Ireland’s weak local food economy is not simply a modern oversight or the result of consumer preferences. Instead, it is deeply rooted in historical and structural forces—chief among them, colonial extractivism. The foundations for this vulnerability were laid centuries ago, and they have laid down tramlines of extractivism which still operate today. Analysis by Oliver Moore.
Extractive colonialism and economic restructuring
Broadly, the era before settler colonialism in Ireland—initially the 12th and then 16th centuries—was one defined by a kinship-based system of self-sufficiency, collective rights and responsibilities and stewardship. With colonisation came integration into a different system—one of private property, global trade flows, and capitalism.
The 19th century was one of much turmoil in Ireland, beginning with the Act of Union in 1801, when Ireland was fully politically absorbed into the United Kingdom and lost its short lived limited parliamentary autonomy. Penal (discriminatory) laws were fully in place until 1829, which barred the indigenous population from most high ranking jobs, from accessing any education, and so on.
It was also the period of an Gorta Mór (the great hunger or famine, 1845-52) which saw 1 million people die by starvation, 1 million leave under duress, often on coffin ships with high mortality rates, and 250,000 houses demolished to make way for larger landlord fields to ramp up exports, including of live cattle.
This was a period when Ireland’s economy was shaped into an extractive one, where wealth flowed out into the coffers of often absentee landlords, rather than being reinvested locally: Under British rule, Ireland’s economic activity was redirected to serve the needs of the British metropole. This meant that value-added production (e.g., processing, manufacturing, preserving) was centralised in Britain, while Ireland became a producer of raw materials and foodstuffs, including of live cattle.
This led Ireland into what is often referred to as the “pastoral economy trap”—a reliance on extensive agriculture, primarily livestock, over more diverse or industrial agricultural systems. Economic policy and infrastructure decisions, such as the early development of railways, were designed not to connect Irish communities or serve local food systems, but rather quickly, cheaply and efficiently extract goods to Britain (Crotty, 1966).
Simultaneously, and over centuries, many Irish people were dispossessed of their land and relegated to the margins as subsistence tenant farmers, particularly on poorer-quality soil. Meanwhile, the best land was devoted to producing these exports for a booming and hungry Britain.
The loss of industry and infrastructure
While regions like Belfast thrived with linen and shipbuilding, most of Ireland, especially the south and west, suffered economically and saw little industrial development. This included the decline of food-related infrastructure, such as the fishing industry. In the 17th century, Irish fishers could not operate when English fishers were at sea; in the 18th century, curing of fish largely stopped due to a penal duty on imported salt; in the 19th century, all supports for the sea fishing industry ended in 1830 (Harrington and Rooney 2023). This in part explains the lack of a cured fish infrastructure by the time of an Gorta Mór.
Even institutions like Cork’s English Market—now seen as a local food hub—were originally established to provision the British Empire’s navy.
To this day, we see the legacy and continuation of this extractive model: Ireland remains one of the world’s highest exporters of live cattle, and most of its dairy and meat production is aimed at export markets, not local ones.
As part of a partially successful land war, land ownership changed with a 97-3% flip from landlords to freehold from 1870 to 1930. This also played a role in the success of the dairy industry, with the emergence of hundreds of cooperatives to process the milk, which in turn saw value-adding remain on the island.
Nevertheless, the trade routes of extractivism remained, with Ireland exporting over 90% of its milk to this day.
Compounding these dynamics was Britain’s ideological commitment to cheap food. From the repeal of the Corn Laws onwards (1846), Britain pursued policies that deprioritised its own agricultural base. Britain was to the forefront in this laissez-faire economic approach, whereas some other European colonial powers worked to maintain their own agricultural bases and food cultures.
The EEC and the destruction of small-scale provisioning
Fast-forward to Ireland’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. The focus here was inevitably agri-food trade rather than building local. For five years, there was a moratorium on agricultural imports to protect domestic producers. When this expired in 1978, small producers were exposed to direct competition from better-resourced European counterparts. For example, Irish apple farmers, unable to compete with large, uniform French apples, destroyed their orchards en masse. This marked another blow to Ireland’s local food system.
The CAP and uneven playing fields
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU has further embedded commodity export and large-scale production as the central focus of Irish agriculture. CAP subsidies account for a significant portion of Irish farm incomes and agri-food exports comprise over 90% of Ireland’s agricultural trade. But these subsidies are far from equitably distributed: 80% of funds go to just 20% of recipients, often the largest and wealthiest landowners.
Pillar two—which supports food processing, farm diversification, agri-tourism, and other rural development aspects which could support local food intrastructures—has been consistently and disproportionately cut back over CAP programming periods.
In the specific case of Ireland and CAP (2023-2027 compared to 2014 to 2020):
- Internal convergence (bringing low payments closer to the national average) improved from 60% to 85% by 2027 — deemed a forward step. However internal convergence was to be delivered over the longest legally allowable timeframe, and for the smallest transfer legally allowable. And this was after decades of delay, despite clear financial benefits for a majority of farmers.
- The maximum entitlement value dropped from €700 to €320 — a forward step, but also labelled fairwashing since it remains well above the expected 2026 average of €165.
- Capping of large payments (€100,000 cap, 85% reduction above €60,000) was also called a forward step but fairwashing, as it affects few farms and has minimal impact.
- Redistributive payments (CRISS) cover 10% of the budget for the first 30ha per farm — a forward step but again fairwashing, as it benefits both small and large farms nearly equally.
- Young farmer support (CIS-YF) increased from 2% to 3% of the budget — a genuine forward step with no fairwashing noted.
- No dedicated small farmer scheme.
Even modest reforms, like redistributive payments (CRISS) or capping subsidies to large farms, have been watered down to the point of “fairwashing”—appearing fair, but achieving little actual redistribution. As a result, small-scale and ecological producers—those most likely to supply local markets—are systematically disadvantaged by the structure of agricultural supports.
Some efforts were made with the EU’s Farm to Fork—an overarching package of policy proposals which largely collapsed in 2023-25. As an attempt to transition the agri-food system somewhat towards operating within ecological boundaries, these could have helped level the playing field between local agroecological provisioners and business-as-usual.
In particular the Framework for a Sustainable Food Systems Law would have set the overall direction of food policy; it would have enabled minimum standards; more accurate labelling, progressed sustainable public procurement, and integrated horizontal sustainability elements. Alongside this, pesticides, animal welfare and other proposals have all been dropped, thereby maintaining the systemic bias towards business-as-usual.
It is important to note that the neo-liberal framework the EU operates within meant that these proposals often came without robust and clear supports for transition, which further fuelled opposition.
The fragile landscape of local food supports
There are some existing supports that aim to bolster local food systems, notably within the ever-declining Pillar 2 of CAP, including the Organic Farming Scheme; Young Farmer supports, and LEADER programmes. For each of these three areas, there is at least some prioritisation of local provisioning. LEADER funding supports rural food production, diversification, climate adaptation, social enterprise, and agri-tourism, as examples. However, LEADER in particular and other community-oriented schemes have suffered from funding reductions and policy neglect.
While organic food production can also be export-orientated, research shows that organic food is disproportionately represented in short food supply chains; similarly younger farmers show more desire to supply locally, but access to land and finance can hinder this.
In Ireland specifically, there are SAFEFood community food initiatives and a one-off small-scale Optimising Local Food grant, which showed promise in seeding the infrastructure for local provisioning. Yet such initiatives remain isolated, underfunded, and inconsistent.
A particularly symbolic loss was the quiet discontinuation (circa 2018/19) of Bord Bia Vantage—a once-dedicated programme supporting small producers. Despite inflation, agri-food sector growth, and increased compliance demands, replacement programmes have not scaled proportionally.
Conclusion: Local food has never been a priority for the powers that be in Ireland
Ireland’s weak local food economy is a result of centuries of political and economic decision-making that favoured export over self-sufficiency, cheapness over quality, and centralisation over resilience. From the colonial period through to modern EU policy frameworks, small producers and local food systems have been sidelined.
Efforts to reform this system face deep-rooted challenges: policy inertia, entrenched economic interests, and a subsidy regime that favours large-scale commodity production. While there are pockets of hope—like organic supports and LEADER funding—the structural barriers remain high.
A just transition in Ireland’s food system will require real redistribution, policy reform, and sustained investment in local provisioning. For this reason Talamh Beo—the agroecological farmers and land workers organisation in Ireland—emphasises the importance of developing a local food policy framework.
Oliver Moore is part of a collaborative research and advocacy project in Ireland promoting the role of local food economies and local food producers in the transition to a wellbeing economy. He is also a member of Talamh Beo.
More
Rise for Food Justice – Join the European Days of Action 2025!
Letter From The Farm | Neighbours, Not Numbers: How Local Feeds Us All
Rural Europe Takes Action – Food System Lessons from Marburg
The EU’s Public Plate – An Opportunity for Food System Transformation
The Rise of a New Grain Alliance – Germany’s Free Bakers Sow the Seeds of Change
When Policy Fails, People Step Up – Inside ARC’s Rural Resilience Project
