John Cregan
Question:6 Deputy John Cregan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the role he envisages for the dairy consultative group which he has recently established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43439/09]
Other Questions.
Dairy Sector.
Last month I announced my intention to establish a consultative group to advise me on medium and long-term measures for the dairy sector. I did this following the special Council of Ministers meeting on 5 October, where we had a thorough discussion on the need for measures to manage the dairy market in the period up to and beyond quota abolition in 2015. At that meeting it was agreed to set up a high level group of member states, chaired by the EU Commission's Agriculture Director General, to examine the type of arrangements to be put in place.
The Commission high level group will examine medium-term and long-term ways of stabilising dairy farmers' incomes and improving market transparency. The group is tasked with delivering a comprehensive report by June 2010, and it is due to meet about eight further times before then, having already met twice. It will examine means through which contractual arrangements in the supply chain can contribute to the highest possible returns for producers. This would give them more bargaining power in the process and provide a buffer against extremes of market volatility such as those that are being experienced at present. The group will also examine existing market instruments and consider what other means, including a dairy futures market, could contribute to the objective of price stability in the longer term.
I decided to establish a consultative group so I could hear the views of the experts here on issues emerging at the high level group. In particular, the ideas, knowledge and expert opinion of the Irish dairy sector will provide key perspectives on how the sector needs to be developed and supported into the future. The consultative group is representative of the broad dairy sector in Ireland and all the main stakeholder organisations are participating in it.
The first meeting of the consultative group took place on 2 November and was chaired by the Secretary General of the Department. I intend the group to meet regularly and it will follow the progress of the Commission high level group, and I look forward to receiving constructive input from them.
While in the short term we are seeing some signs of an improvement in dairy markets, the work of the group will help us to prepare the dairy sector for the medium term. It is important to remember that the medium-term prospects for global dairy markets are good. The expected growth in wealth and increased population is forecast to stimulate strong levels of demand for dairy products and returns will improve to all parts of the sector. The Government is committed to ensuring the Irish dairy sector reaches its full potential. One of the major challenges in the medium term will be to ensure that Irish farming and the agri-food sector is at the heart of an evolving high-value food market, which is focused on quality and innovation. This is at the core of Government strategy which sets out a series of actions to develop a competitive, innovative and consumer focused agri-food sector.
I welcome the setting up of the high level group at European level. I compliment the Minister, who along with his colleagues in the other member states, persisted in that regard. It is important this group will examine dairy markets, which, to say the least, are experiencing difficulties, and by extension the issue of the price of milk, which is at its lowest in many years, also needs to be addressed.
I further welcome the setting up by the Minister of the dairy consultative group. He might elaborate on its membership, work and the issues that will come into play in it trying to reach solutions.
I thank Deputy Cregan for his particular interest in this matter. He has raised the difficulties affecting the dairy sector during the course of this year. It is an issue that has been discussed in this House on many occasions.
On his question on the composition of the group, it comprises mainly different farm organisations, the IFA, the ICMSA, the ICSA, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, the Irish Dairy Industries Association and the Irish Dairy Board, Teagasc and some other specialists. All the relevant stakeholders are participating in this group. We have spoken on different occasions about the many challenges and difficulties facing the dairy sector. One of the issues is the area of volatility which needs to be addressed. We had high prices during 2007 but suddenly towards the end of 2008 and during the course of this year there was a huge drop in prices and prices fell below the cost of production. This has caused serious income difficulties for many farmers in Ireland, about whom we are concerned, but also for farmers throughout Europe. During this year there were more Council of Ministers meetings and meetings of particular groups of Ministers.
A number of Deputies have questions on this matter.
Yes. Deputy Cregan also asked about the high level group. The purpose of establishing the high level group was to deal with the issue of ensuring that we have in place in Europe a means to stabilise dairy farmers' incomes and to improve market transparency. It comes back to the issue of the growing power of the multiples and the deficiencies in the food chain.
I posed this question on the last occasion the Minister answered questions and I got the exact same answer as he has imparted to Deputy Cregan. I note he said that a meeting took place on 2 November. What was the outcome of that meeting? Will the stakeholder group, the consultative group, engage in a reporting procedure to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in order that we can be in a position to monitor the nature of deliberations therein?
As Deputy Sherlock is aware we have engaged in conversation both in the House and outside in respect of the work of this group. Our dairy consultative group will run in parallel with the work of the high level group. It is our intention to keep the consultative group fully informed of the issues under discussion at the high level group in the European Union in advance of the discussions in Europe and subsequently. We seek an input from all stakeholders and welcome an input from the Oireachtas as well. Perhaps the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the proper vehicle or forum.
Significant issues remain in respect of the dairy industry. The abolition of quota will take place in 2015 and adequate market support measures must be put in place. Market mechanism measures have been helpful this year but we would prefer if they were more effective. We must try to eliminate the volatility that has existed up to now.
We are aware of the importance of the abolition of quotas. This is why we have called for consultation and an act of participation. It is important that the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would feed into that process in some way. It is also important that we are notified of the ongoing nature of the consultations. Did the Minster invite Teagasc to the last meeting? Is the scientific community involved in this process as an active participant? When I put the question in October, I was informed it would be invited.
Teagasc will participate. I do not know whether its representatives were present at the last meeting but I presume they were and I will clarify that for the Deputy. We want all relevant stakeholders to participate. We would be pleased to keep the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fully briefed and informed and we welcome its input.
A large number of issues must be dealt with by the high level group and by our consultative group in respect of the contractual relationship between producers and processors to strengthen the bargaining power of producers, transparency for producers, the industry and consumers, information on markets and innovation on research because things will change and evolve. This is a major area and one in which we encourage all stakeholders to be involved who are prepared to come along willingly and participate actively and constructively.
Organic Farming.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:7 Deputy Paul Gogarty asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason the levels of organic dairy conversion are low in view of the fact that the price of organic milk is 45 cent per litre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43454/09]
The decision of whether to convert from conventional to organic dairy farming is a matter of decision for each dairy farmer, based on their circumstances and preferences. While there had been an increased interest in organic production early in this decade, the exceptionally high prices for conventional manufacturing milk in 2007 and early 2008 probably dampened this interest. Other reasons for the limited interest may include the fact that concentrate feed costs are less influential than they were, the fact that there is no premium on the product during the two-year conversion period when some additional costs may be incurred and the fact that farmers have their own preferences in relation to co-operative dealings and the use of veterinary medicinal products.
I can assure Deputies that the organic option is available for those who might wish to consider it. Anyone contemplating such a conversion can be guided through the process by my Department. Specifically in the milk area, there is a further incentive for those converting in the form of a special additional allocation of 45,000 litres of milk quota.
Last year, I announced the latter scheme and was facilitated by the 2% increase in milk quotas from 1 April 2008, that I helped to secure earlier. The scheme allows existing organic producers to expand and is also aimed at encouraging new entrants into the sector. It is in keeping with the Organic Action Plan 2008-2012, which is my Department's response to the target in the programme for Government for 5% of the agricultural land area to be under organic production by 2012. One of the specific actions in the plan is to facilitate the expansion of the organic dairy sector by allocating additional quota and I am pleased that I have been able to deliver upon this so soon.
I presume that due to climate change there are opportunities for organic milk producers to benefit in their pockets to a greater extent than those who practise conventional farming because they do not face the increased burden of inputs. Is the figure of an 11% increase in organic milk production the most up-to-date figure available? Do the rules make it easier for farmers to convert from conventional to organic farming? The transition timeframe is two years. How many farmers are in the conversion period?
I thank the Deputy for her question and her ongoing interest. The cost of conventional milk production is affected by the cost of inputs and the return, which has been rather disappointing in the recent past. I take this opportunity to urge farmers to consider the overall picture in terms of the cost of inputs and the return. They may be surprised to learn the return on the organic option is a good deal more attractive at present than conventional production. I can verify that the Deputy is correct to state the figure of 11% increase each year in spite of the recession. The sector is holding up and is healthier in terms of an increase in sales than the UK sector. An Bord Bia informs me the sector has bottomed out and is rising again despite the fact there is a recession in the UK as well. The opportunities and indicators point in the right direction for those who chose organic production.
Why is the vast bulk of the population not drinking organic milk if it is only priced at 45 cent per litre?
There may be a misunderstanding on the part of the Deputy. The price referred to is the price received by the farmer from the creamery. At present there are two creameries——
Does it not refer to the current market price for a litre of milk in the shops?
No. Obviously, the price is higher than the conventional price in the shops, but not much higher in my experience. However, the Deputy will agree it is a good return for the farmer to receive 45 cent per litre. It may be difficult to rationalise why more people do not choose the organic option, given the 45 cent price.
Perhaps the process is not as environmentally friendly as the Minister of State believes.
I do not want the Deputy throwing cold water on the option and it does not help anyone to rationalise the reasons in that way. Some farmers may be familiar with existing arrangements with their co-operatives. Only two dairies operate under the organic system, one of which is a good deal larger than the other. There are hopes for another operation closer to the Border. Ironically, this does not dissuade people in Northern Ireland from producing organically and selling milk to a creamery in the midlands. Clearly, it is not a disincentive in that regard. In addition, some farmers have invested in slatted units and other aspects of conventional production and may be reluctant to turn their back on it. There are many relevant factors.
I do not believe slatted units prevent the production of milk whether organically or otherwise. The key point is that it costs a good deal more in terms of carbon spent to produce a unit of food organically than to produce a unit of food non-organically.
From where did the Deputy get that idea?
It is derived from multiple research. A lady in Dublin Castle at a conference entitled The Greening of Agriculture was adamant that organically produced food was less carbon efficient than conventionally produced food. This does not necessarily apply to intensively produced food but to conventionally produced food in a moderate way using the best available science and technology including, dare I say so, GM food technology and minimal or no till cultivation, which has developed organic soil. Dr. John Geraghty from Kilsheellan showed graphic slides according to which, flooding——-
Is the Deputy asking a supplementary question?
I did not get to speak on the issue of flooding because Wicklow was not flooded. We are too high.
This is Question Time.
Flooding issues can be dealt with and it is possible to have organic matter in the soil without it being farmed organically. The holistic approach must be taken in this regard.
I am surprised the Deputy is ignoring the people of Arklow when he refers to flooding.
I did not ignore the people of Arklow.
I ask the Minister of State not to be provocative.
The Deputy may be referring to the fact that it might be better to grow organic food here rather than importing it from far away locations. The no-till method is quite in keeping with organic methods. If the Deputy is serious about the incomes and welfare of farmers, he should consider what the market wants. The fact that we are obliged to import 70% of the organic produce sold in this country indicates that major opportunities exist not only here, but also in the UK, which regards Ireland as a local market. I would have thought the Deputy, if he is serious about this matter, would want us to grab a piece of the UK market, which is valued at €2 billion.
I have been nice to the Minister of State so far.
Organic farming has continually proven to be extremely efficient in respect of its carbon footprint. This is because it is based on working with nature, minimising inputs and taking advantage of the natural benefits that exist.
We must proceed to Question No. 8.
I put it to the Minister of State that if it organic farming is so profitable, then Kerry Group would be involved.
That company cannot get everything right.
Departmental Offices.
Michael Creed
Question:8 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the rationalisation of local agricultural offices he has considered the possibility of providing field staff with a localised docking station within existing State owned premises as an access point for information technology purposes to maximise productivity; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43581/09]
The Government approved my plan for a reorganisation of my Department's local office network last July. The plan involves reducing, from 57 to 16, the number of offices from which the Department will operate district veterinary, forestry and agricultural environment and structures support services in the future. The decision to close some 40 offices was made only after we had completed a detailed study of the Department's operations at local level. Decisions were made in respect of the overall strategy and against a background of major changes in the Department's operating environment in recent years which were brought about by the impact of the single farm payment, benefits derived from substantial investment in information communications technology and significant reductions in the incidence of disease.
Improvements in business processes, information technology and communications will allow the Department to provide to all of its clients, the full range of services from the 16 enhanced offices set out in the plan. Departmental staff will be relocated to the enhanced offices, where appropriate, or redeployed to other areas of the Department or to other Departments or agencies. Where particular arrangements which would benefit service delivery and operational needs are identified, they will be considered on the basis of an agreed business case.
I support in principle the endeavours being made by the Department to rationalise its office network. I am anxious to ensure that what emanates from the process in this regard will involve the most efficient and sustainable use of resources. In that context, I recently met staff who are involved with the rationalisation process. I was informed that under the proposal to close down operations in Kilkenny and transfer them to Waterford, staff from the Kilkenny area will be obliged to travel to Waterford each day in order to obtain their work schedules. Some of those whom I met suggested that if a docking station were provided at the offices in Kilkenny that are still owned by the State, field officers would be able to download their work schedules, maps and other essentials and would not be obliged to travel to Waterford each day. These officers would also be able to input any data obtained as a result of their field trips at that docking station. This would mean that the Department would obtain more for less in respect of its field staff.
The proposal being made in this regard seems logical and it would lead to a more efficient and better use of staff resources. Will the Minister consider this proposal not just in the context of Kilkenny, but at other locations where it is proposed to have staff travel long distances to work? I am not referring to keeping offices open to the public, but to facilities at which staff could download what they need in order to complete their work without being obliged to travel to other locations.
I welcome Deputy Creed's support for the rationalisation of our office network. He made that support known on previous occasions. When he refers to docking stations, I presume the Deputy is referring to making facilities and technology available at existing offices. Senior management in the Department has been involved with the personnel in all of our offices in respect of the restructuring and rationalisation of the network. Naturally, a practical approach will be taken in the context of dealing with particular issues. We want to minimise the necessity for people to travel.
As the Deputy stated, a large proportion of the work of these officers involves being out in the field and they work with members of local farming communities in the areas to which they are assigned. Even though the location of head offices may change, many staff will continue to work in the geographical areas for which they currently have responsibility. All of these matters will be dealt with on a practical basis as the rationalisation process continues.
Drumshanbo, Navan, Enniscorthy and Waterford have been identified as the locations for the first four enhanced offices. The human resources division and other divisions of the Department are working with the personnel at all of the offices affected in the interests of putting the new structures in place as soon as possible. The arrangements in this regard will, in the first instance, be discussed with the relevant personnel. It is vital that the staff involved will be made aware of what is proposed.
What is the timeframe with regard to the completion of the process? I tabled a parliamentary question in respect of how this matter will affect north Cork——
The Deputy wants my constituents to travel a long way.
——and the Minister's reply indicated that it is proposed to transfer operations there to Fermoy. Having consulted some of the staff in Mallow, it transpires that major issues have arisen with regard to the move to Fermoy. How definitive is the decision in this regard? What consultations took place in respect of retaining the staff in Mallow and transferring operations to a larger premises there?
We are moving rapidly from the general to the specific.
May I comment on that matter?
Yes, if the Deputy proposes to be helpful.
I do propose to be helpful because there will be no need for me to pose a further supplementary if I intervene at this juncture. I understand it is proposed to close the offices at South Mall in Cork and at Mallow and to transfer operations to Fermoy. In light of staff concerns and the geographical area involved, it is absurd to ask——
I do not want Members to become bogged down in asking questions in respect of a particular question.
That is fine. Perhaps the Minister might reconsider the position, particularly in light of the points raised by Deputy Sherlock. Will he——
I will allow the Deputy to ask a further supplementary when the Minister has replied to those which have just been put to him.
The Deputies who represent Cork East and Cork North-West have made adequate proposals on what they see as the optimum location for the enhanced office in their region. Management at the Department is involved in discussions with the officials in all the local offices to ensure that the rationalisation will result in the creation of the number of enhanced offices to which I referred earlier. I am firmly of the view that, where possible, departmental offices should not be situated in city centre locations.
No one is suggesting that.
I accept that. It is because offices should not be situated in city centre locations that a decision was taken to transfer operations from South Mall in Cork. Where possible, we should ensure that the service is brought out to local farming communities. However, I accept that this cannot always be done.
Is the Department contractually committed to transferring operations to Fermoy?
Perhaps I might discuss with both Deputies the particular issues relating to location of the office for the north and east Cork areas on another occasion.
I am sure Members share my view that there should be as much co-location as possible in respect of the offices of the Department and Teagasc. We are intent on taking this route. It is often the case that a person who goes to a departmental office to access a service or seek advice may also have business to conduct with Teagasc. In that context, I want to encourage as much co-location as possible in respect of our offices in order that efficiencies might be obtained. Progress is being made in that regard.
We may move to a location closer to the Minister's heart as I call Deputy Crawford.
I support Deputy Creed on his point on the need to utilise premises that are available for field staff. The obvious situation is where the Minister promised to keep open the office in Ballybay, which is the most important centre for the export of live cattle. It is important that people get to their place of work in time so that live exports happen on time. I hope this can be facilitated and that staff will use Ballybay as a base rather than having to travel to Cavan.
I tabled this question in an attempt to be helpful. Whether it is Teagasc or county council offices, State offices in one guise or another should be used to maximum efficiency. There should be no demarcation whereby an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot use the IT available in a local authority, Teagasc or another State-funded facility such as a social welfare office to assist in efficiencies. That is what I suggest, particularly in Kilkenny, but I am sure it will have much wider application and will result in greater efficiencies. Will the Minister bring this specific issue to the attention of those handling the issue in the Department?
The use of technology has changed our ways and means of doing business and will continue to change them. In the past, far too many statutory agencies, be they Departments or local agencies or authorities standing alone in isolation in the provision of services to the public in general. There can be greater utilisation of public services by all Departments and agencies.
I assure Deputy Crawford that I will ensure there is a very active and busy office in Ballybay because there is a huge amount of activity in the poultry and pig industries in that area. Naturally, there will be particular areas of work that will be delivered from Ballybay to the farming community generally and not just that in County Monaghan
Live Exports.
Paul Connaughton
Question:9 Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the discussions he has had with the Irish owners of meat plants operating in the UK regarding the issues facing those involved in the live export trade having animals slaughtered in the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43570/09]
The live export trade is an important element of Ireland's meat and livestock industry providing a complement to the beef trade. The UK remains the largest single destination with more than 81,500 animals exported in 2009, an increase of more than 150% on the same period in 2008. Of these exports, 86% consists of weanlings, stores and finished cattle with calves accounting for the remainder. Northern Ireland alone accounts for almost 90% of total live trade to the UK with the balance going to factories throughout Britain.
I am fully aware of the issues facing those involved in the live export trade. These include labelling, inclusion in quality assurance schemes and veterinary issues. As regards labelling, the Deputy will be aware that this matter is governed by comprehensive EU regulations introduced in 2000, which are underpinned by a full animal identification and traceability system. The primary compulsory element of these regulations is a requirement that the country of origin of the animal be shown on any label. Given the accepted preference of UK consumers for domestically sourced beef, this poses difficulties for Irish producers and processors in this marketplace.
Participation in the British quality assurance scheme is restricted to animals born and finished in the UK. This scheme, known as "Red Tractor", is similar to the Bord Bia equivalent, and excludes foreign born animals. Given that quality assurance is seen as a key requirement to supply the retail sector, Irish animals would be seen as less valuable to processors compared to assured domestic cattle.
With a view to addressing these challenges, Bord Bia has been working for some months with the industry on extending its beef quality assurance scheme to include cattle for export. The scheme would draw on data from the existing beef quality assurance and beef suckler welfare schemes, and would incorporate auditing of participants to verify compliance. Such a scheme could enable Irish-born animals to access higher-value market channels in Britain and other countries. Discussions on this matter are ongoing and I have asked Bord Bia to progress it as soon as possible.
Veterinary issues associated with the export of Irish cattle for finishing to Britain are the subject of ongoing discussion at bilateral and EU level and take place against the backdrop of our continued commitment to public health and food safety. While the purchasing policy of British meat plants, whether Irish or British owned, is, of course, a commercial decision for these plants I will continue to work with the industry to ensure continued access to the British market for live exports.
The issue of live exports is far more important than the number of finished animals exported live for slaughter in the UK or that are fattened; it serves as a price-setting mechanism in the differential between the Irish and UK markets, which at present is approximately €150 a head. It is critical that every impediment and roadblock to it is challenged head on. As I stated during previous debates on this, we have leverage through work permits and the beef investment fund through which we will provide €50 million to meat plants in Ireland to modernise.
Where there is a will there is a way. The Minister has a stick and I implore him not to be afraid to use it. We have a carrot to the tune of €50 million and that carrot could be withdrawn and the stick used instead if they do not play ball. In view of the price-setting mechanism, the price differential and the sterling issue, it is imperative that this matter is addressed as a matter of urgency.
As Deputy Creed stated, of course the price is a critical issue for farming families. Unfortunately, those prices have declined and the economic conditions have added to their difficulties. The volume of beef sold on all our major markets has declined while demand has shifted towards cheaper cuts. Additionally, sales in food service outlets, such as restaurants, have fallen as fewer people are eating out. Particular pressures exist with regard to the export of beef and from speaking to Members on all sides of the House I am fully conscious of the pressures on people with regard to beef prices.
The Department has conveyed to Meat Industry Ireland the concerns expressed to the Oireachtas by individual farmers and farm organisations and associations. We supplied answers to the British authorities with all queries they posed to us on veterinary matters. From our point of view nothing is outstanding on any query from the British veterinary service.
I assume the Minister in his reply is giving an assurance on the future of live exports. Is this the case?
As everyone in the House agrees, live exports are absolutely essential. If we did not have them the competitive element of the industry would be rather weak. I am anxious that we have as strong a live export trade as possible. Naturally we want a strong beef processing industry also. That balance must be achieved because the beef industry is important for jobs in processing facilities. The increase in live exports so far this year is impressive.
I mentioned Ballybay a few minutes ago and I will do so again.
I wonder why.
One of the issues is that there seems to be a delay in getting live cattle to the marts. I urge the Minister to ensure his personnel are available at the earliest possible time to ensure that cattle going North for slaughter are able to be slaughtered on the same day. This is part of the problem. Some people in the job are afraid to open their mouths in case they would suffer as a result. I received a telephone call from a dairy farmer who sold his herd recently. When he was at the mart in Ballybay he was livid at how it operated, or did not operate. It was very slow with unnecessary delays.
I want to see delays minimised. I had a meeting with the marts division of the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society on a number of issues. Delays were not an issue discussed at that meeting which was on minimising costs with regard to the number of personnel attending. In our area, I provided additional resources for marts and assembly centres for the export of animals. Particular requirements are laid down by the European Union with regard to requirements we have to meet, and we have to do so in a speedy and efficient manner. I will double-check to ensure that every impediment that is slowing up the movement of cattle is eliminated.
I am heartened by the Minister's comments. Several people have brought to my attention the delays in slaughtering cattle exported to Great Britain. Deputy Doyle and I raised this issue during a visit to our officials in the EU and they agreed to investigate it.
Deputy Brady has raised the issue with me on previous occasions. I will ensure that our exports meet statutory requirements and that no undue delays arise. I will also facilitate farmers and mart operators in transporting stock as rapidly as possible.
Common Agricultural Policy.
Terence Flanagan
Question:10 Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy post 2013, it is his intention to pursue the prioritisation of premium payments for low carbon grass based production systems as a policy objective; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43598/09]
I am open to examining the benefits of premium payments for low carbon grass based production systems in the context of the future Common Agricultural Policy, along with the other policy options that are being put on the table. However, I believe it would be premature to direct Irish policy solely in such a specific direction at this time.
The discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 are still at a very early stage. Although policy analysis and general debates have commenced in a number of member states, including Ireland, they are still primarily concerned with the broad outlines and general principles. These include big ticket issues, such as the amount of funding that will be available, the overall direction of the direct payments system, the positioning of rural development policy in the CAP or with cohesion policy, the need for continued market supports, the question of national co-financing and the need for modulation. In the circumstances, my priority at present is to secure a strong and adequately resourced CAP after 2013. This is a point I have pressed strongly in discussions to date and for which there is good support in the Agriculture Council.
I am conscious of the importance to the EU of ensuring security of food supply and maintaining family farming. However, as a Minister of an exporting country, I am also conscious of the need for competitiveness and innovation. I hope to see all of these objectives clearly reflected in the new CAP.
Not only are we facing challenges in food production, but we will also have to deal with carbon emissions by meeting new targets on renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction. In terms of carbon emissions per unit of food produced, this is one of the most efficient countries on the planet. If we can agree a standard of equivalence, it makes sense to push the food security agenda in a carbon friendly manner. That could form part of our basis for securing CAP funding.
We will have to deal with the issue of methane emissions at some stage. What is the Minister's view of the challenges that will have to be faced in the context of climate change?
I share the concerns of Deputies Doyle and Sherlock. We need to join up our thinking on climate change policy and the future of CAP. Teagasc and other institutes have been conducting research on methane gas emission from livestock and grasses. I have consistently raised with the Council of Ministers the need to ensure that the EU's proposal to the Copenhagen summit gives due cognisance to the importance of food security. Along with New Zealand, our food production system is regarded as the most efficient in the world. If we produce food efficiently, our production base should not be weakened in the context of a growing population and increasing global demands. We have already brought these issues to the table in respect of the future of CAP and the debate on climate change.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.