Vol. 898 No. 1
6. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the role he envisages forestry playing in helping Ireland meet European Union climate mitigation targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41393/15]
We have discussed forestry many times in this House. I was glad and, more importantly, champions of forestry were very glad to hear the Minister's recent comments to the effect that he sees afforestation as a key measure to deal with our CO2 emissions problems. In representing the view of those who champion forestry, I have emphasised the value of agroforestry as a key measure in mitigating climate change as well as all the other benefits that go with it. Does the Minister accept our afforestation targets are a little unambitious? He is talking about planting 43,000 ha by 2020 which only amounts to some 6,000 ha per year and is still well below what we would need to hit the 17% coverage target.
I am glad the Deputy and I are in agreement on the importance of forestry. Ireland is well below the European average in terms of forest cover and we are responding to that in several ways. We have a very active State-owned company, Coillte, that is looking to expand and invest in its forestry interests and to that end is taking a new approach to its work. We are one of the very few countries in Europe that is actively promoting afforestation of agricultural land, and that is where almost all the afforestation has come from in recent years. Through all the financial pressures and reductions in expenditure across different areas, from which I have tried my best to insulate agriculture, there has been no cut at all in the forestry funds. We have been spending €119 million on afforestation right through the past five years in the context of very difficult budgetary choices. To clarify, that is all Exchequer money; none of it comes from the EU. We will continue to prioritise forestry and if we can afford to spend more, we will do so.
Our target is to get 6,000 or 7,000 ha planted annually. It is a realistic target which has been very much championed by the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes. It makes sense from an afforestation point of view, from an environmental perspective and in terms of landowner income, because forestry suits certain types of agricultural land. In addition, and what is becoming increasingly relevant, afforestation has a major part to play in achieving Ireland's climate change targets in the context of an overall European target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. Ireland was paddling a lone canoe on this issue for a long time but we now have agreement in the European Council that afforestation of agricultural land will count as a positive in the calculation of the overall emissions challenge of agriculture and land use. That is a major achievement which we must hold on to in the context of the setting of those targets. If we do not do that, we will have a very unbalanced picture of the contribution of agricultural land to the emissions challenge.
The Minister and I certainly are in agreement on the principle here, which I am very glad to hear. However, we need to be more ambitious and to push this as far and as effectively as we can. The Programme of Competitive Forestry Research for Development, COFORD, estimates that to achieve our 17% forestry target by 2014, we need to be planting 15,000 ha per annum. We are still well short of that. Will the Minister expand on Coillte's change of strategy? To date, that body has failed quite spectacularly in its remit in this regard. EU rules around grants and so on have something to do with that, but the fact is Coillte has not contributed significantly to afforestation. The Minister might explain how this will change, because it needs to change.
Second, the Minister might consider a dedicated unit to explain to farmers the advantages of agroforestry and how it can contribute positively towards their farming.
I thank the Deputy.
They should not see it as being in competition with other farming activities, rather it should complement them as well as helping us to deal with the urgent climate change challenge.
I will come back to the Deputy.
I agree with all that. I reassure the Deputy that the Department has a forestry section based in Wexford. We prioritise forestry and the section is almost a stand-alone unit, promoting what it does. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, is in charge of it politically. It has done a very good job in ensuring it holds on to budgets. Agriculture has been progressing over the past five years and there is considerable competition for land. Land prices now are strong and remained so throughout the recessionary period, as evidenced through leasing prices. There is significant demand for land among dairy, beef and arable farmers.
Persuading farmers to plant agricultural land with trees has always been a challenge and it has been a particular challenge in recent years as farmers prepare for expansion and so on. We can see that in the demand for land. In this context, we have been maintaining between 6,000 ha and 7,000 ha a year, which has been a pretty good performance. We intend to maintain that even with the dairy and other agricultural growth we envisage in coming years. We predict we will be exporting €19 billion worth of food and drink by 2025.
I thank the Minister.
We are currently at less than €12 billion. We are looking at sustainable intensification of agriculture, but we are also looking at a very strong sustainability story in terms of how we use land, and forestry is a big part of that.
I will come back to the Minister.
There are two aspects of this. One is trying to encourage farmers to see the benefits of forestry. I am learning as I go. We need to get the message across to farmers about how the different types of agroforestry can benefit them. They need to see it as a win-win situation rather than seeing it as a competition over land use for existing farming activities. We need to educate people and promote it in a proactive way to get farmers on board. If we do, it will be a win-win.
On Coillte, we need to think about moving beyond the industrialised single-species approach to afforestation because the most effective climate-mitigating species are the native broadleaf species. They have deeper roots and are much better at all levels - better for carbon sequestration, better for the land and so on. However, Coillte has not delivered significantly in this area. Mr. Colm McCarthy estimated that Coillte has about 500,000 acres of land that it did not deem commercially viable for forestry.
I thank the Deputy.
With a bit of imagination that land could be used for forestry if it were given to local communities, co-operatives and so on.
The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, has just told me that producer groups and co-operatives are being set up to try to create economies of scale for forestry.
I will allow Coillte management to outline its new plans and business model as well as the public value delivery model that Coillte has in place and will have in place for the next five to ten years. Coillte needs to manage a number of things. First, it needs to be a successful commercial forestry company. However, it needs to do more than just pay for itself. It needs to deliver a dividend for the State from a financial, recreational, land management, environmental, carbon sink and emissions perspective. All those things need to be balanced in the design of that business model, but fundamentally Coillte needs to pay its own way. It certainly should not be forced to sell off forest harvesting rights, land or other assets to be able to balance the books.
I thank the Minister.
That is not an acceptable approach and Coillte is ensuring that will not be the case in future.
I have had long discussions with Coillte representatives, as has the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes. They are under no illusions in terms of the broader public good value it has and the responsibilities it has towards recreation-----
I have to go on to the next question.
-----and managing-----
Sorry, Minister, I have to call Deputy Fitzmaurice.
-----native species as well as commercial timber.
7. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding Keelderry commonage lands, further to the Seanad motion of 14 February 2012 by a Senator (details supplied), if he will confirm that the formal investigation has concluded; if the findings of any such formal investigation have been provided to all the affected parties; and if he will issue a reply to the issues raised by the Senator and confirm that he will now proceed to conduct his own investigation into this matter to bring about a satisfactory conclusion. [41241/15]
Regarding the Keelderry commonage lands, further to the Seanad motion of 14 February 2012 by a Senator, whose details were supplied, will the Minister confirm that the formal investigation has concluded? Have the findings of any such formal investigation been provided to all the affected parties? Will the Minister issue a reply to the issues raised by the Senator? Will the Minister proceed to conduct his own investigation into this matter and bring about a satisfactory conclusion?
I have a problem here that I signalled earlier. My advice is that these inspections are the subject of legal proceedings and I cannot comment any further on the matter. I am not happy that this has gone down the legal route. We have repeatedly tried to find solutions in this case, but once an issue like this is the subject of legal proceedings, I am precluded from saying anything further. I do not like giving the Deputy such an answer, but that is the advice I have.
Will the Minister confirm that the formal investigation has been concluded? Will the findings be sent to anybody? I understand that if something has gone the legal route, the Minister cannot go into legal technicalities. Has the formal investigation been completed? Has the outcome been provided to anybody?
I will check that for the Deputy. My understanding is that our investigation and the appeal of that have concluded. I may need to verify that. Once something goes down the legal route, anything I say here may impact on that, so I need to be careful what I say.
As Deputy Pringle is not present, Question No. 8 cannot be taken.
9. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is satisfied with the progress of the beef data and genomics scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41245/15]
We might get through a lot of today's questions yet. On the beef data and genomics scheme, how many samples have gone in and how many hectares does that represent? What is the likely payment by Christmas? I want to establish the level of active participants in the scheme. It would be said that there is considerable disquiet about the scheme over the penalty regime and the uncertainties therein, as admitted by the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, particularly regarding bulls that are now rated as five star and might prove to be one-star or two-star bulls in future, with their progeny affected accordingly.
I think there was disquiet at the start, but it is wrong to say there is considerable disquiet now. The disquiet I have now is that more people want to get into the scheme. They want to know if it is fully subscribed and if we will reopen it. That is the pressure I have been getting. I accept there was considerable concern at the start, especially in understanding the star rating system and whether there were penalties for farmers who could not achieve their targets in a few years time. However, many farmers have been reassured by the public meetings we have held in recent weeks where most of the questions were answered.
If there are continuing problems with the scheme, we will fix them. We will have a mid-term review of the scheme. We will have a committee to which the farming organisations and officials will contribute to ensure we iron out any problems. I have no agenda to try to catch out farmers. This is about putting in place a scheme that uses the science of genomics to help farmers make much more informed decisions about how they breed their animals in order that we can improve the quality of the herd.
It is also a climate change measure because the better the breeding in the suckler beef herd, the faster animals will grow and the better confirmation, fertility rates, ease of calving and temperament they will have from a farm safety point of view, so this is a win-win for everybody. We will spend between €300 million and €350 million on this.
I will answer some of the Deputy's questions now. I may have to come back later. I want to reassure people.
The Minister has 34 seconds left.
There will be another round.
We had 14 years of-----
Deputy O'Donovan is here.
I have not gone away.
He certainly has not. The implementation of the scheme has progressed well. I will give Deputy Ó Cuív some figures to chew on. More than 252,500 samples have been sent back from genomic testing thus far, which covers more than 19,100 herds. This is a positive response rate for the scheme as it means that 71% of participants have sent back tissue samples. The scheme is working.
The figure I was given by the Minister was 252,672, which is more than 252,000.
Why did the Deputy ask for the figure if he already has it?
I was seeking the updated position. I note, however, that the figure has not increased since I tabled the question some time ago.
I am glad I am consistent at any rate.
I am also glad the Department is consistent.
The figure provided represents 71% of farmers. Funding of €52 million was provided for the beef data and genomics programme in the Estimate this year. I note in the small print of the Supplementary Estimate that it provides for savings of €17 million in this scheme. Will the Minister confirm that he expects an underspend of €17 million in the programme this year?
There is no confirmed underspend this year. I will have a Supplementary Estimate to provide for additional expenditure in the Department as opposed to an underspend in the Department. We will discuss the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate when it is presented to the House. I do not envisage €53 million will be spent on the beef data and genomics programme this year not because we do not want to spend this sum, but based on the number of applications submitted to the Department, the rate of approval and so forth. Expenditure on the programme will be considerable, however, and while I do not wish to provide a precise figure, it will be in the region of €45 million.
Following consultations with farming organisations and Members, my priority was to ensure a beef genomics scheme was up and running and a significant chunk of money was paid to suckler beef farmers before the end of the year. We are on track to achieve these objectives. I assure the Deputy that, over time, we will get as many farmers as possible into the scheme and spend the full budgetary allocation over the lifetime of the rural development programme.
The Minister published a Supplementary Estimate which provides for a significant overspend arising from the need to pay a fine to Europe. According to the small print, a saving of €17 million is anticipated in the beef genomics scheme. Unless the position has radically changed, Departments take a conservative approach to Supplementary Estimates. For example, if an Estimate provides for a saving of €17 million, this will be the minimum figure and the final savings could be higher. That is the way the system works. In my experience, a Department never provided for a saving if there was a possibility that it would not be achieved. That was the procedure to be followed. Will the Minister confirm that the Department is budgeting for an underspend of €17 million, which means expenditure on the scheme will be less than €40 million and not more than €40 million, as he indicated?
No, I cannot confirm that figure as that is not the plan. We will know what the figures are at the end of the year when we calculate the underspend versus overspend, taking account of the Supplementary Estimates. Until all moneys have been paid out and each section of the Department has finalised its figures for the year, we will not have a final figure. I do not accept the point the Deputy makes.
10. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the status of the agri-environment scheme for those farmers whose lands are designated for the protection of the habitat of the hen harrier; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41235/15]
This question relates to a scheme the Minister announced recently on lands protected for the conservation of the habitat of the hen harrier. I ask the Minister to give an update on the progress made regarding the scheme.
In the first instance, farmers with hen harrier land already have priority access to the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. I also provided that such farmers would be automatically approved for GLAS plus should they be farming a sufficient area of habitat. I strongly encourage all farmers with hen harrier land to take up this measure under GLAS, which offers a payment rate of €370 per hectare. Farmers can earn up to €7,000 per annum through a combination of GLAS and GLAS plus payments and approximately 1,400 hen harrier farmers have already been approved for the new scheme.
In addition, I have recently announced that I intend to introduce a further scheme of assistance under the locally led agri-environment measure to cater for farmers who are farming large tracts of hen harrier land. One of the principles of the planned locally led measure is to explore new ways of managing farming effort for the benefit of the environment, in this case, the hen harrier. Once the new scheme has been designed, it must be negotiated with the European Commission and formally introduced by amendment to the rural development programme next year. I expect this process will be concluded early next year. Only one amendment of the rural development programme is allowed annually, which means a number of items will be bundled together and presented for approval at the same time. The proposed amendment is necessary to secure EU approval not alone for the new hen harrier scheme, but also for the various other locally led schemes I intend to introduce.
I thank the Minister for showing an interest in this matter. It is unfortunate that Deputy Ó Cuív, having noted my presence in the Chamber, chose not to stay around for this question as it relates to a legacy of the previous Government when it abandoned farmers in hen harrier designated lands. I come from west County Limerick where practically all land, from Newcastle West to Abbeyfeale, has been designated hen harrier land. This a major issue in designated areas which include parts of north County Cork, north County Galway, east County Clare, east County Galway and counties Tipperary and Monaghan.
I thank the Minister for the efforts he has made in trying to resolve this issue, which has arisen because farmers in hen harrier designated areas were essentially abandoned by the previous Government when it announced a scheme only to pull the plug on it and walk away. In doing so, it left the designation in place without providing for compensation or even recognition, which is what many of the affected farmers were seeking.
I thank the Minister sincerely for the level of engagement he has had with the farming organisations on this issue. While only a small number of people are affected, a terrible wrong was committed against them. At least the Department, through the Minister, has now acknowledged this wrong and is trying to do something about it. What is the timeframe for rolling out the scheme?
A wrong was committed against the farmers concerned who were promised something which was not delivered. The previous Government had form in that regard in that it promised the sun, moon and stars in its efforts to achieve agreements but failed to deliver because it did not have the money to do so. One of the reasons it has taken some time to provide a response to help farmers who have hen harrier designation was that the decision on designation is made by a different Department. My Department is now trying to deal with the issue because we have the finance to do so. The guts of €23 million will be spent on farmers affected by hen harrier designation. This is a significant sum for the protection of one species of bird, including its habitat, nesting conditions for breeding birds and so forth.
We expect it will take until February or thereabouts to design the amendment to the rural development programme. If we can secure EU agreement to the amendment, we will have to draw up a scheme, which will take another couple of months. I was up front with farmers on this issue. We hope applicants will be accepted into the scheme by the final quarter of next year. That is the most realistic timeframe for the locally led scheme. In the meantime, however, farmers should apply to GLAS for payments under that scheme.
I welcome the timeframe provided by the Minister. I note the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, who played a pivotal role in the scheme from a forestry point of view. Much of the land in question, particularly in my local area, is suitable for forestry. I am aware of a degree of anxiety in the Department to address the forestry element as well.
As representatives of the affected areas, we are anxious to see the problem in relation to the designation looked at. While it is not responsible for the designation, the Department has stepped into the breech to provide leadership in resolving the problem. Can the designation problem be looked at with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, from a forestry point of view? The Minister knows the quality of the land I am talking about. In a lot of cases, it is only suitable for forestry. While the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, is trying to deal with it, if we could get the forestry issue on the table as well, it would make a major difference to farmers.
That is actively happening. As part of the threat response plan being led and managed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, there is an assessment of whether the measures that have been put in place to protect the hen harrier have worked to date and to determine what lessons can be learned in terms of future protections. We are making the case strongly that we need to show more flexibility in relation to forestry and afforestation. There are ways to facilitate limited forestry in certain parts of those designated lands within reason if we can show that it will not interfere with or upset the habitat of the bird. That is what we are attempting to do. The threat response plan is taking some time and some people have grown frustrated with the process. As such, we have asked if we can look at the forestry elements of it as a priority, separate to the overall threat response plan, to fast-track decisions on afforestation. We are trying to have as complete a response as possible here. First, we want very strong financial supports in terms of the designation and the conditions around them. Second, we want farmers to get a commercial income where reasonable from their lands, whether through farming or afforestation. We will come back to the Deputy when we have a conclusion on that.
11. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if a formal investigation was conducted into the farm investment scheme and into the farm waste management scheme; the reason a landowner (details supplied) was not notified of such formal investigations, or of their outcomes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41239/15]
I ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if a formal investigation was conducted into the farm investment scheme and the farm waste management schemes and the reason a landowner, whose details are supplied, was not notified of a formal investigation or the outcomes. Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
The Deputy seems to be making a habit of trying to raise legal cases in the House. I could not answer his last question and I cannot answer this or the next question either. I have the same answer on all of them. The case is subject to legal proceedings involving the named person and the Department and therefore I cannot comment at this juncture. I have the exact same answer for the next question. The place to resolve legal proceedings is not the House. We have an appeals process that I would like to think is effective, independent and that works for people, but if someone decides to go to court to resolve a difference of opinion on a decision the Department has made, it is impossible for me to comment in any way that is helpful without impacting on those cases. I have been asked not to do that.
I am not asking the Minister to get into legal jargon. All I am asking is whether a formal investigation concluded, if the person was informed and, if not, why did that not happen at the beginning. I am not trying to back the Minister into a corner and telling him to be judge and jury. All I am looking for is a straight answer.
There would be no problem answering that question if legal proceedings had not begun. Once something goes into our legal office to prepare the defence of the position of the Department, I will not get into providing details that may be used at a later stage as part of evidence in court. That would be very foolish of me. I encourage Deputies and farmers who have issues and concerns about how the Department does its business and how the appeals process is working to let us know. If they feel it is unfair, we need to hear about it. Once a person decides to take on a solicitor and start legal proceedings, it is in a different category and it is hard for me to comment.
That is fair enough and I understand where the Minister is coming from. In fairness to a lot of these people to whom I have spoken in great detail, they have tried to look at every angle. Some of it was before the Minister's time and I do not lay the blame entirely at his door. There are always windows of opportunity to resolve problems, but if doors are locked and the hatches are battened down, it is very difficult for the ordinary punter. The last thing any farmer wants to do is go to court against a Department. If he or she feels an injustice, he or she is sometimes left with no choice.
I have said what I have to say on this. I am not trying to be unhelpful or to block anybody; I am following legal advice which I think is sensible.
