I remind the House that these questions are governed by a one minute time limit both on supplementary questions and on answers.
Other Questions.
Farm Waste Management.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will consider a support system for farmers who will incur substantial capital costs in order to meet the nitrates directive requirements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9159/04]
Substantial financial aid is being made available to farmers to facilitate compliance with the nitrates directive. In Sustaining Progress, the Government stated:
Recognising the importance of the Nitrates Directive and its impact on certain farmers, a number of initiatives shall be taken in the context of optimising the use of available EU and national budgetary resources.
These initiatives included a review of REPS with higher payment rates, and changes to the terms and conditions of the farm waste management and dairy hygiene schemes, in particular increasing the income and eligible investment ceilings. Following a wide-ranging review of REPS, proposals for changes to the scheme, including an average 28% increase in payments, are now with the European Commission for approval.
Earlier this year I secured approval from the European Commission to proceed with substantial improvements to both schemes with effect from January 2004. In addition, increases have already been applied to the standard costs used to calculate grant aid. Section 21 of the Finance Bill 2004 also gives concessions to farmers on farm pollution control measures to 31 December 2006, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation in the Finance Act 2004.
While I am an optimist I did not really expect the Minister to give me any better news than he has given my colleagues on that point. Would he agree, however, that some farmers will suffer a significant financial cost or loss arising from the capital investment they may have to make to meet the storage requirements? Could he comment particularly on that?
I indicated earlier that storage requirements and the times of spreading organic manure were probably greater impositions on farmers than some other aspects of the directive. We sought and got approval from the Department of Finance to give higher rates of grants to help farmers cope with this. I also spoke to Teagasc about this because many farmers embark on Rolls Royce style farm buildings and facilities when there are more modest but equally effective storage systems available. Teagasc has initiated a very useful scheme which intensively advises farmers on how best to cope with post-Fischler problems, including the nitrates directive. If farmers take and implement the best advice they can adequately meet the requirements of the directive without suffering undue hardship. The farm waste management and dairy hygiene schemes will also help them.
Can the Minister indicate when the nitrates directive will be concluded or when does he believe it will be finally agreed?
We have until June of this year to submit our action programme to Brussels otherwise we are in danger of further court proceedings and of putting several EU supported and funded schemes in jeopardy. I hope and expect that in deliberations with the stake holders and farming organisations we can agree an action programme, submit it to Brussels by June, and finalise this matter once and for all.
Does the Minister know when it will be finalised?
I cannot say for sure how long the Commission services take to deliberate. For example, we submitted REPS in the first week of December and have been chasing the Commission since then. It is the third week in March yet we have not yet received it from the services and there is €260 million expenditure available for the scheme. We have an obligation under the 1991 directive to deliver an action programme to the Commission and must do so by June of this year.
Can the Minister please outline what supports are in place or planned and indicate the role of Teagasc in this regard?
Several measures were included in the Estimates this year to cope with the nitrates directive. They include the farm waste management and dairy hygiene schemes, the installation aids and section 2 of the Finance Act 2004. In addition the Teagasc post-Fischler programme is geared to assist farmers in this regard. A battery of measures and advisory programmes have been put in place to be of maximum assistance to farmers.
Will the Minister take into account the serious situation in the Border area, especially in Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim and Donegal where the proposal is for a 24 week storage period? Many dairy farmers are going out of business there because they cannot afford to develop their farms to meet the 24 week storage requirement. Will the final application for this be submitted to Brussels before June?
I hope that in discussions with the farming organisations we can get consensus before June and the sensible approach then is to get an action programme and negotiate to seek the maximum derogation. Twenty-four weeks in certain years, such as last year when we had a good autumn and winter with virtually no rainfall would not be too difficult to manage but another year could be completely different. We will seek, and I hope get, exemptions and derogations depending on weather conditions and particular situations for individual farmers because while those in the south west and those in the northern area may be working in different soil types they will have the same requirements. We have every opportunity to get derogations to allow sensible professional farming to continue and be sustained.
Will there be additional grants for higher levels of storage?
We are over the time. Deputy Sargent may speak very briefly.
Although the Minister says many farmers observe good farming practice and will experience a negligible impact from this directive, would he not agree that there are some, particularly in the pig, poultry and mushroom sector, who require other farmers' land for spreading of slurry and that they need particular advice and assistance? Deputy Crawford would be aware of these farmers. Has the Minister identified the most vulnerable farmers who need advice on anaerobic digestion and other means by which they can comply with the nitrates directive?
The Department is in continuous discussion and liaison with Teagasc on that and there are programmes, such as those the Deputy suggests, and others, in which farmers could be involved. In some commercial farms the organic manure is dried and sold off as compost for gardening purposes. In Ireland we import a great deal of that material when there is no need for it. We must have regard to good farming practices, the rural landscape and environment, and the quality of our rural streams and rivers. I see no reason that cannot be done in harmony with good commercial farming practice.
We must address the problem of waste and pollution, especially wanton pollution. When driving through the countryside I have seen effluent from silage pits and slurry tanks leaking across the road and into a local stream. That need not happen with good farming practice. The nitrates directive will spur us into ensuring that we comply with the directive and address particular aspects of the rural landscape alongside good commercial professional farming.
Farm Retirement Scheme.
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he intends to compensate persons in the early retirement scheme who lose their quotas from the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if the value of suckler and sheep quotas of farmers in the early retirement scheme can be converted into entitlements or special payment entitlements. [9193/04]
My Department is involved in working groups and in continuing discussions with the European Commission on the detailed rules for implementing the mid-term review agreement. I have already raised a number of issues relating to farmers who have retired under the early retirement schemes and the implications for them of decoupling and the single payment scheme.
Under the European Council regulation introducing the single payment scheme, a farmer may have access to the scheme if he or she was an active farmer during the reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and received payments under the livestock premia and-or arable aid schemes. In addition, farmers for whom entitlements will be established must activate those entitlements in 2005 by continuing to farm and submitting an area aid declaration in that year. In general, farmers must also have an eligible hectare of land for each payment entitlement.
Farmers who were participating in the early retirement scheme before the commencement of the reference period will not have entitlements established for them under the single payment scheme. This is because they had already retired from farming and their obligations under the early retirement scheme preclude them from returning to farming in future. The people who were leasing these retired farmers' lands and were active farmers in the reference period will have entitlements established for them. It should be noted that entitlements are attached to the farmer who was actively farming during the reference period and not to the land. However, during the Council negotiations last year, I secured agreement that farmers, including offspring of farmers who retired before the reference period who take over the holding of the retired farmers at some date in the future, will be able to apply to the national reserve for payment entitlements under the single payment scheme.
Does the Minister feel that a significant cohort of the farming community has been omitted from his reply? We are discussing the issue of widows and widowers in Private Members' time but I am thinking particularly of those people who want to pass on a livelihood in farming to their children. Like many others, I have correspondence from throughout the country on this matter. These people find that, in spite of professional advice that they should enter into the early retirement scheme and lease land with quotas attached for ten years, the rug is effectively being pulled from under their feet. Is it not important to take into account that, in good faith, the Department, the EU and professional advisers suggested that people take this road but they are now being told they will lose out? Is there not a case for some level of payment or compensation to be made to those who are effectively now in a hardship situation? They were dependent on that early retirement entitlement which now seems to have evaporated. Does the Minister intend to have discussions with those affected in this manner?
Retirement scheme means retirement. If, for instance, Deputy Sargent retired from the Dáil at some stage, he would not go back to the person who took his seat to say he wanted it back. The European Commission regards retirement as retirement and a condition of the scheme is that farmers must not return to farming. For farmers who retired prior to the reference years of 2000, 2001 and 2002, we are negotiating with Brussels to have it taken into account if their offspring or a member of their family wish to run the farm. We will have the detailed legal text on the outcome of the negotiations by the end of this month. It has been promised for 31 March. I hope we make progress on the matter and that it will be taken into account that, despite the retirement of a farmer or a farmer's spouse, it has always been the intention that members of the farmer's family would continue working the family farm. We will seek to make provisions for those people.
Farmers who entered the early retirement scheme during or after the reference period will have entitlements established for them provided they were actively farming during the reference period, or some part of it, and received payment under the relevant schemes. As these farmers undertook to give up farming definitively when they joined the early retirement scheme, they will not be in a position to obtain payment under the single payment scheme. The European Council regulation provides for such entitlements to revert to the national reserve. However, the question of whether retired farmers in this category should be allowed to activate entitlements — not for their own use but with a view to leasing them out in 2005 and thereafter — is one of the items still under discussion in the context of the Commission detailed rules. Agreement on the detailed rules is expected by the end of this month. I cannot speculate on them but we have made a strong case for taking account of farmers and farm families in the category raised by the Deputy.
Does the Minister agree that he was not comparing like with like when he spoke about Deputy Sargent retiring from his Dáil seat? Would it not be more appropriate to compare it with the concept of someone leasing a business from someone who holds on to the lease but then moves to a different premises taking the business with him and then, after a period, returns the original business to the original owner leaving the owner with just the shell of a business without any of its benefits? I hope I have not tongue-tied the Minister on this.
It is widely acknowledged that a large group of people will lose out under the present proposals. The Minister informed me previously that approximately 10,000 people are on the early retirement scheme. No matter how we look at the issue, their lands as an asset have depreciated rapidly and radically due to a practice into which they entered without any indication that the practice would cost them at a later stage. We must have sympathy for these people but must also do something for them. Whether by design or coincidence, many of these people are in the Cork area and we have been inundated with letters from them. Will the Minister try to find some mechanism to ensure something is done for them? Will he also indicate whether someone on the farm retirement scheme who actively farmed during one of the reference years can avail fully of the single payment scheme?
I wish to raise the same point. Many of these people retired in good faith. At the time, they were given what they took to be reasonable professional advice but they had no understanding that, down the line, all their rights would be effectively eroded. To compound matters for them, their pensions are not index-linked. This matter has been raised in committee several times. Will the Minister comment on the matter and will he address the issue at European level on behalf of these people?
The Minister said that he is seeking to make provision for farm families. Will he inform the House of the timeframe for when he expects an outcome on the matter? Is he in a position to put forward amendments to the regulations prohibiting farmers in the early retirement scheme from receiving full forestry premium? There is no doubt that work on a pension relating to forestry premiums is also being done. It would be worthwhile from the environmental, human and social point of view to examine this issue so that it does not suffer on the same fronts.
I have the greatest sympathy for retired farmers. The farm retirement scheme was introduced to transfer farming practice on a farm from the older to the younger generation. At 55 years of age, farmers can avail of the farm retirement pension. The idea is that a younger person, ideally a green certificate holder under 35 years of age, will take up the farming practice. It is a condition of the scheme that retiring farmers cease farming and do not return to it. Nonetheless, we are trying to assist some farmers in the category in the detailed rules. I have been promised by the European Commission that we will have the detailed rules by 31 March.
We will seek to implement the detailed rules by the end of this year because the new decoupled single farm payment system comes into effect from 1 January 2005. We have already established an appeal system for force majeure cases. We must also establish up to 3% of entitlements as a reserve. I will seek the maximum reserve to help the people about whom we are concerned, some of them retired farmers and some of whom were retired for one or two years of the reference period, in other words, those who retired in 2001 or 2002. Many existing farmers will not be happy about giving up 3% of their entitlement to create a reserve for less well-off people. We will have an interesting discussion from next April about how to best implement the rules to ensure as little hardship and as much fairness as possible is brought into play.
EU Directives.
Ciarán Cuffe
Question:8 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when he expects the action programme for compliance with the nitrates directive to be finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9198/04]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A draft action programme prepared by that Minister's Department in conjunction with my Department and in consultation with Teagasc was presented in December last to representatives of the main farming organisations.
Written submissions on the draft action programme were invited. A deadline of 19 February was set for these, although a number were received after that date. Submissions have now been received from more than 70 stakeholders. The issues raised in the submissions are being considered by officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government along with officials from my Department. This work is proceeding, having regard to the need to finalise the terms of the action programme at an early date and submit definitive proposals to the European Commission.
The terms of the action programme need to be finalised at an early date given the need to avoid further court action by the European Commission and the fact that EU co-funding of schemes such as REPS, the disadvantaged areas compensatory allowance, early retirement and forestry is conditional on satisfactory implementation of the nitrates directive.
We have already discussed this matter at some length. I heard what the Minister said, particularly when he referred to large amounts of money being withheld by the EU if we do not finally and equitably implement the nitrates directive. In addition to his general comment on the impact of non-compliance, will the Minister indicate in detail what is meant in terms of the threat hanging over Ireland in regard to court action? Although I asked this question before, I put it to him again. Will he also indicate if has done an inventory of the farming sectors that need specific help and advice, especially producers who must spread slurry on areas other than their own holdings? This is the case with pig, poultry and mushroom producers in particular. I would appreciate it if the Minister could give more information in this regard.
Since the European Commission believes Ireland has not fulfilled its obligations under the directive, it insists that we include a commitment to implement the nitrates directive in the CAP Rural Development Plan 2000-2006. This plan provides for expenditure of €5 billion on disadvantaged areas compensatory allowance, REP, early retirement and forestry schemes. As the Deputy is aware, the Commission delayed an amendment to the disadvantaged areas payments scheme in early 2002 because Ireland had not yet delivered on its undertaking. It was made clear that continued co-funding of the four measures would be contingent on satisfactory implementation of the directive. It is evidently serious about the matter. It delayed the disadvantaged areas compensatory allowance for a considerable time until we pleaded with it and said we were in the process of producing an action programme to deal with the nitrates directive. The Commission then conceded to allow the scheme to proceed. We do not have a choice. We must have an action programme to deal with the nitrates directive by June of this year. Apart from jeopardising significant payments, we also risk facing further court action. As the Deputy is aware, a court decision in the past week came down strongly against us. The attitude of the European Union is that, since 1991, we have had adequate time to deal with this matter.
In terms of an inventory, we have had a great deal of consultation with Teagasc in particular on this matter. We have a good idea of what needs to be done and the areas and locations that need to be addressed from the study that was carried out by the Department and Teagasc. The latter made detailed estimates of the quantity of additional waste storage capacity that will be required to implement the directive. We have the benefit of information collected in recent months by the agency which carried out a precise and up-to-date farm facility survey. We are geared toward implementing in a precise way what is necessary to comply with the directive.
I appreciate what the Minister said. We have had from 1991 to deal with this, which increases the pressure on us today from the European Union.
Will the fact that areas such as counties Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim and Donegal, which as the Department is well aware, require a longer storage period than other areas, receive additional grants on a sliding basis to compensate for the extraordinary costs that will be involved? An area requiring a 12 week storage period cannot be compared with an area requiring 24 weeks' storage. Some form of balance must be introduced or people in the north-west will be forced out of farming.
The parish of Killanny on the border between Louth and Monaghan is equally split between the two counties. The land is the same but one area has a suggested storage period of 24 weeks while the other has a suggested storage period of 16 weeks. How can this be the case? Is there a scientific basis for this decision?
Will the Minister inform the House who has signed up to the nitrates directive?
I can give a short answer to Deputy Crawford. No, there will not be a special deal for counties Cavan and Monaghan.
I am talking about County Donegal as well.
I give a commitment that, when we submit the action plan, we will seek to obtain the most appropriate derogations possible to be of maximum assistance to the people of counties Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan and Meath.
We signed up to a code of practice in 1996 after consultation with the farming organisations. It is a sensible measure; otherwise the various parties would not have signed up to it. If farmers comply with it, adherence to the nitrates directive will be feasible.
Organic Farming.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:9 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position in regard to the development of organic farming; the incentives on offer; and his further proposals in this regard. [9071/04]
While the organic sector in Ireland is small in comparison with some other countries in the EU, it has grown in recent years with sales of organic food worth €38 million in 2003. At present there are 1,000 organic operators registered with the Department and approximately 30,000 hectares of land are being farmed to organic standards.
A national steering group, established on foot of a recommendation in the organic development committee report, acts as the driving force for the development of the sector. It also monitors progress on the implementation of the recommendations.
The Government is committed to the further development of the organic sector and has provided substantial funding to advance it. Grant aid towards investment in the organic sector is provided through the scheme of grant aid for the development of the organic sector, which was approved under the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The scheme provides grant assistance for both on-farm and off-farm investment in equipment and facilities for preparation, grading, packing, storage and distribution of organic produce. Grant aid is payable at 40% of the eligible cost. The maximum grant payable over the duration of the scheme for on-farm investment is €50,790 while the maximum amount for off-farm investment is €508,000.
Organic farmers are also eligible for financial support through the rural environment protection scheme, REPS. The scheme includes a supplementary measure for organic farming whose objective is to encourage producers to respond to the market demand for organically produced food. An organic farmer with 40 hectares in REPS can currently receive up to €13,280 a year, which includes payment of the basic measure, while a holding is in conversion to full organic status. When full organic status is obtained, such a farmer may receive an annual payment of up to €9,680, which also includes payment of the basic measure.
Subject to European Commission approval, organic farmers will also benefit from the higher payment rates and higher eligible areas agreed in Sustaining Progress that have been included in the proposed changes to the REP scheme. Under these proposals, the maximum annual payment while a holding is in conversion will rise to €18,505, and when full organic status is achieved the maximum payment will be €13,555. The agreement reached on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy should provide new opportunities for organic producers to respond to the market demand for quality food in this country.
Will the Minister indicate how many organic farmers there are in this country? Despite all the figures that he quoted, many of which are applicable to non-organic farmers, organic farmers are swimming against the tide. Despite all the rhetoric and references to them in the programme for Government, it is extremely difficult for them to make a living and Irish people do not seem to be prepared to pay a higher price for organically produced food.
I repeat that there are approximately 1,000 organic farmers in Ireland with 30,000 hectares farmed organically. I do not accept that these people are swimming against the tide. They are dedicated people who have a goal to ensure that we have quality food based on an organic system. At the end of the day it is a matter for consumers to decide whether they want to pay the extra premium required to justify the organic production. That is a matter for the market to decide and for the organic organisations to ensure that they create the market requirement that would persuade a number of consumers to switch to organic produce.
I understand that approximately 70% of the organic produce consumed in this country is imported. Is that of concern to the Minister? There is something wrong with the incentives or marketing of organic produce if such a high percentage is imported. Has the Minister had discussions with organic farmers on the future of organic farming, the problems they have encountered and what they think would be an important input with regard to research and support?
I do not think the figure of 70% is an accurate one. It is not that high, but there is a large volume of organic food imported into Ireland. I have had discussions with the organic farming organisations and I addressed the national organic conference last year and the European organic conference recently. We are in agreement with the EU, through the leadership of the Minister and the team in the Department, to ensure that we give every possible support to the development of the organic sector in this country. This support is given in good faith to the organic sector. It has to have a common goal to ensure that it can work together to penetrate the marketplace to reach out to consumers.
I am delighted the Minister has spoken about a common goal. In his contribution to the common goal, will he bring about a national standard under which Irish organic produce can be marketed? That is what is needed and it is his job to do that. In other countries such as Germany there is a target of 20% of agricultural land earmarked for organic production by 2010. Is there a need in this country to adopt targets that will indicate national policy so that there can be confidence in the organic sector? It should form part of official Government strategy and not be subject to bluster like the unicorn before the flood, claiming that everything is fine. The new accession countries are entering the EU with a much larger organic output and will swamp the EU if we are not ready to compete. Will the Minister put in place a national standard so that Irish organic produce can be marketed as a single label, irrespective of certification bodies?
I met the organic groups within four days of my appointment to this position. I was shocked to find that in a little island like Ireland there were three groups representing organic farmers.
That is no problem.
That may be no problem to the Deputy because it suits him. I am explaining what is in the best interests of Ireland. I suggested to them that they should work together in one national organisation and I was told that could not happen under any circumstances. I have just had discussions with Minister Kuhnast in Germany. She set a target of 20% and doubled organic production from 2% to 4% in two years. However, there is now a major fall-off and the situation is being reviewed. The Commission advised that 20% was far too ambitious and that 10% would be more realistic. There is now a doubt whether the target of 10% can be achieved in the timeframe she has set.
The Deputy can be assured that the team at the Department led by the Minister for Agriculture and Food is working assiduously, in co-operation with the Green Party, to produce a national standard for organic produce which I hope will be to the satisfaction of the different organic groups and to the benefit of the whole nation. The Deputy should take into account the legal position of one of the organic groups that took the Department to court. The Department could not move on this issue while the case was before the courts. It is now concluded and the Department has won the case. The Department did not impose its statutory position, it entered into dialogue and reached consensus.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.