The government was warned it could face full-scale revolt from farmers over policy on climate change.
A strategic review commissioned by the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment said “grassroots resistance” had emerged in other countries and rapidly overturned green initiatives.
It said there was a “sustained and growing distrust” of climate policy in the Irish agriculture sector and rural communities.
Politicians in farming constituencies were already facing regular challenges from voters and the possibility of well-organised movements against environmental initiatives was real.
The unpublished paper said: “In my view, this resistance needs to be taken seriously as a major potential threat to climate policy.”
It said farmers needed to be regarded as “custodians of the land” and the use of the word ‘rewetting’ reconsidered because it suggested ‘flooding.’
The review found a range of other issues around national policy including that there was little trust in government communication.
It said the government’s messaging was “often generic and dry” and there was a “silo mentality” among public bodies.
Other findings included that Ireland’s delays on implementation of its net-zero plans were causing “tension” with EU partners and the risk of large penalties.
The report, written by international climate communications expert George Marshall, said Ireland actually had a strong foundation with a “generally high level of public concern” about changing climate.
It said we were fortunate there was so far “very little of the organised ideological denial” found elsewhere in Europe and other English-speaking countries.
However, it said the processes for making climate decisions were “complex and inefficient” spanning multiple government departments.
It said stated ambitions in the Climate Action Plan required a “far higher rate of progress and activity.”
The review found that programmes that actually reach the public, especially hard-to-reach groups, were limited.
“Without strategic targets or timeline, there is inadequate attention to scale or scalability,” the author wrote.
He said the government lacked a “coherent strategy” for public engagement and queried whether existing programmes offered value for money.
The report said apathy was a particular problem with around one in five Irish people believing nothing they did on climate could make a difference in the bigger picture.
It said the government needed to take more risks in leadership and be decisive in recognising the climate crisis as an emergency.
The author said it was particularly important that new voices emerged to communicate the threats and opportunities.
It said politicians were “rarely trusted outside their own supporter base,” so a more grassroots approach was needed.
The report said: “It is essential to build trust and support through the mobilisation of new voices and communicators, especially for addressing concerns and building constructive dialogue with farmers and rural communities.
“As noted above, there are major potential risks from not prioritising this audience.”
The review said that Ireland’s experience during the financial crash and the COVID-19 pandemic showed people would “work together and make personal sacrifices.”
“[This happens] if they feel that there is a social norm behind taking action, and that they are contributing to a shared identity,” it said.
It said people needed to see themselves as “climate citizens” and how “not acting was not an option.”
Some of the suggestions included drawing on Irish culture, highlighting future impact on historic landscapes, species, and monuments, or adopting Irish-language words for things like ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, and ‘climate change’.
Government messaging over carbon taxes was also criticised in the report, with the author saying global research showed support depended on knowing where the money went.
It said in California, all recipients of funding displayed a logo while in Ireland there was “little understanding” about how the cash was spent.
The government was also warned about ‘tone,’ with people in the farming community especially feeling “judged and blamed.”
It said a more moderated honest and exploratory voice was needed and that some existing initiatives were weak.
The phrase ‘net zero’ was poorly understood while the use of ‘we are all in this together’ weakened after the pandemic.
It also said focus groups found that the use of ‘we’ created skepticism and it was better to actually say who was doing what.