Vol. 730 No. 1
23 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the maximum number of farmers that will be allowed take part in the agri environment options scheme in 2011; and if provisions will be made to enable up to 10,000 farmers take part in the scheme in 2011. [7841/11]
24 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason €50 million budgeted and committed for the agri-environment options scheme has been reduced to €25 million; the reason the number of approved applicants will be limited to a maximum of 8,000; the further reason there are no proposals for additional payments in disadvantaged areas; if he has calculated the consequential impact on farming sustainability and on the budget of Department of Social Protection; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7791/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 23 and 24 together.
I congratulate Deputy Moynihan, Deputy Colreavy and Deputy Pringle on being made spokespersons on agriculture and fisheries for their parties or groups in the House. I look forward to a constructive relationship with them. We have many challenges in the next two years in respect of budgetary constraints, but agriculture and fisheries can be a good news story for the economy. I hope the Deputies find me straight, blunt and open to sharing information. I hope they will be able to work in the same spirit with me.
On Wednesday, 6 April, I announced the re-opening of the agri-environment options scheme, or AEOS, for 2011 and confirmed that the scheme will be open for applications until 16 May. I have made funding of €25 million per annum available for this scheme, with a maximum payment to any farmer of €4,000 per annum. I decided on this level of funding following long and careful consideration, and taking account of the expenditure ceilings for my Department, as set out in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014. The number of applicants that will be accepted into AEOS for 2011 will be determined by the overall expenditure ceiling of €25 million per annum. The actual number accepted will depend on the aggregate of the payments due under the individual plans submitted. Applications will be accepted based on the priority access criteria and scoring matrix set out in the scheme terms and conditions, up to the expenditure ceiling of €25 million.
While I would like to have been in a position to announce this scheme earlier, the reality of putting it together was made all the more challenging due to the budgetary constraints in place. My Department must operate within the limits of the national recovery plan and funding was not provided for the launch of AEOS in 2011 when the plan was published. That is simply a fact. While difficult choices had to be made, I felt the commitment given to open the scheme in 2011 should be honoured. Given the overall constraints, it was not possible for me to commit €50 million a year to the scheme. The funding of €25 million per annum which I have announced must be found within the overall expenditure ceilings for the Department in the national recovery plan, and I will critically examine every element of the Department's expenditure to ensure that all available funding is maximised.
Prior to finalising the 2011 eligibility criteria and scheme terms and conditions, my officials carried out a review of the 2010 scheme to gain from the experience of operating that scheme. On the basis of this review I have put in place a scheme under which farmers will be paid to undertake actions which specifically target the three objectives of halting the loss of biodiversity, contributing to the improvement of water quality and combating climate change.
While the 2011 scheme is broadly similar to last year's scheme, some minor changes have been introduced that are designed to enhance the benefits to both participating farmers and the environment. Farmers successful in gaining entry to this year's scheme will be paid to undertake identifiable and verifiable environmental measures under a scheme which builds on the success of the rural environment protection scheme and the inaugural agri-environment options scheme. The scheme will be attractive to farmers while delivering real, worthwhile environmental benefits to the wider community.
The contract period for the new scheme will be for five years, but the terms and conditions and payment rates for the new participants will apply until the end of 2013. At that stage, participants will have the option of terminating the contract without penalty or of opting to join whatever scheme may be introduced in the new EU financial perspective programming period. This is a sensible change which was introduced by the Commission to avoid overlap between EU programming periods.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As with last year, farmers with commonage land or designated special areas of conservation or special protection areas will have to follow a "sustainable management plan" prepared by a planner and will be given priority access to the scheme. Applicants other than those requiring a sustainable management plan are not required to engage a planner to complete their application form. Such applicants will be awarded entry to the scheme on the following basis. Farm partnerships will rank second in priority in the selection process. Applications for all other holdings will then be considered and will be ranked initially according to the marking system, set out in the terms and conditions, which is based on the environmental actions selected by the individual farmer. Further selection will be applied, if necessary, using the following criteria: location of farms in less favoured areas; previous participation in REPS; and farm size, favouring smaller holdings, based on the utilisable agricultural area declared in the 2010 single payment scheme application.
The payments set out in the scheme terms and conditions do not allow for additional payments for farmers in disadvantaged areas for two reasons. First, to do so would result in fewer farmers gaining entry to AEOS. Second, such farmers already receive an income support to compensate them for the additional costs associated with farming in such areas under the disadvantaged areas scheme administered by my Department. Due to the budgetary constraints that I have outlined, I will not propose any increase in the payments under the disadvantaged areas scheme.
The purpose of AEOS is to compensate farmers for income forgone or costs incurred for complying voluntarily with specific agri-environmental measures and that it will be attractive to farmers and will provide a welcome income stream for the successful applicants. It is also a clear indication of my and the Government's commitment to sustainability and the development of the agri-food sector, even in very difficult economic and fiscal circumstances.
I take the opportunity to wish the Minister and the Minister of State well in their Department. There is no doubt that agriculture has been at the forefront of society. It is one of our great indigenous industries and there are challenges ahead. I also wish Deputies Colreavy and Pringle well in their respective roles.
I thank the Minister for his reply on the AEOS. Provision was made in the budgetary process and in December's budget for the maximum rate of €5,000 and eligibility for 10,000 applicants. In the official briefing documents received by the Minister from the Department on the structures and so forth, it was clearly stated that in December 2010, the previous Minister announced that the scheme would reopen in 2011 with a maximum payment rate of €5,000 per farmer for up to 10,000 applicants. The Department's press release stated that the scheme would open in broad terms, as was announced in 2010. Therefore, we have difficulty accepting the reasons, notwithstanding the various challenges that exist. Provision was made for the full scheme to go ahead in 2011 and we have difficulty in accepting the reasons the drastic cuts were made to the AEOS scheme. Why did the current Minister not honour the commitments given by the Minister at the time?
I am glad this issue was raised by a member of the party Deputy Moynihan represents. The announcement of an AEOS scheme for this year was made by the previous Minister, but there was no provision in the budget for that. The Department of Finance had no provision for it. My Department had no provision for it. There are expenditure ceilings, to which the previous Government signed up, to reduce current expenditure in my Department by €60 million next year, €40 million the year after that and €20 million the following year. This was done to try to solve the financial mess that has been created here. Unfortunately, we are now required to try to address that under the constraints that are unavoidable.
It is simply untrue and misleading to say that the previous Government had provided for a €50 million AEOS scheme and that this Government is not delivering on it. If the Deputy is trying to paint that picture, he is just continuing the dishonesty that was there when this scheme was announced for the first time. Perhaps he might be able to tell me where he would find the extra €50 million for this scheme. If that was the case, there would have to be €110 million in expenditure reductions next year in my Department. That is the reality. The last Government signed up to €60 million in savings as part of the four-year budgetary programme to allow this Government to access funds from the EU Stability Fund. There was no AEOS scheme included in that. If such a scheme was planned by the Government, then the cut backs next year would have to be €110 million. Two days after taking office I was given a file with a question to the effect, "What are we going to do with the AEOS because we have no money and a promise has been made?" That is the context for a slimmed down scheme for which I had to find €25 million. I had one hell of job persuading the Department of Finance to allow me to open it. People need to know the truth. Unfortunately, some have been playing politics with this issue. The reality is that all of the accounting advice was not to go ahead with the scheme. However, we have gone ahead with it because it is worthwhile.
I thank the Minister for his good wishes. I also wish him the very best, as I know he has a very tough brief. This is one of the few functioning areas of the economy, with such potential that the decisions and choices the Minister makes will have a big impact on how the country progresses in the next five, ten to 20 years. At some stage I would love to see him visit Sligo-North Leitrim because it has the most beautiful scenery.
I have been there and know it well.
However, the land is marginal for agriculture, but the Minister would be most welcome. He comes from County Cork where the land is good.
Not all of it.
I shall certainly work positively with the Minister. Where Sinn Féin believes something is good, as Deputy Martin Ferris did before me, I shall work enthusiastically with the Minister. However, where we believe more can be done, we shall be resolute in insisting that the right choices and decisions are made.
I included in my question a number of factors. Many farmers in the area I represent are so dependent on this funding that if they do not receive it, or if it is reduced, they will move to schemes such as the farm assistance scheme and become dependent on social welfare. I have asked the Minister whether that contingency has been taken into account. He might be controlling the limits set in the agricultural budget, but——
We must allow the Minister to answer that question because we are running short of time.
I am very conscious that many farm families are and have been reliant for practically all of their farm profits on schemes such as REPS and the current AEOS. While we allow the more fertile land to be farmed in a more intensive manner to produce more food and meet the targets set under Food Harvest 2020, in addition to all of the other exciting events that will happen in the agriculture sector, I hope that in the next five years we will also ensure those managing marginal land can also survive. That is why the AEOS, even though it is not as generous as I would have liked, targets the limited resources we are aiming at it. It favours the small farmer, those farming in disadvantaged areas. If I had time, I would outline the criteria. Anybody farming in an SAC, an SPA or a commonage area automatically qualifies for the scheme. That covers up to 4,000 people for a start. As regards the remaining 4,000, if there are more applicants than places available, we will prioritise on the basis that people are located in a less favoured area, as well as on the basis of previous participation in REPS, indicating earlier reliance on a REPS payment. After this we will look at farm size and will favour smaller holdings based on the agricultural area being farmed as listed in the 2010 single farm payment application. In other words, we shall target the money available at the families and farms that need it most and those farming in an environmentally friendly manner. We will target disadvantaged areas such as Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal, parts of Kerry and west Cork to ensure the farms reliant on this income will continue to receive it.
25 Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the marketing study carried out on fishery harbour centres particularly in relation to Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre, County Donegal, will be implemented to give Killybegs harbour the opportunity to play a vital and dynamic role in the economic regeneration of south-west Donegal where Killybegs can become a vibrant import export port, develop the offshore renewable energy sector, be a centre for marine tourism and leisure and continue to provide core and ancillary services to the fishing industry thereby providing vital jobs in an unemployment black and with few cost implications [7847/11]
Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre is Ireland's premier fishing port. To date, in excess of €50 million has been invested in the development of the harbour by my Department. This investment has brought the harbour infrastructure and facilities up to a class leading standard.
My Department is conscious of the valuable and necessary contribution the harbour plays in the support and development of the fishing industry, together with the benefits that accrue to the local and national economies. In addition, I am aware of the potential Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre holds for the development and growth of other industries and enterprises in the harbour area that must, of necessity, be compatible with the requirements of the fishing industry.
Mr. Kevin Bonnar, former Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise and Employment, chaired a group of key officials of State agencies to identify marketing opportunities for Killybegs. Following extensive consultations with representatives from all sectors, including fishing, commercial, educational, marine leisure and tourism, Mr. Bonnar compiled a report for the Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre marketing strategy. The marketing strategy was launched in 2008 and set out a vision for the development of the area which includes but extends beyond the fishing industry and my Department. The report identifies many areas with potential for growth, including fishing, food processing and fish by-products, servicing the oil and gas exploration business, marine leisure and tourism and attracting cruise ships, an industry that has been growing steadily in Killybegs. Already, there are seven cruise ships booked in for this year alone.
In the following year the business plans for the development of the fishery harbour centres were launched. The business plans for the six fishery harbour centres which are owned and operated by my Department and located at Killybegs, Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Ros a Mhíl and An Daingean were drafted following an extensive consultation process.
I wish the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, well in their portfolios.
As regards the business and marketing plans, at this stage three strategies have been looking at the development of business at Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre, at a cost of somewhere in the region of €200,000. Unfortunately, they have not been rolled out. It is vitally important that, if the centre is to play its role in the overall regeneration of Donegal South-West, the plans are implemented. While I hope Killybegs will always be the largest fisheries port in the country, opportunities abound for alternative complementary industries to develop. What is vitally needed is a willingness within the Department to facilitate their development. The business plan identified a number of barriers which could be removed without cost or expenditure implications for the Department by the creation of an atmosphere in which development would be allowed to take place. There are a number of sites available. Last year the offer of a site for a new fishmeal plant was withdrawn by the Department. Such developments are, therefore, being held back. We need a culture to develop that would allow the process to move forward. It could be very beneficial to south-west Donegal as well as nationally if the Department was to take a proactive role in ensuring this happens.
I have been to Killybegs a number of times, most recently for the by-election in which the Deputy participated, and I am very aware of the potential for development. The marine resource is underestimated by most. Killybegs Harbour can and will be at the heart of developing a more ambitious fisheries sector, with a particular focus on fish processing. We can do much there to process more fish landed by both Irish and non-Irish trawlers. It is also an obvious base for servicing oil and gas exploration businesses and offshore energy projects which will develop in an ambitious way in the next ten years. There is a platform there on which we can grow a series of industries based on their location around a harbour with the resources Killybegs has available to it and I would like to see this happen. However, any industry we develop there must be complementary to the fisheries business. A number of proposals brought forward have not been complementary. I have an open mind towards sweating the assets we have in a more ambitious way to try to encourage new thinking in Killybegs and other harbours and generate more activity and create employment, but these new activities must complement the existing businesses which have grown in these harbours and, from the perspective of Killybegs Harbour, the fishing industry in particular.
26 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the looming milk quota difficulties between now and the end of the milk quota regime, his plans to seek a specific provision from the EU Commission to allow a gradual and orderly expansion of the dairy industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7842/11]
I will leave aside my notes to answer this question because otherwise I will have to stop half way through and the Deputy will not receive a full response.
There is much concern in the dairy industry about a soft landing for the sector as we approach the end of milk quotas in 2015. There was much concern until a few days ago that there would be a superlevy applied to Ireland for over-production of milk in the past 12 months. I am glad to be able to say that is now unlikely, as it looks as if we will be just under quota. Therefore, the many farmers who produced well above quota, some of whom are based in my county, and who took a chance this year are lucky a superlevy will not be applied because many of them would be put out of business if it was.
I want to issue a warning to ambitious farmers. We want to encourage their ambition to increase milk production dramatically after 2015, but there is no political solution to the problem between now and 2015. The solution provided to date by the European Commission is that it will allow a 1% increase in quota each year until the end of the quota system. That is not sufficient for Ireland and the proof is that the cost of quota being traded has not fallen, despite the fact that the regime has only a few years to run.
Ireland is not the only country experiencing this problem. For example, the cost of quota in Denmark is at an all-time high. Some four or five countries in the European Union, one of which is Ireland, want to dramatically increase milk production following the ending of the quota system. We need to try to find a solution that will allow for countries such as Ireland that want to expand and grow a dairy industry and to ramp up capacity to deliver on this objective between now and 2015. I will continue to work with the European Commission to try to bring about a solution. However, farmers must beware because as yet there is no solution.
There is a serious issue this year and farmers just got away with over-production by the skin of their teeth. Farmers took a chance because there was a view among those involved in the dairy industry this time last year that our national quota would not be reached at any stage before 2015. There are a number of issues, including the problem of capacity for dairy farms which have invested in stock, machinery and parlours, etc. A significant number of dairy stock will come into the system in the next few years and this will cause a serious problem. Even if there is only an average production year weatherwise, we will have a serious issue this time 12 months. I believe the Minister was correct to issue a warning to the primary producer, the dairy producer. However, we must get a system in place to ensure that if we are to reach our targets by 2015, we will be able to cope with the increased capacity in the meantime. The European Union must put a system in place that will allow gradual expansion.
The quota system, for all its faults, has served the industry reasonably well. However, with regard to what will happen post-2015, the industry must be examined to ensure there will be management at European and national level to ensure primary producers will be paid an acceptable price for milk at the farm gate from day one. We will probably reach the target of a 50% increase, possibly more, but we must ensure there will be markets in place and that negotiations will take place at the European Commission and nationally to ensure the place of the product we produce. We must not end up in the situation in which we found ourselves in the 2009-2010 production year when the primary producer was paid a price for milk that more or less only met the cost of production.
There are two issues involved. First, we cannot allow a situation to develop where there will be a dramatic increase in milk production and a collapse in its price because we do not have markets for it. That would be a disaster. This problem needs to be dealt with as part of a soft landing solution in terms of the ending of the quota system. We are working to achieve this through the food harvest implementation body and working with State agencies such as Bord Bia which is working with the industry to find new markets for dairy products such as powder product for baby food in China or new markets in Asia. We are having some success in that regard. We have a mature, developed and experienced dairy industry which has the capacity to increase the volumes of milk purchased and retain high prices for producers, but we need to plan and work together to achieve this.
I have a political responsibility to ensure we attempt to find a political solution in a situation where production in Europe as a whole is under quota but four or five countries are under pressure and want to exceed quota. For example, production in Slovenia is 30% under quota this year, yet Ireland has the capacity to be way above quota but cannot acquire extra quota. In the context of bringing the quota regime to an end, I will try, through forming alliances with other countries with similar concerns, to secure a change in policy that will allow for expansion in the dairy sector pre-2015. However, we do not yet have agreement and are a long way off it. I met the Commissioner a number of weeks ago and he was adamant there would be no change at this stage. Therefore, I would not advise taking a course of action whereby producers would anticipate being allowed to produce milk way above quota and politicians finding a way to solve the problem. We must be very cautious.
27 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the main aspects of Teagasc rationalisation to Dáil Éireann including the number and location of Teagasc offices identified for closure and sale; the amount and locations of research lands identified for sale; the number and locations of staff to be made redundant, retired not replaced and or redeployed; the total once-off and annual savings expected as a result of the rationalisation; if all or part of the expected savings will be reinvested in agriculture research; when he expects the rationalisation to be completed; if he has prepared and made available an impact analysis report concerning the rationalisation proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7792/11]
First, I wish all Deputies opposite the best of luck with their portfolios. As mentioned already, agriculture has a bright future.
Under the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act 1988, Teagasc has statutory responsibility for the provision of education, advisory and research services to the agriculture sector. It is a matter for Teagasc and its board to prioritise activities in the delivery of these services and to allocate its resources in accordance with these priorities. Ministerial responsibility is confined to matters of policy in accordance with the Act and the Minister does not interfere in the day-to-day operations of Teagasc.
Teagasc continually develops its programmes, services and activities in conjunction with its clients and partners overseen by an authority that is representative of the main stakeholder groups in the agrifood sector. In 2008, the organisation completed a wide-ranging foresight analysis, Teagasc 2030, focusing on the challenges facing the agrifood sector and how Teagasc needed to adapt to meet these challenges. The report identified, in consultation with stakeholders, a clear vision for the long-term future of the agrifood sector and for Teagasc's supporting role.
The Teagasc foresight exercise established an overall strategic direction for the organisation and formed the basis for the launch of a major change programme in Teagasc. This commitment to change was given additional impetus arising from budgetary adjustments and the prospect of further resource adjustments. Against this background, the Teagasc authority approved phase one of the change programme in March 2009 to reorganise and refocus the organisation to meet the significant challenges that lie ahead.
The programme provides for rationalisation measures across the organisation including the advisory office network, disposal of surplus land resources, staff reductions and prioritisation of programme activities. The agreed actions were seen as the first step in an ongoing process of change and adjustment in the organisation. The programme was updated in May 2010 to incorporate additional rationalisation measures to end-2012.
Teagasc has made significant reductions in its cost base in recent years. In terms of budgetary savings, Exchequer grant-in-aid decreased by almost €14 million in the period 2008 to 2010. Staff numbers fell by 300 to 1,300 since the moratorium commenced in March 2009. Teagasc management will use an internal programme and staffing plan to guide its decisions on the deployment of staff resources under the change programme.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I understand that as part of its change plans, the Teagasc authority decided to concentrate the delivery of advisory services at fewer locations around the country, reduced from 91 to 51 by mid-2012. The offices to close are located throughout the country in each Teagasc advisory unit. The decision to close these offices is entirely a matter for Teagasc and its board. The change programme also envisages a 30% — 50 ha owned and 425 ha leased — reduction in overall land holdings devoted to agriculture research. Teagasc has completed the sale of a research farm in County Clare and plans to exit a number of leases as they expire in 2011 and 2012.
The total Exchequer aid provided to Teagasc for 2011 exceeds €132 million to fund the delivery of advisory, research and education services. Teagasc earns other own income from other non-Exchequer sources including advisory charges, research grants etc. Prioritisation of this funding for particular services-programmes is entirely a matter for the Teagasc authority.
The Teagasc change programme is in line with Government plans for public service modernisation as set out in the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and in the programme for Government. The proposed activities are fully consistent with the creation of a smaller, more integrated public service that is operating within a reduced cost base and with fewer staff to deliver essential public services.
Gabhaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire Stáit. Teagasc provides research and advisory services that are very well used by farmers in every county. Its director, Professor Gerry Boyle, has asked that some of the money that has been made available through the sale of assets within Teagasc be reinvested in its research and advisory services. It is not clear from the Minister of State's reply whether this will be done. This Government and the previous Government said that investment in research will be a key pillar in this country moving forward. I would have liked the reply to have stated clearly the amount of money that will be invested in further research and training and the nature of such research and training.
Some of answers sought by the Deputy may be sent to him in writing. I appreciate what he said about the importance of Teagasc and of research. I come from an area like the Deputy in north Meath, which is not where all the good land is although there is still some good land in it. Small farmers prevail in that area and have availed of the services of Teagasc. I attended a beef seminar a week ago at which the level of research Teagasc has completed through funding was discussed. Such a service will be available to all concerned, including small beef farmers in particular, who farm in areas like those that I and the Deputy represent. Farmers will benefit from such Teagasc advice centres. If the Deputy has specific questions on any of those areas, I can write to Teagasc to get answers to them. I know where the Deputy is coming from in terms of his questions and I appreciate his concern in regard to research.
I am not sure what would be the point of the Minister of State writing to Teagasc because its director——
Will the Deputy put his question as time allocated for this question is near an end?
Has the Department indicated or made a decision on the percentage of the money derived from the sale of Teagasc assets that will be reinvested in its research and advisory function?
That will be part of the expenditure review that will take place over the next three months. When we have full details on it, we will get them straight to the Deputy.
We will move on to other questions.
On the last question, the Deputy might be interested to hear that I met representatives of Teagasc yesterday in regard to this matter and it is part of an ongoing discussion.
