Many questions have been raised by Members which I will try to deal with comprehensively. I will invite my colleague to reply to some specific matters raised.
Deputy Kirk asked about the horticultural sector and the resources available. As a general point in respect of the comments by many Members on how we can manage to maintain services and focus on Food Harvest 2020 in light of the significant reductions in staff, regrettably the areas that come under most pressure are the minority agricultural enterprises. That is a reality and there is no point in trying to say otherwise. Horticulture is one of those areas. We have a significant number of advisers but, as the committee will be aware, the horticultural service is expensive to service because it covers a variety of vegetables and fruit, all of which require specialists. Even though we have five or six advisers, that number is not sufficient.
The research position motivated us to cease activity at our Kinsealy site. We have only two researchers in horticultural research which is not sufficient. That was the position before the moratorium and post moratorium we have no capability to address the issue. One of those researchers is engaged in an active programme on mushrooms which demands her full time. We work in close collaboration with colleagues in Northern Ireland. The other researcher is engaged in general field research. We also have one other researcher devoted to forestry. The resources are limited.
The Deputy asked about the implications of closing Kinsealy. When I started to work in An Foras Talúntais many years ago, we had a thriving research activity in Kinsealy but regrettably that is no longer the case. Out of a total staff of 62, some 49 were relocated out of the sale of headquarters in Sandymount Avenue, some of whom were rural economy staff. They were more administrative staff rather than staff working on research or advisory, therefore, they could have been located in any office because it would not affect the nature of the work they did.
What are the implications for research? The research organisation thrives by its staff numbers and, clearly, we have a problem in adequately servicing research needs. However, so far as physical resources are concerned, we will avail of the opportunity to upgrade our glasshouse facilities at the new site in Ashtown and our mushroom tunnels and so on. We have state of the art facilities for vegetable and mushroom research at our site in Ashtown, which is a positive outcome.
We have produced a horticultural plan that coincided with the plan to close Kinsealy and we have engaged actively with all branches of the industry in working collectively on delivering the plan. We see a major role for integrating our education service. We have a strong horticulture education service in Botanic Gardens which is an iconic site and we investing there to upgrade that capability and also at Kildalton. We will use our education facilities much more to service the needs of the horticultural sector.
We have also learned a big lesson in recent years, one born out of necessity, that one has to do things differently. There are positive developments that come about as a result of the need for retrenchment and rationalisation. For example, we are doing far more research on farms and commercial farms. The Teagasc- Irish Farmers’ Journal Better Farm Beef programme is an example. We have extended that programme into other sectors, including the nursery sector, and it has provided an unexpected benefit in terms of giving a commercial edge.
Several Members asked how we can manage to fulfil the many requirements of Food Harvest 2020 in the face of staff reductions. One thing we are doing is refocusing. I welcome the opportunity to give our views to the committee because when choices have to be made in these circumstances - no choice is easy - there will be those who will take issue with whatever choice one makes. We have made the choice that our strength is in delivering knowledge and technology into farms and food companies. We draw on our research and design in a tailor-made way for the benefit of farmers. That is our primary skill. It means we will have to scale back on support for schemes, a point raised by Deputy Deering.
We have been extensively involved in REPS. As Deputy Colreavy pointed out, given that REPS has only a year to go in terms of servicing the needs of the final participants, that was the first area identified for outsourcing. Assuming the moratorium continues we will have to consider other scheme support activities and we are mindful of the dilemma that presents. Clearly many farmers, particularly small and lower income farmers, get great benefit from Teagasc being in a position to support their applications for single farm payment and so forth. It is not something the authority will relinquish lightly but it illustrates the dilemma one is faced with at a time of limited resources. We can all agree on the need to target expansion but there is less agreement on the fact that one has to reduce other sectors. Prioritisation is key.
Deputy Kirk raised the issue of the potato sector. Clearly that sector is undergoing severe difficulties. There is an opportunity for the seed potato sector provided the economics stack up, as we stated at recent conferences. We continue to be very successful in the production of varieties. The rooster potato, which was bred in Carlow, now absorbs 54% of the market and perhaps it is a victim of its own success. We continue to produce varieties that are in demand and varieties that are tailored to the needs of the Irish sector.
Several members raised the question of the college student-teacher ratio and Deputy O'Mahony asked about the actual ratio. It is very expensive to produce an agricultural graduate because there are many issues at stake, health and safety being a critical one. I lectured in economics for many years and could have 200 to 250 students at a lecture. However, in the case of an agricultural course, for health and safety reasons and reasons of good pedagogy, the international norm is around 12:1. If one is trying to explain the operation of a tractor or the handling of an animal one can understand why the ratios would be at that level. In 2011-12 we moved from a ratio of 14:1 to 20:1. People outside of the agricultural sector who do not understand the demands on education would probably think that is a modest level but it is not. My colleagues who are engaged in the front line are fearful that is the limit of what is tolerable in terms of quality.
Quality is to the fore in my consideration and this year, partly on foot of the developments in the student-staff ratio, we will introduce an external quality evaluation at two of our colleges. We will bring in an outside group experienced in evaluating educational programmes. We have asked them a basic question, to evaluate what we are doing now given the resources that we can put into education.
A question was raised about the impact of the jobs moratorium. We are realists and I accept the need for it and for fiscal retrenchment. It is clear that the moratorium must be implemented but there needs to be flexibility in the way that it is applied to Teagasc and any organisation that requires specialist skills. If one loses a person from a specialist area it is not just their work that suffers, an entire service can collapse around that person. I will give an example. For about a year we had no permanent plant pathologist but eventually the Minister gave us leave to appoint one. I ask the committee to ponder on the kind of service we would provide grain growers if we did not have the pathologist. That individual's role would not be the only thing affected, it would be advisers that depend on the person's expert knowledge and so on.
A couple of key strategic appointments can make a huge difference to our ability to deliver a service, particularly in the developmental area. If we had a complete free hand we would realistically need about 300 advisers. In other words, we think we are short of about 30 advisers and full-time equivalents, 20 or so researchers and about the same number of teachers. We will make do with current resources to the best of our ability but a couple of strategic appointments would greatly ease things.
Deputy Colreavy asked how we can square a 37% cut in staff numbers with a focus on Food Harvest 2020. It is not easy. We have drastically increased workloads and my colleague, Dr. Tom Kelly, can vouch for that. Four years ago a typical adviser might have had under 100 clients but now it is about 160 clients. As a consequence something suffers. Our ability to engage with farmers on a one-to-one basis has been severely curtailed and we must look at different ways to deliver a service.
The news is not all negative because we can deliver an effective service through discussion groups. Perhaps the traditional model needed to be interrogated and changed but it would be wrong to suggest that we can cope with the substantial loss in staff. We will cut services and in this regard I earlier spoke about the scheme support services that must be reduced.
A question was asked about student intake. Last year was exceptional because we had an unexpected and substantial growth in applications and were faced with a crisis. As I said, we responded to it in a number of ways, including getting special leave to recruit six staff members. Our best assessment at this stage is that the increase will not be repeated this year. We will cope if we get the same number as last year by providing college courses and local courses. We have increased the number of local part-time courses in a number of areas and Deputy Heydon asked a question on them. They are important for some students and we have managed to cope with the demand. The authority is determined to accommodate as many students as it can but I hope that we do not have the same upsurge in demand as last year.
The question was asked on whether staff levels in a particular area have been reduced to a point where they are no longer sufficient or below a minimum critical level. The answer is "Yes" and it arose in what I call "minority enterprises". I do not use that term in a pejorative sense, I mean enterprises that do not have a significant share of the national farm income such as the pig sector. Four years ago we had four researchers and six advisers on the pig sector but now we have two researchers and four advisers.
Late last year I told the pig producers at two conferences that we were at the point that if our numbers fell any further we could not deliver a credible pig advisory service and would be better off shutting it down rather than pretending we had one. Clearly, our authority was not satisfied and asked us to come up with creative solutions. I am glad to say that pig producers came forward. They recognised the recruitment embargo and our budgetary constraints and offered to fund and develop a joint programme that will enable Teagasc hire three advisers and one researcher for which we are seeking sanction. That is an example of how, with the support and partnership from industry, there is a willingness to deal with a serious staff shortage.
Another example arose with the better beef programme. We hope and intend to launch a second phase of the Teagasc- Irish Farmers Journal beef programme over the next three years and have industry support worth €210,000 per annum for three years. We can recruit three advisers. That is another example of industry coming forward and allowing us to deal with a critical staffing situation. There are possible responses.
Solutions are not so easy to find for other areas, particularly for the minority areas. We have limited and insufficient resources for work in the organic farming sector. I would like to be doing far more work in rural development and other areas. It is difficult to get financial support from industry for them.
I do not want to go into detail about recruitment difficulties. External funding allows us to recruit but the process is long and drawn out. There are risks for the State when recruiting, even when it is funded externally. For example, there are pension implications and difficult issues with contracts because there is always a risk that contracts can become indefinite. That is a major concern. These matters are not easy to resolve given the raft of legislation that envelops the area. I have outlined some of the practical difficulties. These issues also arise in the university sector but it has more flexibility. We appeal for similar flexibility in the recruitment of staff that is funded outside of the Exchequer or grant-in-aid. We also appeal for greater flexibility with promotional opportunities because we compete head-on with other sectors.
I can give a commitment on the Manorhamilton office. It will not be as fulsome as the Deputy concerned would like and I hope he will understand the reason, which is that I cannot tell the future. When I took up this job four years ago I never anticipated that we would reduce our office numbers by 41 within two years. It would be wholly irresponsible for me to say that we can keep a particular office open. We are working through what we call phase 2 of our rationalisation plan. The Manorhamilton office is not included and it will not close under phase 2 but all of our office network is reviewed constantly.
I believe it was Deputy O'Mahony who asked whether we will close many more offices and is it the end of closures. I hope that it is. The McCarthy or an bord snip nua report recommended that between Teagasc and the then Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food there would be 25 offices nationally. Teagasc rejected that suggestion and said that the very least that we need, to maintain a national service, are 51 offices or so. We must constantly review. We are losing staff and have budget constraints. We cannot maintain the same office network continuously, and we could not give a long-term commitment for that. However, it is not scheduled as part of phase 2.
I would like to reassure Deputy Deering about the technological university. Just in the last week or so I met the president of Waterford IT and the acting president of Carlow IT and gave them our full commitment to that project. We will stand four-square behind those institutions, and we will do anything we can do to support their bid, not only in the education sphere - as members know, we are heavily involved with Waterford IT in delivering a joint third level degree programme - but also in the area of research, where we see opportunities. We have a major research site in Johnstown Castle in Wexford, as members know, and we also have a research site in Carlow, so we are very supportive of the bid.
The issue of form-filling was mentioned. I can understand the point, but sometimes that work can be dismissed all too lightly. In some parts of the country, helping farmers to maximise their entitlements under the single farm payment or REPS is a significant service, and I would not for one minute say we should walk away from that lightly. However, under the present circumstances that type of activity has a lower priority for Teagasc, and it will have a lower priority in the future than it may have had in the past.
We have an online service, which is delivering very effectively for us. There are limits, however. Much hope was expressed about the ability of online delivery of programmes to replace conventional delivery. I was involved in this myself in a previous career. Those claims were overblown. I am glad to say that human face-to-face contact will be needed as well. We will not replace one with the other, but certainly we can supplement delivery. Perhaps Dr. Kelly will elaborate further on that.
Deputy Colreavy asked about the genetically modified potato trial. For the benefit of the committee I will explain that we have applied to the EPA for a licence to conduct a trial, and the EPA will go through a rigorous process of assessment. We are a knowledge-based organisation and we see it as our duty, without fear or favour, to ascertain the facts about technologies that are used right across the world. We think that is what a scientific organisation should do. Then we have a responsibility to publish those scientific facts in the public domain and let the public be the judge of the validity and implications of that research. It would be remiss of us not to do so. As it happens, we have never sought or received, nor would we in this area, any commercial support for this work. It is funded entirely from Teagasc's own resources and is totally and utterly independent. That is how it has to be.
We are part of an international consortium with 22 other international EU partners involved, representing 15 countries. What we are examining in this trial and on foot of years of work in glasshouses, is the cost, in ecological terms, that might be associated with harvesting a genetically modified late blight-resistant potato. For example, we are considering the impact of cultivating these potatoes on bacterial, fungal, nematode and earthworm diversity in the soil compared with the conventional potato system. We are also considering the potential impact on crop management strategies. The nature of all research is that one can never prejudge the outcome. The outcome could be positive in terms of ecological impact or it could be negative. Either way, the results are published and brought into the public domain. If our licence is approved by the EPA, we plan to conduct an outreach programme with stakeholders and the wider public on the trial we are running, because we believe information is power. The exciting aspect of research is that one can never know where it will take us. Given the environmental challenges faced by the potato industry, including the potentially devastating impact of late blight, we have a responsibility to examine these technologies and understand their costs and benefits. That is where we are coming from. There is a mechanism, through the EPA, for others to determine whether it is appropriate for us to engage in that work.
Committee members who have a special interest in or knowledge of this area will know that the potato is particularly attractive for this type of work because it does not reseed itself very readily, so one knows where the seeds are located. We have also done extensive trials on pollen drift, the results of which suggest that the average drift of pollen is 11 metres, with a maximum drift of 24 metres. The very small experiment we are planning will be located 40 metres from any other potato plants. It is a well contained and carefully drawn up experiment. I must point out that the potato from which this gene has been drawn grows wild in Latin American countries and has been observed in situ to deal with the major challenge of late blight. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life in the crop sector that there is increasing resistance to conventional fungicides. This is an ongoing problem not only for potatoes but for all crops and, given Ireland’s climate, it is something we must be alert to. We see it as our responsibility to supply the knowledge without prejudice as to its potential use.
With regard to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, we have worked extensively with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to develop a capability to analyse policy going back through several rounds of CAP reform. As the Chairman will be aware, we also run the Teagasc national farm survey, which is an invaluable source of information on the economics of farming in Ireland, and we draw on that extensively to analyse the potential impacts of changes that are mooted at EU level on income and production. We work closely with stakeholders, including the Department and the farming organisations. Increasingly, we are working with Irish MEPs in the European Parliament, which has a major role on this occasion in CAP reform, and I am happy to work with this committee at a later stage if that is required. It is always our intention to publish the analyses we produce so that they are available in the public domain. This does not extend only to CAP reform. We do extensive analysis with regard to policy implications for the environment, including water and greenhouse gases, and that information is all published. We also had an important input in the last year or so about proposed changes to the disadvantaged area scheme, which would have serious implications for Irish agriculture. When the Commission officials proposed to change the criteria we were able, through our research, to point out that the replacement criteria were inappropriate.
The reason we are referring to collaborative farming initiatives, I know it is a bit of a mouthful, is that the Minister has indicated to us that he wishes to support a wide variety of relationships among farmers, including highly formalised relationships such as partnerships, shared farming, contract rearing of heifers or fodder, machinery sharing and so on. We have agreed to implement a national programme with three elements. There will be a national promotional campaign, which will be followed by intensive advisory support in six regional areas. We will also establish a research observatory so farmers interested in getting involved in some type of collaborative farming relationship can access a web base and see the experience of others, both in Ireland and elsewhere. That is the plan. We have a draft programme at a very advanced stage and hope to commence the promotional campaign in the near future.
I hope I have addressed most of the questions. Dr. Tom Kelly may address some of the specific questions. I am sure I missed some.