Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 May 2012

Vol. 765 No. 1

Other Questions

Fisheries Protection

Mick Wallace

Question:

6Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will undertake new research to determine the stock levels of sea bass in Irish waters with a view to looking at the feasibility of allowing small boats to fish for sea bass for even a defined period of the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23330/12]

This is a particulary sensitive issue. Irish vessels are currently precluded from landing sea bass under the Bass (Conservation of Stocks) Regulations 2006, S.I. No. 230 of 2006, and the Bass (Restriction on Sale) Regulations 2007, S.I. No. 367 of 2007. The complete ban for the commercial fishing of sea bass applies to Irish fishing vessels in all areas. These regulations were introduced as a co-ordinated set of measures with the sea bass fishing conservation by-laws. The by-laws imposes a bag limit on anglers of two bass in any one period of 24 hours and a ban on angling for bass during the spawning season, from 15 May to 15 June in any given year.

These measures have been in place since 1990 and were introduced arising from the dramatic decline of sea bass stocks in the 1970s. Bass in Irish waters are a slow growing fish and, at a recruitment age of roughly five years, are late maturing fish. The distribution of bass around Europe is found mainly in southern waters, including the inshore waters of the south west of England and the English Channel. It is farmed extensively in Mediterranean waters.

The Marine Institute carried out an annual bass survey between the years 1996 and 2007. This survey validates previous research on the species and indicates that the stock of bass in Ireland's inshore waters remains greatly depleted since the 1960s and 1970s. In Irish waters, the available scientific advice is that the sea bass stock appears depleted and should be allowed to rebuild. The evidence suggests that sea bass in Irish waters do not exhibit the same strong recruitments as recorded closer to continental Europe and the species abundance remains depressed.

Studies conducted in the 1970s in Ireland when commercial netting was permitted by smaller boats found that the majority of net caught fish were immature. The shoaling nature of these immature fish close to shore coupled with the dependence on a good year class means that the sustainability of the stock can be disproportionately depleted by inshore netting when compared to other commercial species.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Studies submitted to my Department argue that the value to the economy of a bass caught by an angler and which is returned alive is many multiples of its value to the commercial sector and I am aware of a number of businesses, such as fishing guides, hotels and guest accommodation in the south, which are reliant on this bass tourism. I understand that Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, is currently undertaking a socioeconomic survey of recreational angling in Ireland. The overall objective of the survey is to establish the current volume and value of domestic and overseas recreational angling in Ireland. It will run over the course of 2012.

From a scientific perspective, our knowledge on the biology and stock dynamics of sea bass in Irish waters is poor. There is a need for new research in this area. Following recent discussions, the Marine Institute and Inland Fisheries Ireland are considering developing a research programme to deepen our understanding of sea bass. This will inform future discussion on policy and management of the resource.

It is clearly very important to protect the angling sector of the industry. There are huge benefits for the economy from angling. However, I get the impression that much of the research that has been carried out appears to have been carried out by the anglers. Since the regulations were introduced, Irish boats have not been allowed to fish off the coast, but things do not appear to have changed a great deal. Are the rules in place benefiting the stock? One would imagine that with less fish being caught the stock would be higher. The French and British boats are still allowed to fish-----

It is much further out at sea.

Yes, it is past the 50 km mark. Given that they are allowed fish there, do we know that letting small boats fish off the coast, even for a short period of the year, would definitely impact on the angling industry?

These are fair questions. We are trying to take a cautious approach towards this stock because it is very vulnerable. If we start catching them commercially again, we could do huge damage and they would take a very long time to recover. They do not grow quickly, unlike other stock that can recover quickly. It is not just the inshore fishermen and the smaller boats that are concerned about this. I have been asked about this by the owners of bigger boats also, who are actually discarding large volumes of bass which they catch while trying to catch other fish. They say it is crazy because they must dump dead fish over the side of the boat, and ask if they can be allowed to bring in a small quota. The danger with that is that if one agrees to allow a certain quota of fish to be caught, one sends a signal that it is okay to start catching bass commercially again. One is then into a quota management situation for a very delicate stock. I would be slow to do that.

We must make decisions on the basis of science and information. We are currently in discussions with the Marine Institute on ways in which we could conduct scientific research on the bass stock. I am very protective of this stock. First, it is very valuable. Second, it is very important for both angling and tourism. That is not to say it could not be very important for commercial fisheries as well, but I would require convincing before changing the current approach towards banning the commercial netting of bass given that it is such a delicate species.

While I obviously do not agree with overfishing, could more research be carried out to ascertain the best thing is being done?

On a different point in respect of angling, I was contacted by a person from Wexford, Mr. Ashley Hayden, who maintained that the angling industry in Ireland is worth approximately €100 million. He reckons south-east Ireland potentially has a world-class angling product but that it is poorly developed and marketed, with the result that only 5% of Irish tourist anglers stop in the south east and generally only do so for a single bed night. Mr. Hayden personally visited a major angling association in south Wales with a membership of 3,000 and over the past six months, has managed to get 300 people from this association to come to the south-east region of Ireland for a week. As they spent an average of €1,000 per head, he reckons doing this has brought approximately €300,000 into the local economy. He thinks a professional should be appointed in the south-east region to promote angling and to further develop what he did himself.

It is important to state that even though I have responsibility for commercial fishing in my Department, different Departments are in charge of different things. Consequently, a lot of angling is the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. That said, this must be a Government response and it does not matter who specifically is in charge of it. There is huge potential for angling tourism in Ireland and in the south east in particular centred on the bass stock there. In this context, the Government should be working through the tourism bodies, as well as the coastal and fishing communities, to try to exploit this to the full. Ireland has an extraordinary marine resource, as well as a coastal resource comprising 7,500 km of coastline, much of which is rich in angling potential and a lot more can be done to build that industry. If the person who has made contact with the Deputy wishes to contact me, I will happily try to put him into contact with someone who may be able to help.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Brian Stanley

Question:

7Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he has had any discussions with companies that wish to use the GM method to grow crops in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23334/12]

I have not had any meetings or discussions with any company wishing to engage in the cultivation or growing of GM crops in Ireland.

I appreciate this question may have been prompted by the proposal by Teagasc to trial a genetically modified blight-resistant potato on its own land in Carlow. Teagasc submitted an application to the Environmental Protection Agency seeking authorisation to carry out a field study on genetically modified potatoes resistant to late blight. This trial is part of a publicly-funded EU research project being carried out by a consortium of 22 partners representing 15 European Union member states. The main objective of the Teagasc field trial is to assess the impact of cultivation of the blight-resistant potato on the Irish ecosystem, that is, bacterial, fungal, nematode and earthworm diversity in the soil, compared with that of conventional potatoes.

The Deputy will be aware that I have advised in previous parliamentary questions that the Teagasc application currently is being considered by the board of the Environmental Protection Agency and that Government responsibility for the cultivation of GM crops rests with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. I understand the EPA will decide on this application towards the end of this month.

My heart sank on realising the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has responsibility for whether funding is allocated. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has spoken of building a brand in respect of Irish agriculture and this brand is about clean, green high-quality food for the export market. One of the fastest-growing food labels in both Europe and the United States is the GM-free food label and anything that would harm the brand and image of Irish agriculture would be detrimental. A recent survey was carried out in which 87% of those surveyed thought the GM sector could not be regulated and approximately 70% of respondents thought GM foodstuffs should not even be brought into being. My question pertains to the application. I am unsure whether I missed the detail in the answer but when does the Minister of State expect a decision on the application to be made by the Minister, Deputy Hogan?

It is to be made at the end of this month. I attended a meeting with the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and the people concerned and this is a trial in which Teagasc is participating. It will not in any way put at risk Ireland's image. This trial is part of a European Union research project and people should read into what is involved. I have also asked a similar question in this regard. Moreover, the Deputy's heart should not slump when he speaks of the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and perhaps it should lift. It is a trial and there should be no scaremongering.

I am not scaremongering.

I do not suggest the Deputy is doing so but-----

Sorry, but the question has been answered and there are no discussions.

However, the answer made mention of how an application has been made for a trial process. How long is it envisaged such a trial will take? Over what period will such a trial last?

I am sure it will take the length of time it takes a potato plant to grow. That is as straight an answer as I can give the Deputy. I also made my position quite clear when I attended the aforementioned meeting. This will not be carried out in an area where it will affect any other plant.

Is that a commitment?

This can be guaranteed. The Environmental Protection Agency will make the decision on the day.

Animal Identification Scheme

Sean Fleming

Question:

8Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his plans to address sheep tagging issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23270/12]

The Deputy should be aware I already have issued a press statement dealing comprehensively with the various issues surrounding sheep tagging and the implementation of electronic identification, EID, in sheep under the national sheep identification system, NSIS. In this statement, I have reminded farmers the practice of re-tagging slaughter lambs on a second or subsequent holding is not permitted under European rules. One identity for life is at the heart of the EU legislation and Ireland, in line with all other member states is obliged to implement this requirement under its revised sheep identification scheme.

Under NSIS, sheep born since 31 December 2009 must retain one identity for life from the holding of origin and that tag number must be recorded accurately on the movement documentation when sheep are moving off a holding. The Deputy will be aware that Ireland has chosen to exempt the vast majority of its lambs from any EID tag requirements. All lambs under 12 months old and going directly to slaughter, some 80% of all movements, are permanently exempt from any EID requirement. For the remaining animals, I also have taken the opportunity to point out to farmers that they should consider using electronic tags on a voluntary basis for lambs that are being sold through marts. In this case, lambs that are electronically tagged at the holding of origin at the outset have a definite attractiveness over conventionally tagged lambs, as they can be scanned instead of being obliged to record the tag numbers manually. Manual recording for large numbers of animals will be problematic. Furthermore, lambs that are identified with an EID tag set have the additional attractiveness in that they require no further tagging to comply with EU or NSIS rules whether they are being purchased by slaughterhouses, fatteners, exporters or are being retained for breeding.

In the case of sheep that are electronically identified, it also will be possible for these lambs to be scanned on arrival at a slaughterhouse or mart that is an approved central point of recording, CPR. Under NSIS, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is allowing for the provision of a facility whereby slaughterhouses and marts that meet certain requirements can be approved as a CPR. An approved CPR can provide the farmer with a list of the tag numbers of the animals in a given consignment for association with the relevant dispatch or movement document. While the farmer will still be obliged to complete a dispatch or movement document, this will save him or her from being obliged to manually read and write down on the dispatch or movement document all the tag numbers of the sheep making up the consignment. I again urge factories and marts to co-operate in the provision of a CPR service to the farmer. Greater use of EID tags will contribute towards accurate record keeping and assured traceability and will help avoid cross-compliance penalties.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

I also have pointed out in the aforementioned statement that Ireland has made satisfactory progress with the implementation of EID requirements for sheep, in line with EU rules, and this already has been acknowledged by the European Union's Food and Veterinary Office. Furthermore, I am anxious to keep up the momentum already achieved on implementation of the final elements of the tagging arrangements and of EID in sheep coupled with the necessary revisions to NSIS. This is the best way of ensuring we continue to have a robust identification and traceability system and have improved market access for our sheep meat products. The co-operation of all stakeholders is important if we are to achieve a successful outcome in the implementation of EID.

I acknowledge there are farmer concerns in areas such as cross-compliance, animal welfare and individual animal movement recording. All these matters have been discussed with my Department and they will be kept under review and my officials will work with stakeholders in finding solutions to any problems that may arise.

Disadvantaged Areas Scheme

Brendan Smith

Question:

9Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will clarify the final changes to the disadvantaged areas scheme; the number affected; the amount that will be saved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23263/12]

It will be recalled that on foot of commitments given in the 2012 budget significant savings needed to be found in my Department's expenditure for 2012, part of which it was decided should come from the funding assigned to the disadvantaged areas scheme, with the budgeted expenditure under the 2012 scheme being reduced from €220 million to €190 million.

Rather than simply apply an across the board cut to the rates payable or reduce the maximum payable area as a means of achieving these savings, the Minister decided that real efforts should be made to focus the scheme on those farmers who are most actively contributing to achieving its aims, namely, ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the maintenance of viable rural communities, maintaining the countryside and promoting sustainable farming systems which take account of environmental enhancement measures.

The changes to the 2012 scheme, which are subject to the approval of the European Commission as part of the amendments submitted by my Department to the 2007–2013 Rural Development Programme, are as follows. In the first instance, an applicant is required to have met in 2011 a stocking density of 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare for three consecutive months. However, specific provision is being made for those farmers who had a stocking density of less than 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare in 2011 where that lower stocking density was as a result of adherence to lower stocking by agri-environmental measure such as a commonage framework destocking plans, rural environmental protection schemes, REPS, or agri-environment options scheme, AEOS.

All applicants, whose stocking density was below 0.3 livestock units per forage hectare in 2011 will be formally written to and given the opportunity to apply for a derogation on the grounds that his or her participation in one of the above measures resulted in the lower stocking density. The principles of force majeure , exceptional circumstances will also be provided for in the process and provision will also be made for new entrants to farming. While the minimum stocking density remains at 0.15 livestock units per forage hectare, the retention period is increased to six months. In addition, the stocking density is calculated over the 12 months of the scheme year. Again, there will be a continued recognition of farmers who will not meet the minimum stocking requirement due to the impact of agri-environment measures, including the NPWS review, which has established stocking densities for all commonages, rural environmental protection schemes, REPS and agri-environment options scheme, AEOS.

Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.

With the intention of favourably targeting those farmers who are farming exclusively in disadvantaged areas, it is proposed that farmers, whose holdings consist of land situated in disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas will be considered to be in a better position from a farming viewpoint than those farming exclusively in disadvantaged areas. Therefore, it is proposed that where part of an applicant's land is declared disadvantaged and his or her main holding is in a non-disadvantaged area, a digressive rate of aid under the scheme will be payable. This digressive payment does not affect applicants whose main holding is in a disadvantaged area. This proposal is regarded as fair in that the greater proportion of less favoured areas land in the holding, the greater the level of payment.

While horses will no longer be eligible for the stocking density calculation, equine breeding enterprises will continue to be eligible on the basis of the contribution they make to the local economy. Equine breeding enterprises are defined as follows: an applicant must, in the first instance, be an equine - horse-donkey - breeder and have bred a foal from a mare registered as on the applicant's holding in 2011, in either 2009, 2010 or 2011, which was registered in a Stud Book approved by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, with pedigree recorded - sire and dam.

Furthermore, the premises of all who meet this criteria must be registered with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in accordance with S.I. No. 8 of 2012, Diseases of Animals Act 1966 (Registration of Horse Premises) Order 2012.

Where these criteria are met, the following equines will then be eligible for inclusion in the stocking density calculation for the 2012 scheme - all equines aged one year to five years - aged using 1 January - registered in the name of the applicant and maintained on his or her holding; breeding mares registered as having been on the applicant's holding in 2011, that have bred an appropriately registered foal in 2009, 2010 or 2011. Where the applicant's main holding-residence is situated in a non-DAS area, land situated more than 80 km from an applicant's main holding is not eligible under the 2012 scheme.

As many applicants will increase their farming activity during 2012 to ensure adherence to the new requirements and others will apply for and be eligible for a derogation on the grounds I outlined earlier, it is not possible to indicate the number of applicants that will be affected by the changes.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. When was the submission sent to the European Commission for approval? Will the Minister of State accept that in many cases which no doubt he, like me, is hearing about, people are being unfairly punished because for a number of reasons they were unable to meet the stocking density in 2011? Is it possible to apply the rule in respect of stocking density in 2011 retrospectively? My questions are, when was the submission made to the Commission; is it possible, legally, to apply the rule retrospectively and will the Minister of State accept that many genuine people, on the peripheral and marginal end, have been affected by this and that they more than other people need the support of the State schemes?

I will communicate with the Deputy on the dates relating to his first two questions. All of us involved in agriculture want to encourage farmers to increase production. The Minister and I are on the same wavelength on this in that we do not want to be paying people to do nothing. The increase in the live stock units will be of great assistance to people in forestry, in particular gorse areas for which the decreasing of the stocking rate has caused a further problem. The Deputy has raised questions that are being asked of all Members. A farmer who is not happy can request a review of his or her case. We can no longer allow the situation whereby farmers are purchasing a few animals or horses to put on land to stock and obtain premiums. That day is gone. The Minister and I will only pay farmers to work the land. We will do all we can to ensure that disadvantaged areas get the maximum support. Following conclusion of the negotiations, we hope to continue with a proper AEOS scheme.

Many farmers who, through no fault of their own but owing to family or financial circumstances and so on, came within the remit of the scheme in 2011 are now being penalised in 2012. Is it possible to apply this rule retrospectively? The advice we have received is that it is not. What advice has the Department received in this regard?

I cannot inform the Deputy of what advice the Department has been given. I can, however, tell him that it is our intention to push ahead with the decisions we have made. People who are not happy can apply to have their case reviewed. I have no doubt that people who through no fault of their own are in difficult circumstances will not be left out in the cold.

Bovine Diseases

Seamus Kirk

Question:

10Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his plans to review the TB eradication programme following changes implemented last year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23275/12]

The bovine TB eradication programme includes a comprehensive range of measures, including the mandatory annual testing of all cattle in the national herd, the early removal of reactors, implementation of a range of supplementary tests such as post-derestriction and contiguous tests, a wildlife programme, the use of the gamma interferon test as an adjunct to the tuberculin test in problem herds and the depopulation of infected herds in some cases.

These measures have proven to be relatively effective in recent years as evidenced by the significant reduction in disease levels over the past decade. For example, herd incidence has fallen from 7.53% in 2000 to 4.18% last year and reactor numbers in 2011 were, at 18,500, the lowest recorded since the commencement of the programme in the 1950s. Reactor numbers and herd incidence continued to fall in 2011.

The eradication programme is scientifically based and my Department, together with the EU Commission which co-funds the programme, continues to monitor and review the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme on an ongoing basis with a view to the eventual eradication of the disease. In this context, notwithstanding the fact that the existing programme has contributed to a significant reduction in the incidence of bovine TB, my Department believes that, for eradication to become a reality, it is necessary to continually improve the programme in order to address all potential sources of infection, including from neighbouring herds, the movement of high risk animals and to ensure that testing is conducted in a timely manner. Thus, greater emphasis is being laid on ensuring all herds test on time and on reducing movement opportunities for potentially infected cattle so as to provide increased protection for clear herds and export markets. With this in mind, my Department introduced a number of changes to the TB programme earlier this year to tighten up on overdue testing and, in particular, to prevent the spread of disease from infected herds to clear herds. These changes were made following a number of consultation meetings with the farming organisations.

The changes are based on research which demonstrates that there are increased risks attached to the movement of certain animals and are designed to protect clear herds from buying in high risk animals. For example, research has shown that standard inconclusive reactors which passed the retest and moved out of the herd were, subsequent to passing the test, 12 times more likely to be TB positive at the subsequent test or at slaughter as compared with all other animals in the herd. The same increased risk did not apply to the non-inconclusive animals that moved out of the same herds at the same time. For this reason, my Department has decided to limit the movement of these higher risk individual animals from the herd of disclosure for the duration of their lifetime, except to slaughter or in exceptional cases to a feedlot.

Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, with regard to the new controls on the movement of animals out of herds which, following an epidemiological investigation have been identified as contiguous to or neighbouring a herd experiencing an active high risk TB breakdown, research shows that, in 2011, the risk of such herds disclosing TB is almost three times greater than the risk in the case of herds tested on a round test. In view of the fact that contiguous tests were conducted on some 8,000 herds in 2011, involving almost 800,000 animals and resulting in the disclosure of 2,256 reactors, the risk of TB spreading from such herds is very significant.

I am very pleased with the reduction in the herd and animal incidence of TB in recent years. It is essential that this improvement continues. Ensuring that there is a robust testing regime in place and that disease is not spread from infected herds to clear herds are key factors in achieving the goal of eradication and in continuing to secure funding from the EU. My Department will continue to review and make changes to various elements of the programme as deemed necessary.

I accept that there have been great improvements in the eradication of TB. However, I have witnessed first-hand a number of reactors in herds and a full breakdown and clear out of herds whose test for TB within the previous 12 months was clear. I have seen first-hand how quickly this disease can spread. I know of a number of genuine farmers, in particular one who has a substantial farm and has not had a reactor for ten to 15 years. The previous reactor he had was for brucellosis rather than TB. Given a contiguous outbreak, which was only a minor one, his herd has had numerous rounds of test. There should be a little bit of flexibility. Unfortunately, he has medical issues of his own at the moment, so it has caused huge concern.

Since the 1950s, the argument has been whether the system of testing should be changed to blood or otherwise but the Department seems to be getting on top of it because of the strict regime. However, there needs to be a little bit of flexibility.

Even though a herd has not had a TB reactor for ten, 15 or 20 years and complies with all the regulations, it is penalised and subjected to the full rigors of the changes the Department brought in last year because of a relatively minor outbreak in an adjoining herd. Will the Minister consider a little bit of flexibility for farmers with genuine cases? We all know of cases but I mention one in particular.

The Department is always open to suggestions. When I got a telephone call from a man from Kilkenny about the new practices, coming from a farming background, I was a little bit shocked in one way. However, what has shocked me all my life since I was 14 years old and testing cattle, is that we have not got rid of TB. Given that we have got the figures down to such a small number, now is the time to really put the boot in to get rid of it altogether. They have been able to eradicate TB completely in other countries and we can do so too. It will cause a bit of concern for certain farmers, such as the man about whom Deputy Moynihan spoke. If a farmer's herd goes down and if the herd on the adjoining farm has not been tested for almost ten months and it has spread to that herd, if that farmers sells his cattle in the mart, it will spread further.

If more than two cattle are infected on a farm and if the herds on neighbouring farms have not been tested within the past four months, they are asked to test. I know there are pregnancies with cattle about to calf. However, it is about education. The farming organisations have agreed with it.

We probably should have spread the word more as to what was happening. Getting rid of TB is achievable. The scourge of any farmer's life is rounding up cattle, putting them in a crush and TB testing them only to find the next day that an animal has aborted or whatever. We have a great opportunity. Although it will cause inconvenience, we should do it.

Not only have I seen cattle being rounded up and put in a crush, I have seen entire herds being rounded up and being crushed on the lorry because of TB. I know at first hand exactly what the Minister of State is talking about. If a farmer has been tested in late November-early December and has not had a history of TB or of animals being brought in without having had all the tests and has been clear for 15 to 20 years, because of the four month rule and a minor outbreak contiguous to him, his herd must be tested. A little bit of sense is needed.

Food Harvest 2020

Catherine Murphy

Question:

11Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if Food Harvest 2020 is his policy; and, if so, the reason there was no strategic environmental assessment in view of the fact that it is legally required under Directive 2001/42/EC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23398/12]

The Food Harvest 2020 report was developed by an industry-led committee which comprised key figures from the food and drink industry, state agencies, academia and the farm bodies. The report, which was published in July 2010, contains the industry vision for the sector and sets ambitious targets for expansion in the decade to 2020. It contains 215 recommendations aimed at achieving sustainable growth, increased efficiency, higher productivity and competitiveness.

Following publication of the report, a high level implementation committee, HLIC, was established by the previous Minister to ensure integration and focus between industry and State agencies in meeting the targets. Activation groups for each of the dairy, beef and horticulture sectors report to the HLIC on progress in this regard. The Minister wholeheartedly embraces the Food Harvest 2020 strategy and, as chair of the HLIC, is totally committed to ensuring its success.

The report is not a plan or programme as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/42/EC rather an industry-developed strategy which sets out its vision for the future of the sector. The report contained a recommendation that a strategic environmental assessment should be carried out. In considering how best to implement this recommendation, the HLIC recognised that the targets could be achieved in a variety of ways. Accordingly the committee determined that an environmental analysis of various scenarios related to the implementation of the recommendations in Food Harvest 2020 was the most appropriate analytical approach to an environmental assessment.

Following a competitive tender process, which was published on e-tenders, a contract was last month awarded to a team of consultants to carry out this analysis. Under the terms of the contract, an interim report is to be prepared by the end of July with the final report to be presented to the HLIC by end of October 2012. Under the terms of reference, the likely impacts of achieving the report's targets on the following environmental characteristics-issues will be assessed - biodiversity; flora-fauna; water, including groundwater quality; soil; air quality; landscape; and climatic factors, including impacts on greenhouse gas emission levels. The outcome of this analysis will inform the sectoral expansion envisaged under Food Harvest 2020, and guide its achievement in a manner which takes account of the associated environmental implications.

A strategic environmental assessment is required under the EU directive. A high level of consultation with environmental groups and the public is required. Was that part of the terms of reference given to the people awarded the tender or are we aiming at something below that? We all recognise the increasing importance of the food industry and the agriculture sector as one of the areas with potential for serious growth. We want to ensure the image we have is retained. The strategic environmental assessment gives a kind of added assurance that the industry is compatible with the environmental standards against which we would be measured in regard to this particular initiative. Will environmental groups and the public be included in this process?

Food Harvest 2020 is a massive goal to achieve but the opening is there for us as a country. Since we joined the EU, Ireland has implemented the highest standards, whether in regard to traceability or the environment, and I have no doubt that will continue. One cannot just go into farming and set up a dairy or beef herd or a sow unit. We comply with the highest standards in the world and that is why people from other countries come to Ireland on a weekly basis not only to buy our products but to see the measures we implement, so that they can produce food for themselves. We can feed an additional 35 million if we go into full production. I cannot emphasise enough how large this industry can grow.

Working with the best people in the environmental area and with groups will be part of it. Sometimes there can be too many restrictions but there are rules and regulations in place, which Deputy Murphy will know coming from County Kildare. We have the best in the world due to environmental rules. Sometimes, one can overdo rules and put people off getting involved. To achieve growth, our goal is to get various Departments working together instead of separately. My work involves forestry, which covers three Departments. We must pull them together with my role acting as overseer. The role of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is to work with, for example, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to ensure growth and jobs, the benefits of which will spread from rural Ireland to colleges and beyond. This is our hope. There are many matters we can overdo, but this is one with which we will not take chances.

I asked whether consultation with environmental groups and the public would form part of the upcoming process. It is specified by the EU when conducting strategic and environmental assessments. We should not fear an open approach. For this reason, the public should be included. Are the successful tenderers required to consult environmental groups and the public while constructing the scheme?

I will revert to the Deputy concerning the exact procedure. I do not doubt that the proper procedures were followed and that everyone involved was included in the scenario. For example, everyone was given an opportunity to have an input into Food Harvest 2020.

I thank the Minister of State.

Sheep Sector

Timmy Dooley

Question:

12Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his plans to ensure adequate sheep inspection times are set out to avoid interference with the lambing season into the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23266/12]

In delivering direct payment schemes, my Department must carry out annual inspections covering land eligibility and cross-compliance to ensure compliance with EU regulatory requirements. In any given year, there are two types of checks carried out on the farmers selected for inspection, those being, eligibility checks and cross-compliance checks. The cross-compliance checks are separate from eligibility or area checks and any cross-compliance sanction will be applied after eligibility has been established. It is a requirement that all eligibility checks be completed prior to payment and payments cannot be made until cases are fully processed.

In the first instance, it is a requirement to carry out eligibilitychecks on 5% of farmers applying under the payment schemes in the first and second pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy. These checks are carried out to verify that the actual area claimed in the application form corresponds to the area farmed by the farmer and to ensure that any ineligible land or feature is deducted. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without a farm visit and use the technique of remote sensing via satellite.

The rate of inspections for cross-compliance is 1% of applicants to whom the statutory management requirements, SMRs, and good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, apply. However, 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration requirements while 3% of sheep-goat farmers must be inspected, covering 5% of the flock. In conducting a sheep inspection, every effort is made by officials of my Department to minimise disruption to farming activities and to avoid stress to livestock on the holding. As much as possible, inspection timings are organised to avoid conducting inspections when lambs are young or sheep need to be brought down from the hills. Where young lambs are found, particular care is taken to avoid such risks as mismothering.

The importance of inspections and the control regime currently in place must be remembered, as the value of these direct payment schemes to Irish farmers is €1.8 billion annually. These payments form a large part of net farming income. Therefore, it is incumbent on my Department to ensure that the regulatory control environment is comprehensively implemented to avoid EU disallowances.

I understand that the Department introduced a protocol to ensure that sheep would not be inspected during lambing season. I want to ensure this protocol is followed.

The 1% rate of inspections for cross-compliance is difficult to understand, given the fact that some people have been inspected for the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, the single farm payment and so on almost every year for the past 14 or 15 years. When they question the inspectors, they are told that a computer threw out their names. One wonders whether that computer is stuck on a number and whether a farmer would be better advised to seek a new herd number. It is difficult to tell farmers and farming groups about the 1% rate when they can show evidence to the contrary.

If the Department has a protocol on not inspecting sheep during lambing season, I appeal to the Minister of State to adhere to it strictly.

There is a major effort under way to put the sheep industry in its rightful place. Last week, I visited Athenry in County Galway where Teagasc presented a good introduction of the work under way. Given the number of flocks that will see an increase, I hope that the people who are being inspected annually will not draw the short straw every year. Every effort is made not to visit a farm during the lambing season. Of all animals, the sheep is the most vulnerable to abortion.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 11 May 2012.

Top
Share