Vol. 760 No. 1
6Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the progress made to date in the creation of an umbrella brand for Irish food and drink brand Ireland as outlined in July 2010 with the publication of Food Harvest 2020; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14607/12]
Deputy Collins raises the issue of the need to create an umbrella brand for Irish food. We are lucky to have a body in Ireland responsible for branding Irish food, trying to build our international reputation as a sustainable, safe, green, tasty source of food. We are trying to create that image, whether it is in dairy, beef, lamb, seafood or whatever. I think Bord Bia is doing a particularly good job at that. I have travelled with Bord Bia extensively, as recently as the last few days in the Brussels, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Wherever I go, the Bord Bia message is the same in respect of the brand it is trying to build around Irish food.
Bord Bia's motto is not just saying that Ireland has the most sustainable, high quality food in the world; it is about proving it. It is putting in place a series of mechanisms which can back up the public relations message with data. An example of this is the beef quality assurance scheme, whereby with every week that passes, we put a carbon footprint on another 500 farms. By the end of this year, we will have put carbon footprints on 32,000 beef farms in Ireland. In other words, we can put a carbon label on the steaks that come from those farms, if we wish to do so in the future. We are about to do the same in the dairy industry. We are going to roll out a quality assurance scheme that will be about managing and calculating the carbon footprint of the herds that produce milk. It will not just be about climate change and emissions; it will also be about the responsible use of water. We also have a whole series of disease controls.
Food Harvest 2020 recognised the need to develop and strengthen the pre-existing strengths of the agrifood industry in Ireland. It has set out very ambitious targets in the dairy sector and in all mainstream enterprises in agriculture. It states that the exports of food and beverages will increase by one third to €12 billion annually. We can increase the value of primary production by our farmers and fishermen by €1.5 billion and value added in processing by €3 billion. The ending of the milk quota system in 2015 - if we can get there safely - will see perhaps at least a 50% increase in the production of liquid milk and dairy products in Ireland.
Have you a question, Deputy?
Quite clearly, we are going to be in an entirely different and much more demanding marketing situation. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Brendan Smith, initiated trade missions to China, Japan and the US. I would like the Minister to tell us about the successes and the establishment of the pathway which those missions set out to do, the progress that has been made, and the proactive marketing arrangements that have been put in place in these destinations.
I can understand why the Deputy would like to recognise the work of my predecessor, and I would like to do that too. Food Harvest 2020 was put in place during the lifetime of the previous Government. It was one of the really good things that was done during that period. I would like to think that we are implementing that document in a really ambitious way. In fact, we have upgraded some of the targets. For example, we have doubled the beef target from a 20% increase in the value of beef exports by 2020 to a 40% increase due to the increase in the commodity prices of beef.
The Deputy is right. After 2015, we will be operating in an open dairy market. We will have to find a buyer and a home for all of our increased production in volume terms, apart from in the specialist artisan foods areas where we target the home market. Many of those new markets for our product need to be in the new exciting markets we are currently exploring. I am going to China next month, the following month I will go to the United States and I will probably be in Russia in the autumn. Representatives of some 50 to 60 food companies will go to China with me next month.
The beauty of the Food Harvest approach is that whether one is a farmer, a processor, a co-operative or a seller of food abroad in the food sector or one is an academic or a civil servant, everybody operates to the business plan and to the same timeframe. Part of that business plan is to build a strong brand and reputation for Irish food that will result in our being able to increase our market share, particularly the premium market share where we can get more value for our food in the new markets that are emerging.
Has the Minister had any discussions with State agencies such as Bord Bia and Bord Fáilte to progress what is envisaged in Food Harvest 2020 in terms of developing an umbrella structure for brand Ireland in the food sector?
I will take two brief questions from Deputies Naughten and Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan.
I have two brief questions for the Minister. What timetable does he envisage for the new distinctive brand Ireland, which is crucially important as a marketing tool? Has any consideration been given to establishing a separate quality brand that would be owned and controlled by our own food agencies but not specifically branded as Irish? Countries have a reputation for the production of certain artisan or other food products such as the French in the case of pastries, the Germans in the case of cured sausages and the Swiss in the case of chocolate. Companies in Ireland that can compete internationally at a competitive price level in the market for these food products but they need an overarching brand for that, one not necessarily associated directly with Ireland but controlled as a marketing tool on behalf of Ireland.
The Minister mentioned how we might be able to get a premium from developing our brand. It is accepted that perception and brand are very close bedfellows. Given that is true, what good does the Minister envisage will come out of the GM potato trials in Carlow when it comes to our reputation and brand, bearing in mind that the perception in Europe is that this is not good thing? I am not referring to the science, whether that is good or bad, but to the perception and branding. How does the Minister think that will help us to get a premium?
I speak to Bord Bia about this issue all the time. The work on brand Ireland has already begun and is under way. When I am abroad I speak all the time about the beef quality assurance scheme and about the fact that Ireland is the first country in the world essentially to carbon footprint the food we produce. We are about to roll that out on the dairy side as well. It is important to make the distinction between a label, a slick PR message and a logo and what a brand is about. Reputations are hard won, particularly in the food industry.
Hear, hear.
What we are about is winning that reputation by providing data, back-up and science to support our claims. That is tedious work in terms of going on to farms, crunching the numbers with farmers and being able to back up everything we say. That is the type of work that is ongoing at present. Added to that, we are trying to build a PR brand around the attractive imagery that should be coming from all the hard work we are doing around building that reputation. The brand attached to Irish food is essentially a promise that when one buys Irish food, whether it be Jameson Whiskey or a nutritional drink from the Carbery Group, one associates it with quality, top quality food science, safety and sustainability. They are the buzz words we are trying to build into one message. I would be hopeful that by mid-summer we will have a logo that tries to represent all those things. Bord Bia is working hard on it. It is, however, difficult to decide whether we should have a punchy, strong brand or whether we should have a watermark that covers the existing strong brands because Irish brands are already very strong in some areas, particularly in the drink side. Bord Bia wants to get that message right and wants buy-in from the industry. I hope we will have a logo to go with the message by the end of the summer.
People have raised their concerns about the GM issue and Teagasc has responded comprehensively to the concerns raised in the Irish Farmers Journal last week. I do not know if the Deputy had a chance to read it.
I did indeed and I do not accept it.
The Deputy is entitled to that view.
The vast majority of Europe has the same view, whether it is right or wrong.
There are perception issues with GM foods but we are also trying to develop a reputation for developing research capacity in food in Ireland. This is where the initiative comes from in Teagasc's view. If we can be at the forefront in developing crop varieties by using GM, we should not discount it because consumers have a perception of GM. It is about balancing the two.
7Deputy Patrick Nulty asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will provide details of the consultative policy he will undertake with regard to reform of Common Agriculture Policy which will take place during the Irish Presidency beginning in January 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14600/12]
An initial consultation process was launched with stakeholders by my Department in July 2009 to obtain views on what EU agriculture policies would serve Ireland and the EU best in the years to come. The responses received are helping to inform our position in the negotiations on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, after 2013.
In 2010, a consultative committee on the CAP after 2013 was set up by my Department comprising all the major farming and agriculture related representative organisations involved in social partnership as well as a number of academics. The committee has met on several occasions, most recently in November of last year. The most recent meeting provided an opportunity for all the stakeholder organisations to give their initial reactions to the formal Commission proposals. The committee also participated in the stakeholder events organised by my Department during the visit of Commissioner Cioloş in 2010 and again in January 2012.
Commissioner Cioloş also launched a public consultation process during 2010 providing an opportunity for all stakeholders and interested parties to give their views on the future of the CAP. My Department wrote to interested stakeholders in this regard advising them how to participate in this consultation process and encouraging them to do so to ensure Ireland's voice is heard at every opportunity. While it is still early days in the negotiations, my officials and I will continue to consult all stakeholders as the negotiations progress.
It seems inevitable there will be radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy but the nature of that reform is now contested. We need a fair and redistributive approach. Will the Minister consider the proposals that have been made by the United Farmers Organisation to place a threshold on the payment any individual can receive under the CAP? For example, in this State, the single biggest beneficiary of CAP payments is someone like Michael O'Leary, who is not struggling to get by in the current economic climate. In reforming CAP, we must target the resources we have to small farmers - those who need it - to preserve rural life and to ensure small farming continues to be a viable operation for people in this country. That requires leadership and the taking on of powerful interests to place a cap on the payments made to already wealthy individuals.
I know what the Deputy is getting at and I have no difficulty with introducing a cap on payments. There is a proposal to do that. The current proposal from the European Commission is to propose a cap for single payments of €300,000. Of the 123,000 Irish farmers in receipt of the single farm payment, less than 0.2% received more than €100,000. That means only four or five companies or individuals will be affected by the cap being proposed. That is why I have not used a lot of political capital on this issue. We have really important issues that affect practically all farmers in Ireland where we need results around greening, the redistribution of the single farm payment within the State and maintaining the overall budget. My view is that it is inappropriate that anyone would get €300,000 from a single farm payment. It is important, however that we focus on what is crucial to Irish industry in these negotiations. So few farmers in Ireland are affected by this that I have not focused on it. I have made clear that my view is there should be a cap in place to ensure we spend money on those farmers who need it most.
I welcome the Minister's agreement in principle that a threshold should be in place for payments. I accept the numbers involved are small but in the current economic climate, there must be leadership. People find it difficult to get by while certain individuals and companies which receive massive benefits in other areas are getting these sums from CAP. That can lead to a negative perception of small farmers. I look forward to seeing the final proposals and hope a cap will be put in place.
Could the Minister outline the progress made to date in getting flexibility at member state level for the revision of CAP? There is concern that there are different issues in different member states. The levelling of payments between those at the higher and lower ends is of huge concern in Ireland to ensure commercial farmers can remain financially viable whereas the overall cap on payments is a bigger issue in some other member states. Has any progress been made on bringing flexibility into that?
Could the Minister look at the average payment from a different angle? Could he look at what would be needed to bring the average income of the lowest paid farmers up to the average industrial wage?
We had a long discussion and debate in the European Council yesterday on greening, an area where there is a flagship change in policy on the part of the Commission by insisting on 30% of the single farm payment being for greening. Farmers would only get it if they met certain criteria in how they farm. We have some difficulties with that and we are trying to negotiate solutions to it.
The real issue for Irish agriculture is the switch to an area-based flat rate payment, which is what the Commission is proposing for every member state. Irish direct payments have developed on a historical productivity basis, with productivity determining support, and that became the basis of the single farm payment. Farmers in Ireland have huge discrepancies between what they are being paid in some areas and other areas. The idea that everyone would get the same payment per hectare farmed would mean those with large, lowly stocked hectarage, and very intense commercial farms would get the same payment. That does not reflect the fact that we should be trying to support food production. Ireland, Italy, Spain and a few other countries have a huge problem with what is called internal distribution of direct payments, in regard to which we are working with the Commission to try to have some flexibility.
We will, undoubtedly, have to redistribute money. People who have been doing really well owing to their level of productivity in 2002 and 2003 will lose some of their direct payments in order to increase the payments for those who traditionally or historically have not done so well because they were not as productive in the base years of 2002 and 2003. We must try to manage the losses and the gains in order that we can move everybody towards an average payment. However, we certainly cannot get there overnight because if we were to do so, approximately 50,000 farmers would lose on average 30% to 35% of their payment - many of them might lose 60% or 80%, with the other approximately 80,000 farmers receiving an average increase in their payment of 60% or 70%. That type of redistribution of direct payments would impact in a very negative way on the productivity of Irish farmers in the context of Food Harvest 2020. There will be some redistribution, but we must put limits on it. That is the subject of the negotiations under way.
8Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the developments in the Common Agriculture Policy reform post 2013; his plans to reduce the income loss in single farm payments to 10-15%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14603/12]
This question is about what I have just been discussing. The Deputy refers to the need to limit any reduction in the single farm payment for current recipients to 10% to 15%. I believe that figure comes from the Irish Farmers Journal of a couple of weeks ago following a farm talk I gave in Bandon in which I said I was hoping to try to limit the reductions in single farm payment support - outside the greening area; therefore, it is for the other 70% - to 10% to 15%, which would probably mean increases for others, perhaps 15% to 25% on average.
I was trying to get the message across that instead of having a drastic redistribution away from the historically productive sector of Irish farming to the less productive sector, although there is capacity for much of that sector to become much more productive, we would try to limit the transfer to make it more manageable. Many farmers will have taken out loans and made investment decisions on the basis of a single farm payment supporting their businesses. I do not wish to undermine the traditional productive sector of Irish agriculture because we want to achieve increased performance and efficiency from those farmers. However, I recognise that there must be some redistribution for equity reasons. One cannot have payments in 2019 based on productivity levels in 2002 and 2003. That would not be right either. This is about trying to manage the redistribution in order that the losers will not lose massively and the gainers will not gain to the extent that it will undermine the productive sector of Irish agriculture. It is difficult to get the balance right.
The Minister has just made the point I wished to make. The new flat rate payment and the possible reduction of 10% to 15% for many of the farmers in what is the engine of the agriculture industry in Ireland, particularly the provinces of Leinster and Munster, mean there is every prospect that under the new arrangement farmers who are extremely productive - some of the best farmers in Europe reside in these areas - will be seriously and adversely affected by the proposals outlined. While the flow chart in the agriculture industry might be good and buoyant, as sure as Deputy Simon Coveney is Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine today, price volatility will kick in at some point in the future. The single farm payment provides the support that takes farmers through the difficult period when repayments and normal family expenses and costs must be met.
With regard to the reference year, the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development appears to be adamant that it will be 2014. Having regard to the very significant amount of land in the rental sector each year in this country and the uncertainty and unpredictability this has introduced, does the Minister accept there is a need to address the issue urgently to give some certainty to individual farmers in the decision making that will be necessary shortly?
I am not quite clear on what the Deputy is asking. He is correct that there will be price volatility in the future. The price trends for food will continue to increase for dairy and meat products, but there will be dips at times which will cause problems. While farmers are doing well in the marketplace, we should be mindful that the average farm income is still relatively modest by any standard. Direct single farm payments as well as Pillar 2 rural development moneys form a very significant part of the income of farm families. Drastically changing that balance overnight, as would be the case if we were to implement the proposals from the Commission, would significantly unbalance Irish agriculture.
It is up to me to make a very persuasive case with all the necessary data to back it up. We are gathering that data to try to get the flexibility we need from the Commission. We can go some of the way with it in terms of rebalancing payments within Ireland, but we certainly cannot go as far as is being proposed without there being a very significant redistribution of money, which would undermine many farming practices. There is a better way of doing it which I hope the Commission will take on board. When the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development came to Ireland, we spent a long time talking about this issue to ensure he understood the full consequences for Ireland of pursuing the policy he was advocating.
To pick up on what the Minister said in response to the earlier question about trying to manage the redistribution and the alliances he had built with a number of other member states in a similar position to Ireland, what hearing is he getting from the Commission? Is it not the case that even in counties such as Roscommon which would not be considered one of the most productive in the country, a number of farmers will lose significantly as a result of redistribution? The movement of the big payments will be towards large land banks and commonage areas on foot of a complete redistribution if there was a flat rate across the country. I am glad the Minister acknowledged the modest incomes of farm families. While product prices have increased, input costs have increased significantly and many farm families are on very moderate incomes, even taking account of current product prices.
The Deputy's final point is very relevant. It is also important to recognise that when prices were not so good, many farm families had alternative sources of income. A couple of years ago approximately 47% of farm families did not have an alternative income coming into the home; now the figure is approximately 56%. That is the obvious consequence of unemployment. Therefore, the income being derived from the land and through direct payments is more important than ever. This must be acknowledged.
On the Deputy's question as to whether I am making progress with the Commission, I have met the Commissioner to discuss this issue on a number of occasions. In fact, practically every time I meet him we discuss it. He has not decided to make significant compromises at this stage. That is a political decision. At some stage, however, he will have to compromise on a series of issues to get agreement in both the European Parliament and at the European Council because a co-decision is required. To date, we have been working hard to ensure he, his advisers and cabinet understand in detail why Ireland simply cannot work with the proposal as it stands.
We have received support from countries such as Spain, Italy and France which are very concerned about the level of redistribution that will occur as a result of these proposals. These are big, powerful countries and I am hopeful that at some stage towards the end of the year we will be making progress on this matter. I do not want to pretend, however, that the problem is solved because it is not. We are currently outlining in clear terms why this cannot work. I can assure the Deputy that many EU states are adamant that countries like Ireland and others will be forced to move away from a historical basis of payment because they see that as unfair competition in terms of the levels of payment that go with that. There is a political negotiation to be done here around flexibility. While Ireland wants flexibility in this area, we must understand that other countries want flexibility in other areas.
One of the advantages we have in trying to get a deal on this is that we will hold the EU Presidency for the first six months of next year, when the CAP will be agreed. Therefore we will be in a position to influence the compromises that will emerge, because I will be in the chair trying to do that. I hope that will allow us to find a solution to this problem for Ireland as well.
This question concerns stocking rates in disadvantaged areas. I am fully satisfied that the proposed changes to the 2012 disadvantaged areas scheme, currently under discussion with the EU Commission, will have a positive environmental impact on the rural landscape in Ireland. The changes are specifically designed to provide tangible environmental benefits. It is clear from the evidence gathered by my Department and other State agencies operating in this field that, while there is some evidence of over-grazing of commonage land in isolated areas in western regions, there is also increasing evidence of under-grazing in other commonages.
In the event that the proposal to increase the minimum stocking density to 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare in respect of 2011 is adopted, following Commission agreement, specific measures will be implemented to grant a derogation to those farmers who did not meet the 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare in 2011 because of the impact of adherence to a lower stocking density required under an agri-environment plan, or where the productivity of the land is such that it is not capable of maintaining two ewes per hectare. These provisions will ensure the proposed changes will not lead to any over-grazing of commonages.
The EU has put its money where its mouth is in trying to prevent over-grazing and soil erosion, particularly in disadvantaged area schemes along the western seaboard and blanket bogs. The Government seems to be going in the opposite direction, however. If one increases stocking density and duration there is a risk that land will be damaged because not all of it is fit for the proposed stocking densities. The Minister has said there will be an appeals process and that no genuine farmers, as he put it, will be turned down. Nonetheless, how many people who qualified under the existing stocking levels and durations will be ineligible under the new guidelines? I have not been able to get an answer to that question.
That is because I do not yet have an exact answer to that question. This is not just about an appeals mechanism. Any farmer who was required to have a lower stocking rate in 2011, because of a commonage framework programme or because they are in an SAC or NHA, than the threshold stocking rate we introduced, will automatically get a derogation. No appeal is required for that. In other words, farmers who are required to have low stocking rates in order to protect the environment are not subject to the proposed changes. It is important that everybody understands that. It is not a case of telling people we are going to cut their disadvantaged area payment because they had a low stocking rate last year, with farmers saying they were required to have it that low. Anyone who is required to have a stocking rate below 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare will automatically maintain their disadvantaged area payments if they were getting them.
It concerns people on other lands who do not have stocking rate restrictions, who had very low stocking rates. There were people who put the bare minimum stock on the land in order to draw down the disadvantaged area payment. In fact, it was the farmers who asked me to increase the stocking rate. It is important to say that we did not make this change lightly. We made the change having spoken to many farmers. Many stocking rates and commonage areas are being re-examined now by my Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Hopefully, we will see new commonage framework plans being put in place that will recommend an increase in stocking rate levels. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that in much of the country we are under-grazing rather than over-grazing, which is doing as much damage.
The Minister will be well aware that the agri-environment options scheme deals with under-grazing and over-grazing. The Minister has said he is actively considering bringing forward a new AEOS scheme. Some 1,040 farmers in Donegal who are out of REPS 3 do not have any support, so they are crying out for a new AEOS scheme. Can the Minister confirm that he will bring forward such a scheme and, if so, will it be before the May deadline for single farm payments? Will it be at the original level of 5,000, the previous level of 4,000 or is it likely to be reduced?
That is a whole new question so I hope you will give me the latitude to answer it, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because it will take a while.
I am sorry, Minister, but I will have to ask you to be brief because we will be going on to Topical Issues next.
I will try to be brief. I have said consistently since budget day that we will not be opening an AEOS 3 in the same way as the previous two schemes worked. We do not have the money to do it, and that is the reality. I will try to put together an AEOS scheme which is purely based on giving financial support to farmers who are farming in restrictive conditions because they are in SACs, Natura areas or possibly in commonages also. If a person is farming under restricted conditions due to a land designation, there needs to be some financial recognition of that restriction. I would like to be in a position to put in place a new REPS scheme or a broad AEOS scheme for people coming out of REPS across the country, but we are not currently in a position to do that. The commitment I made is therefore quite a restrictive one. We are maintaining that restriction to SACs or designated areas. We will look at putting a payment in place for farmers operating under those conditions as a recognition of the fact that they are farming within the restrictions of an SAC or commonage framework.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
