, farmers are too often missing from the picture. There is nothing just about asking farmers to adapt to climate-driven disease threats without income protection. There is nothing fair about expecting compliance with ever-higher biosecurity standards while leaving farm families exposed to financial shock when outbreaks occur. A just transition in agriculture must mean shared risk, shared responsibility and shared investment. We also need to acknowledge the human toll. Disease threats like bluetongue bring anxiety, isolation and exhaustion. Farmers dealing with sick animals, uncertain markets and regulatory pressure are under enormous strain. To go one further, I call for mental health supports to be recognised as part of the resilience we are asking farmers to have, not as an afterthought. Many of our farmers are dealing with this pressure alone and it can be a very lonely and overwhelming environment. Ireland’s livestock sector is willing to do its part. Farmers understand biosecurity. They understand animal health. They often understand climate risk better than anyone else, as they are working day in, day out in ever-changing weather. What they need now is certainty that if they invest in prevention, the State will back them; certainty that if disease strikes, they will not be left carrying the loss alone; and certainty that biosecurity strategies will be matched with real supports on the ground. Bluetongue is a warning of what lies ahead for Irish agriculture in a warming world. How we respond now will determine whether farmers can continue to produce food, sustain rural communities and protect animal health into the future. If vaccination is a central point of our response to bluetongue, and the State accepts that, it must be properly supported. At present, farmers are being told that vaccination is essential for biosecurity, disease control and protecting Ireland’s livestock sector. In practice, the full cost of that protection is being pushed onto individual farmers and that is not sustainable. Vaccines come at a cost, but for many farms, particularly cattle and sheep enterprises, the real burden is the veterinary cost: call-out fees, time on the farm, labour requirements, handling facilities and repeat visits. These are not discretionary expenses; they are direct consequences of national disease-control policy. If the State wants bluetongue vaccination to succeed, the State must help to pay for it. We cannot say biosecurity is a public good while treating veterinary delivery as a private luxury. Farmers need targeted vaccine support funding including State support for bluetongue vaccines; direct funding or reimbursement of veterinary costs associated with vaccination; clear, simple payment mechanisms that do not add another layer of bureaucracy; and priority supports for smaller farms, suckler herds and vulnerable sectors. Veterinary practitioners are a critical part of Ireland’s biosecurity infrastructure. They are not just service providers; they are front-line disease prevention professionals. If we overload vets without supporting their role, we undermine the very system we depend on to contain outbreaks. The Department must recognise that properly funded veterinary involvement is not an optional extra but is essential to effective vaccine uptake, farmer confidence and disease control. Without funding support, uptake will be uneven. Without uptake, biosecurity fails. When biosecurity fails, farmers pay the price. This is where the language of the “just” transition must be matched with action. There is nothing just about asking farmers to absorb vaccine and veterinary costs created by climate-driven disease risk. There is nothing fair about transferring the cost of national biosecurity onto farm families. If climate change is increasing disease threats like bluetongue - all the evidence shows it is - vaccination and veterinary supports must be treated as climate adaptation measures and funded accordingly. We must support the vaccine, support the vets and support the farmers who are being asked to deliver biosecurity on behalf of the entire country, especially when they are doing everything possible regarding further outbreaks. They need to know that if this arrives at their door, the State will step in and compensate. Anything less is not preparedness; it is cost-shifting.

Sentiment score: -0.07