Climate Centre Reports

Farm-level behavioural change towards building climate resilience: Insights from a mixed-methods study

Farmers are increasingly exposed to climate change. To build farm and farmer resilience against climate change, and potentially capture any associated opportunities, new practices and processes leading to the development, dissemination, and adoption of mitigation and adaptation measures are needed. The aim of this exploratory study was to examine farm-level resilience towards climate impacts and behavioural change responses to Ireland’s current climate. 

This work was commissioned by Climate Change Advisory Council Ireland on behalf of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland.

Read more about Farm-level behavioural change towards building climate resilience: Insights from a mixed-methods study.

Modelling Irish Agricultural GHG Emissions and Mitigation to 2050: Scenarios for the Carbon Budgets Working Group

Teagasc contributed to the carbon budget analysis conducted by the Carbon Budget Working Group (CBWG) of the Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) in 2023 and 2024. This contribution was made under the Memorandum of Understanding between the CCAC and all relevant Government Departments and State Agencies. Read more about and access the 'Modelling Irish Agricultural GHG Emissions and Mitigation to 2050: Scenarios for the Carbon Budgets Working Group' report

The Teagasc Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC)

The Teagasc Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) identifies the most cost-effective pathway to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in the Agricultural, Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sectors plus (Bio) energy. This is the third iteration of the Teagasc GHG MACC; previous iterations were published in 2012 and 2018.

In the current version of the MACC the FAPRI Ireland was used to model three potential agricultural activity scenarios on how animal numbers will evolve in 2030; Scenario 1 (S1) is the most likely base case, while Scenario 2 (S2) and Scenario 3 (S3) project lower and higher numbers respectively. Additionally, two assumed adoption rates for each mitigation measure were assumed; Pathway 1 (P1) had an adoption rate similar to the last MACC, while Pathway 2 (P2) assumed a higher adoption rate that represented the maximum technically feasible. 

Find out more about the Teagasc MACC and download the report