Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 2016

Vol. 931 No. 1

Other Questions

Forestry Sector

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

6. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on whether farmers engaged in forestry may be harvesting trees too early based on market considerations rather than best forestry practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37726/16]

The Woodland League has informed me it is aware of information and evidence to suggest that farmers and others involved in forestry are cutting down trees too early, at 25 years rather than 35 to 50 years, which is best forestry practice. They are doing so because of market and price considerations rather than best forestry practice. This has very serious implications for our hopes and those of the Government that forestry will play an important role in carbon sequestration.

The age at which it is best to harvest a forest depends on many things, including volume production, the risk of wind blow, sawmill requirements regarding log sizes and current market prices. Forest owners may wish to fell early, delay felling or in some cases not fell at all for their own reasons. The Department and Teagasc provide guidance to landowners on the timing of harvesting their plantations. What is of utmost importance for the Department is to ensure, through the felling licence system, that the felling and replanting is carried out in a manner that accords with sustainable forest management principles.

Rotation length is defined as the length of time between planting the trees and clear felling the final forest. There are many factors that impact on the rotation length such as species, site productivity, thinning regime, market requirements and site constraints. In addition, forests located in exposed areas may suffer from the effects of windblow resulting in the earlier harvesting of plantations. In 2014, Storm Darwin blew down more than 8,000 hectares of forest in the country.

Until recently, the majority of clear felling and replanting has been concentrated in the public estate. A significant portion of the private forest estate, particularly conifers, that were afforested in the 1980s and the early 1990s are now approaching a stage where forest owners are considering the best time to fell. In some cases forests will be thinned and in other cases clear felled, depending on the site's particular characteristics. Conifer species typically have rotations between 30 and 40 years of age, with broadleaved crops taking much longer, in some cases more than 100 years. Decisions made to clear fell crops are based on a variety of different reasons and to a large extent depend on the size of trees that the market will take. We have seen very productive stands of conifers growing to sizes suitable for sawmilling in less than 30 years.

The general principle of rotation length is to provide the optimum return to the grower, consistent with the principle of sustainable forest management. In some cases, the need to replace unproductive trees with a more productive crop or the early clear felling of trees susceptible to windblow may lead to a crop being felled earlier.

In February 2016, my Department invited tenders to assess the impact of forest felling age on overall financial return. The purpose of this work is to provide information to make growers and foresters aware of the possible impact of felling age on overall financial return. The results of this work will be made available in the coming weeks on the Department's website through a new interactive tool that allows forest owners and managers to assess the optimum felling age of their forest. The provision of this information will inform forest owners and managers on the appropriate felling age with a view to maximising the return on their investment and remaining consistent with the principle of sustainable forest management. It is vital that landowners have a positive experience from their forestry investments and that revenue from the first rotation facilitates reforestation to continue the forest cycle.

The Minister of State's reply is extremely worrying. He repeats again and again about the market, prices, financial return and so on. I am not saying those things are unimportant but there was not a single mention of the role of forestry in dealing with climate change and to act as a sink for carbon. The Government has signed the Paris Agreement. It has made commitments and rhetorical references to the important, substantial role forestry will play in all of this, yet what we hear is that, for market reasons, trees are being cut down too young. That is what I am hearing. The Minister of State is reinforcing that market conditions are determining this. Best forestry practice is that trees grow for 35 to 50 years. If we do not, as the Council for Forest Research and Development, COFORD, suggested, have a minimum of 10,000 additional hectares of forestry a year, and currently we are at 6,000 hectares, our forest estate will be a net emitter of carbon dioxide rather than a sink. If trees are being cut down early, as they are, for market reasons, our forest estate will not be playing the role it urgently needs to play in carbon sequestration.

I am a little bit mystified. The Department has €112 million a year committed to 2020 on an afforestation programme that seeks to go from 6,500 hectares, which is the correct figure, to 8,390 hectares. I do not know why that was the figure picked but that is the figure picked per annum. We hope, through certain measures, to be able to get to 7,000 hectares in the next 12 months. If the Deputy takes the current market situation, the impact of the Brexit decision on sterling has meant that prices into the UK, which is our biggest customer, have dropped by 20%. This has had a knock-on effect on the wood for standing timber for certain processors of 20% of the market price. Coupled with the fact that people can import timber from Scotland at a more competitive rate, there is no real commercial incentive to clear fell early. If the Deputy was up to speed with the current trends-----

Go raibh maith agat.

I will give the Minister of State a minute.

If Deputy Boyd Barrett was up to speed with the current trends in research, climate change and efficiency, he would know that new developments in conifers allow us to produce varieties and species of conifer that can be rotated in 30 odd years and then replanted.

Minister of State, I have been more than fair to you.

It is important that the felling licence provision which includes a replanting obligation is maintained.

Minister of State, I gave you a minute the first time and then half a minute. We have to try to be disciplined to give everyone an opportunity.

We are dealing with Other Questions.

I will be very brief.

Do I get another question?

It will be a short one.

If I had my way-----

Hold on. Standing Orders state that during Priority Questions only the person who tables the question can ask a supplementary question. During Other Questions, other Members may make a request.

I get a supplementary question as well. Is that correct?

I will be brief and I appreciate everyone's co-operation. I have a background in horticulture. If I had my way, many of those conifer trees would not be grown.

A question, please.

Many of these are pollutants. Anyone who looks at what comes down major drains from forests can see the goo and the green algae. It is shocking. My part of the country includes Roscommon and Galway. Deputy Kenny has spoken about something similar in Leitrim. We are being encouraged left, right and centre to promote forestry.

A question, please.

It will devastate our communities. I am a realist. I know some of the land is only fit for forestry. However, people involved in forestry are buying up good land. Our area is going to become no-go land.

A question, please.

What is the response of the Minister of State to the case I am making in terms of controlling this type of forestry, especially in the west and north west of the country?

The Minister of State can deal with both questions.

Moving to 8,000 ha still leaves us 2,000 ha short of what COFORD, the forestry research authority, has stated is the absolute minimum necessary for us to have real afforestation and for our forestry estate to be an effective carbon sink.

The Brexit problem simply highlights the need for diversification away from single species and so on. That we are vulnerable in that area too-----

A question, please.

Is there any consideration that market conditions are leading to us failing to deliver on our afforestation programme and its role in carbon mitigation?

The Minister of State can take both questions.

I have two divergent views before me.

There are three.

Indeed, there is a third view. There is much misinformation coming from both sides. I come from the county that has the highest percentage of forest coverage. It has not destroyed our community. We have large tracts of land planted for many years. It has sustained a rural economy.

Every plantation felled has to be replanted. That is an obligation. We have an afforestation programme.

What about new planting?

I do not know where Deputy Boyd Barrett is getting his figures. I will go back and check it with COFORD. As far as I am concerned, we have 11% cover in the country. Our target is to get to 18%. Let us consider the facts and figures behind the specifics in Roscommon and in Leitrim in particular. Last year, 82% of all plantations were undertaken by private owners. No companies were investing. There are reasons behind that, although that is not something I want to get into today. There is extensive misinformation. However, I will invite anyone to my part of the world to see the positive impact on the local economy that afforestation has had. We have 17.7% cover, the highest in the country.

Bovine Disease Controls

Clare Daly

Question:

7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 41 of 27 October 2016 when it is likely that the data necessary to deploy a badger vaccination strategy in an effective and sustainable manner will be available; his views on the delays to date in rolling out such a scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37692/16]

Badgers, as we know, are a protected species, yet the Department annually culls 6,000 of them in a practice which the Irish Wildlife Trust has described as inhumane and barbaric. The trust has cited many instances of lactating females being culled while their cubs are left to starve underground.

We have long been promised a vaccination programme as an alternative. What is going on? When will it be implemented?

As I mentioned in my response to Parliamentary Question No. 41 on 27 October, it is my Department's intention to deploy a full badger vaccination strategy as soon as robust scientific evidence becomes available that demonstrates such a programme is practicable and will deliver an outcome equivalent to the existing wildlife programme. In this context, my Department is involved in a range of research activities with a view to progressing the development of a vaccination system for badgers.

While research has demonstrated that oral vaccination of badgers in a captive environment with the bacillus calmette–guérin vaccine generates high levels of protective immunity against challenge with bovine tuberculosis, field trials are being undertaken by my Department to determine whether vaccination is also effective in the field. A vaccine trial in Kilkenny has been completed and results are expected to be published in 2017. In addition, trials are being conducted in six separate locations throughout the country, involving the vaccination by intramuscular injection of several hundred badgers over three to four years and continual monitoring of the badger population to assess the impact of the vaccine on the incidence of disease in the cattle population. The outcome of these field trials will eventually determine whether the vaccination of badgers delivers an outcome equivalent to the current badger removal strategy. These projects are due to conclude in 2018.

It is also the case that no TB vaccine is currently licensed for anything other than humans in Ireland and any new preparation for badgers would have to be licensed under EU medicines legislation. My Department is collaborating with UCD and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the United Kingdom in carrying out the research needed to prepare a dossier for submission to the licensing authorities in Ireland and the UK for authorisation of a licence for an oral vaccine for badgers. In addition, research is being carried out in Ireland and in the United Kingdom on suitable bait delivery methods for an oral vaccine to ensure that, when such a vaccine is licensed, an effective delivery method is available.

There is no delay in rolling out a vaccination programme. There is currently no vaccine licensed for badgers and my Department is engaged in several research projects with a view to submitting a dossier to the licensing authorities for a licence for an oral vaccine. In addition, my Department is conducting trials to determine whether vaccination is as effective as badger culling in reducing the incidence of TB in cattle and to identify suitable vaccine bait delivery methods. My Department is hopeful that this research will be successful and that a vaccination strategy will be a significant element of the national TB control programme. I emphasise that our ultimate objective is to incorporate badger vaccination into the TB eradication programme when data are available to ensure that it can be incorporated into the programme in an optimally effective and sustainable manner.

Rabies was eliminated from European foxes using baited vaccine many years ago. The idea that we have been discussing a vaccination programme for badgers for 25 years is quite shocking. The Minister's reply to the effect that it will take us a further two years before we see any progress in this direction is most worrying. This is against the backdrop of firm information to the effect that the badger population and its sustainability are under threat because of the practices in which we have been engaging.

The studies conducted by the Department cover 5% of Ireland's farmland, not a vast area. Meanwhile, the UK has spent over a decade culling badgers. Scientists in the UK have done a gold standard study over ten years. One conclusion of the study was that culling made no meaningful contribution to the control of bovine TB in Britain. Moreover, the study concluded that badger infection follows rather than leads TB infections in cattle.

There is no conclusive evidence that badgers are responsible. If anything, the information is contradictory. While TB has fallen, it is very much linked to other measures as well. We need to look at the sustainability of the badger population. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we do everything possible to move in the direction that everyone says we need to go.

There is another side to this debate to which Deputy Daly is blind-sided. It relates to the extraordinary hardship that a TB outbreak brings to the farming community. I know this because I represent the people affected in my constituency. When a dairy, beef or suckler herd is wiped out by TB, farmers, in conjunction with the Department, are most keen to find out whether it was an issue relating to contiguous herds or whether the source was elsewhere. Often, the finger is pointed conclusively at badger sets.

We are not operating in isolation on this matter. We are working with the UK authorities to find out the most effect way to deal with this. We are cognisant of the legislation that gives badgers protected status. However, in the order of priority, I believe the livelihood of farmers and their herds take precedence. We are doing everything possible to work to a situation whereby we can implement a vaccination programme. However, there is no vaccine. I suspect the evidence quoted by Deputy Daly to the effect that there is no link between badgers and TB is not shared by the UK authorities. In fact, I believe there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

I am very concerned about the livelihood of farmers and would love to see the eradication of TB and welcome the fact that it has declined. The points I make are scientific and backed up by research. The evidence shows that TB has declined for a number of reasons. For example, evidence from a 2015 survey by University College Dublin and indeed members of the Minister's Department describes very clearly instances in which a decline in cattle infection appeared to be directly correlated to badger culling, absolutely, but there were other examples where culling appeared to have little or no effect. In 2011, the Minister's Department found considerable, but not conclusive, evidence of this situation. The matters raised in the UK studies to which I referred come directly from the mouth of the vet who led the study. He said:

Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to [cattle] control in Britain. Indeed some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better.

They are his words. This is a scientific argument. The Minister's Department already agrees that we need to move to vaccination. I argue that should be done, moving mountains to do it as quickly as possible, because the badger population does not have the luxury of waiting.

There is no stakeholder in this that wants to see a resolution more quickly than the farming community. My Department is not in the slipstream of this either: we are in the vanguard in driving it. However, we must have a rational, scientific basis on which to proceed. In the interim, where badger issues associated with TB outbreaks in particular areas are identified - the Department investigates each individual case and tries to identify its causes - the culling, which is part of the eradication programme at present, will continue. It is our preference to arrive at a scientific rationale for a vaccination programme and a method of administering a practical and effective oral vaccination programme. It would not be money well spent to proceed on any basis other than a rational one. There is a bigger picture to be borne in mind, namely, the enormous hardship associated with TB breakdown. Simply to turn our back on the culling programme while we await the optimum solution would be unwise.

Beef Exports

Willie Penrose

Question:

8. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views as to whether enough new markets can be attained which pay a viable price to Irish farmers to replace lost customers in Europe in view of a European Commission impact analysis of future trade deals suggesting a potential increase in beef exports to Europe of up to 356,000 tonnes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37562/16]

There is a host of market opportunities for the beef industry. It is clear that we are in favour of free trade because we export more than 90% of our beef. Otherwise we would be in an awful scenario. However, we must be cognisant of our defensive agreements in that regard and in the context of other competing agreements, especially European free trade agreements, and of Brexit. It looks as if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, is dead anyhow with the advent of President-elect Trump. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, with Canada and other world trade options and agreements also must be considered. Mercosur should probably be considered as well. These are all challenges, particularly for the beef sector. I am anxious that these be addressed by the Department.

As an exporting country, accessing new markets is crucial to the long-term sustainability of our agrifood sector, especially in the beef sector. For beef exports, 2015 was a very successful year. According to the CSO, overall exports of beef totalled some €2.2 billion that year. Beef exports to the end of September 2016 are running at €1.65 billion.

Third-country markets are an increasingly important alternative outlet for the beef industry. My Department works very closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Bord Bia, the industry and the European Commission on a wide range of market access issues to secure additional markets and maintain and enhance the existing markets. I am acutely aware of the need to develop new and alternative markets, given the changing global demographics and emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere. This is a crucial component of the Food Wise 2025 strategy and has been given an added impetus by the outcome of the UK referendum on Brexit.

In this context, and as I alluded to earlier, the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, and I led successful trade missions to China, Vietnam, South Korea and Singapore. These missions resulted in positive progress on the next steps in gaining beef market access to China, South Korea and Vietnam, including, inter alia, a commitment by the Chinese officials in the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, AQSIQ, to expedite consideration of a technical inspection report from their visit to Ireland earlier this year as well as the submission of detailed beef questionnaires to the relevant authorities in South Korea and Vietnam.  Earlier this month, I led a trade mission to Morocco, and my officials also travelled to Algeria, with a focus on live cattle exports. Live cattle exports to Turkey also commenced in September following our recent approval to export live cattle there.

Planning for trade missions during 2017 has now commenced and beef market access will be a key component of any such missions. Furthermore, my Department is in the process of reviewing its approach to market access and the resources allocated therein in accordance with new and emerging challenges and priorities such as Brexit and the potential for increased beef imports to the European Union.

As a small open economy, Ireland supports trade liberalisation and recognises the benefits of trade agreements with third countries. However, such agreements must be balanced and must serve our offensive and defensive interests. I welcome the Commission's cumulative assessment of the economic impact of future trade agreements on the EU agricultural sector, which was recently presented to all member states. It reinforces Ireland's position regarding the beef industry and is a salutary reminder of the need for great caution in our approach to the issue of beef tariff rate quotas. This is an issue we and other member states have raised consistently and the study findings very clearly confirm the basis for these concerns. I also believe that the study findings must be taken into account in the approach to current and future negotiations on free trade agreements.

I thank the Minister for his response. We all must salute the excellent work of Bord Bia in this regard. It has employed about 20 additional personnel, some even after the recent Brexit scenario. Will the Minister provide additional resources to Bord Bia to ensure that it can be helped to penetrate the high quality markets that will now be extremely important and to accentuate Origin Green and the quality and sustainability of beef? In that context, is the Minister concerned about the possible impact of the Mercosur agreement, particularly regarding Brazilian beef and so on and the impact that it would have on the British market in the context of lower prices? In 2006, over 100,000 tonnes of beef imports to the UK came from South America. The equivalent figure in 2015 was just 30,000 tonnes. Brazilian beef made up 9% of beef imports to the UK in 2015; in 2006, the equivalent figure was 20%. This shows the potential knock-on impact this agreement would have on beef farmers in Ireland.

I am extremely concerned about the fact that a post-Brexit scenario, in which the UK can unilaterally conduct its own trade negotiations, could lead to the UK doing a deal with the Mercosur countries or other countries in respect of imports of a range of commodities, including beef, which could have the impact of undermining our position on UK supermarket shelves. One of the messages on which we wanted to reassure our trading partners in the UK in particular was our commitment to the highest standards of safe, sustainable, traceable food. That commitment is undiminished by the fact that we may go in separate directions after the Brexit negotiations. This brings into sharp focus the points the Deputy raised about Mercosur.

Regarding additional resources for Bord Bia, in the budget this year there is provision for a significantly increased budget for Bord Bia. I am acutely conscious of the challenges it faces, in particular the immediate challenges in the context of the sterling differential, which has put Irish exporters in a very difficult situation. Nowhere has this become more manifest than in the mushroom and wider horticulture sectors. This informed my deliberations in the context of the budget as to what resources each organisation should get.

I take this opportunity to commend the outgoing CEO of Bord Bia, Aidan Cotter, who has led the organisation in sterling fashion since his appointment, and to wish the incoming CEO, Tara McCarthy, all the best in her appointment in what is a very challenging environment for the agrifood sector.

I join the Minister in wishing Aidan Cotter well. He has served for over three decades. He was an excellent CEO and very knowledgeable. We should consider not only Mercosur, but also the Commonwealth agreements and Canadian agreements that will come forward. There is a whole host of agreements. Is it not the case that we need to put in place people who will be in a position to deal with all these agreements?

Regarding live exports, is the Minister concerned about recent developments in the calf trade and so on in his home county? I noticed there was a particular reluctance or disengagement regarding trade in Cork. What impact would that have on the provision of alternative opportunities or competition? We know the way factories behave. If they get a small glut at all, there is only one place they point to, namely, farmers' pockets, to rob and plunder them while the factories continue on their merry-go-round in the absence of competition.

I thank the Deputy for observing the minute.

Yes, I am concerned about the matters the Deputy raises.

With the expansion of the dairy herd, one of the critical elements in putting a floor and competitive edge in the market is the live export section. In particular, it is about getting Friesian bull calves out of the country early. The withdrawal of Cork Co-operative Marts from that process is a worry. I confess I have spoken directly with its representatives and their view is that this is a market opportunity that will be taken up by others. I hope that is the case and others in that space should be looking at where the trade opportunity was and how they might fill the vacuum created by that departure. In particular, I welcome the recent announcement that there will be live exports to Libya starting shortly, which is important.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Mick Wallace

Question:

9. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the recent figures released by the Environmental Protection Agency, which indicate that Ireland's agriculture emissions increased by 1.5% in 2015, largely due to a 7.7% increase in dairy cow numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37567/16]

This is a different perspective on the beef industry. Red meat is one of the most unsustainable sources of protein on earth and the Government's policy seems to ignore that. Increased consumption of red meat is a threat to global food security and according to the peer-reviewed journal, Science, at least 4 billion people could be fed with the crops we currently devote to fattening livestock. The production of a single kilogram of beef is equal to 24 kg of wheat in terms of effort, water, fertiliser, greenhouse gases and cropland needed that goes into its production. Are there any long-term plans to help farmers move towards a more sustainable position in terms of food production?

There will always be a demand for protein and the Deputy's bias against red meat-----

I love red meat.

That is not reflected either in the Deputy's introduction to this question or the previous questions he has asked of my Department.

The recent figures that the Deputy refers to are provisional greenhouse gas emissions figures for 2015. Although they indicate a 1.5% increase in agriculture emissions, these figures include an additional category of emissions that were not included in previous inventories. The figures indicate an increase in dairy cows but they also demonstrate a decrease in other cattle, and this is in line with expectations where it is envisaged there will be reorientation of the national herd towards dairy. It is also worth noting that milk production increased 13.2%, which indicates a decrease in emissions intensity of production. This reflects national plans to expand milk production under Food Wise 2025 following the removal of milk quotas in 2015.

Any increase in emissions is a concern but I point out that Irish agriculture has made significant progress in improving efficiency. We have been driving down emissions intensity and in 2013 the emissions intensity per calorie of food output reduced by approximately 14% relative to 2005 and overall absolute emissions remain 2.7% below 2005 levels. We have introduced a range of measures in our rural development plan to make Irish farming even more environmentally sustainable.

We will continue our efforts to ensure the sector can grow, prosper and meet the increasing world demand for food in a sustainable manner. I am committed to maintaining our ambition to move towards carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production.

The Minister's argument ignores the fact that rearing cattle for beef is, in itself, a destructive practice. It is like arguing we should burn coal, peat or oil in an efficient way while ignoring the fact that we must stop burning fossil fuels if we are interested in protecting the environment. Research from Bard College in New York indicates that beef's environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat, including chicken and pork. It uses 28 times more land and 11 times more water than those other meats. Increases in meat consumption in rich countries in recent decades has led to spikes in the price of grain used for animal feed, as well as leading to widespread deforestation and pressure on agricultural land. It has also contributed to the obesity epidemic.

The Minister's claim that we can produce beef more sustainably than other countries is true but the fact remains that we are heading in the wrong direction. The production of beef is more strongly linked to emissions than anything else in the agricultural sector. We seem to be going off a cliff at this stage. The Minister has indicated we are increasing the dairy herd and reducing the beef stock but there would be no milk without calves. Is it not true that we are bound to have more calves if we are to have more milk?

The logic of the Deputy's position is that we should dismantle what is among the most carbon-efficient producers of food, be it in dairy or beef. He is saying we should dismantle our system in favour of substituting our industry with imports with a far bigger carbon footprint per unit of production. As sure as night follows day, if we dismantled our beef or dairy industry, it would not change the dietary habits of the population and we would then have to import food produced at a far bigger carbon footprint. The global population is predicted to grow substantially and the challenge is to feed those people in the most carbon-efficient fashion possible. Per unit of dairy production, we are perhaps the most efficient globally and in the European Union, we are the fifth most efficient producer of beef. Could we do more or should we do more? Certainly, and that is why we have programmes like beef data and genomics, which address matters of food conversion, herd fertility and other elements to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, is also about reducing our carbon footprint. We have been very innovative in the area, including using the carbon navigator. We are doing all the right things. Although we will need to do more, it is disrespectful to the industry to undermine it in such a public fashion when it has shown a commitment to addressing the issue in real and practical ways.

I have never suggested we dismantle the industry but I am saying we should manage it a little better. It is a great industry and I am not saying otherwise. We are nonetheless heading in a direction where, currently, we are probably overproducing. I can guarantee the Minister that the beef price will be lower this time next year because of increasing numbers.

An Taisce stated recently that the increases in beef and dairy volume and exports are undercutting food security and promoting overconsumption both in the European Union and international markets, where increased overconsumption has and will continue to intensify climate change. It argues that unless the agricultural sector makes significant strides to change the direction of its actions, the agrifood industry in Ireland will continue down a path of unsustainability to meet short-term economic gains at the cost of long-term issues like environmental degradation, climate change and the continuation of the negative cycle of poor food security. I do not for one minute underestimate the role of agriculture in Ireland, how good are our farmers or the quality of food we produce. Nevertheless, we are ignoring the elephant in the room and if we go in this direction, we will not address the challenges of climate change in Ireland.

The Deputy wants us all eating muesli or tofu. We must reward the people who are the most carbon-efficient producers of food. The Deputy must accept we cannot be prescriptive about people's dietary habits. If people want to eat red meat, they should have it from the most carbon-efficient producers of red meat.

The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Health, may have a different view.

They should have dairy produce from the most carbon-efficient producers of dairy products. As the Deputy points the finger at Irish agriculture, the alternative is that in undermining its credentials from a sustainability perspective - we should remember it is a grass-based production system, which is the most sustainable type - he undermines the commitment to doing more by arguing that Irish agriculture is not up to meeting the challenges. We have done much and we recognise we must do more. Equally, we would like some acknowledgement for the steps taken so far.

The Minister is ignoring my points.

Horticulture Sector

Willie Penrose

Question:

10. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the action which has been taken to support the Irish mushroom industry in light of Brexit; his future plans in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37566/16]

One of the first casualties of the UK's June decision on Brexit and the consequential fluctuation in sterling was the mushroom industry. At least four significant farms have gone to the wall and more will follow. More than 90% of our mushrooms are exported to Britain and it behoves us all to design an appropriate scheme of help for the producers at this critical juncture for the industry.

I am keenly aware of the challenge that the mushroom sector is experiencing in the aftermath of the British referendum decision to exit the European Union. In particular, in light of the recent fluctuations in currency, I am focused on working with the industry to meet these difficulties in the months and years ahead.

A payment of just under €1.57 million was made to one of our mushroom producer organisations in October. The budget for 2017 underpins my Department’s efforts through strategic investment in key areas, such as its agencies and the agrifood sector. As part of the budget, additional funding of €700,000 has been secured for capital investments in the commercial horticulture sector. This will increase the budget for this scheme to €5 million next year. The horticulture sector will also have access to the €150 million low-interest cashflow loan support that was announced last month in the budget. This will provide access to highly flexible loans for up to six years for amounts up to €150,000 at an interest rate of 2.95%.

The impact of the devaluation of sterling on mushroom producers and grower margins is a problem that has developed over a short space of time. Grower production of this highly perishable product must be well aligned with demand. The mushroom sector is at particular risk because of its high dependency on the UK market. I am monitoring closely the situation with regard to sterling volatility. The Minister has established a dedicated unit in the Department to consider the direct impact of Brexit on the industry. There has been a modest reversal in the decreasing sterling exchange rate, with sterling now holding at approximately 85p to the euro. The Department and the various State agencies, particularly Bord Bia, Teagasc and Enterprise Ireland, are working closely with the industry to provide the necessary support and assistance. Bord Bia is actively supporting this sector in the areas of market intelligence, UK consumer research and quality assurance. It recently held a currency and negotiation workshop that was specifically targeted at the sector. I understand this was well received by the mushroom industry.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Bord Bia is running a marketing intensification programme that aims to provide targeted marketing supports to companies with high dependency on UK markets. Grant supports will be prioritised to assist companies in strengthening their position in that market and in their efforts to identify new markets. In the coming weeks, I will continue to meet senior executives from the UK retailers to highlight the obstacles producers are facing. I understand that representatives of our growers have received a more positive reaction from their UK multiple customers in recent weeks as they have sought to make the case for fair and reasonable returns for their produce from the marketplace.

I draw attention to the support being provided to the industry through national and EU schemes. Under the 2007-13 national development plan, the Department implemented the scheme of investment aid for the development of the commercial horticulture sector. During this period, the Department paid out €4,039,629 in grant payments to mushroom growers. This supported €10.1 million in investment. To ensure ongoing support for the sector, my Department extended the horticulture investment aid scheme under EU sanction to run until 31 December 2019. In 2014 and 2015, a total of €1,635,190 in grant aid was paid to mushroom growers. This supported investment of €4.1 million by those growers. Under the 2016 horticulture investment aid scheme, my Department issued approvals of €1.33 million in aid to growers in the mushroom sector, supporting €3.3 million in proposed investment. I will provide a commitment to ensure payments under this scheme are made as early as possible to try to alleviate financial pressures growers are facing. The EU producer organisation scheme is a vital support for mushroom growers. Approximately 65% of Irish growers are in a producer organisation at present. This scheme is an important mechanism that allows growers to achieve greater bargaining power in the marketplace by becoming part of a larger supply base. A total of €39.8 million was paid to mushroom producer organisations as part of the producer organisation scheme between 2005 and 2015.

While the establishment of the cashflow support agricultural loan scheme is welcome, I suggest it is a kind of patchwork solution. More concrete measures are needed. The grant payments that were mentioned by the Minister of State are always delayed. It is incredible. Grant payments to the mushroom industry always come at the very end. When this matter was considered by the agriculture committee, complaints were made about the slow payment of grants.

Given that the mushroom industry is located in rural Ireland, including areas where people would never qualify for any other schemes, and in light of the importance of providing work for rural people, surely the rendering of temporary assistance to the industry should be considered to help it to get over this problem and to secure its future. Perhaps a temporary reduction in employers' PRSI from 8.5% to 4.25%, as was done in 2012 and 2013 to assist other industries, could be considered as a way of helping this industry to get over the hump in the interim.

I appreciate the points that have been made by the Deputy. As my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Creed, mentioned in an earlier response, he is going to London again to meet his UK counterpart, Andrea Leadsom. He has made several similar trips to meet the chief executives of the various retail multiples that sell Irish produce on to consumers. These multiples are our customers in our biggest market. The reality is that if they do not buy into the problems we are encountering as a result of the fluctuations in the value of sterling, a solution that will work in the long term cannot be found. I think that has been recognised.

The Department is working closely with the various players, including some of the major players, to develop a long-term strategy that will provide some kind of mudguard against this kind of fluctuation in the future. It will not be easy to develop such a strategy in the absence of a stark realisation on the part of our purchasers in the UK that they need to act as well. That is why such an effort is being made to reaffirm to them the point that they must make a gesture that shows they are prepared to increase prices. Irish producers are doing everything right. They supply a product of the highest possible quality and they do so on time.

I remind anyone who might be planning ahead that there are just ten minutes left on Question Time.

Agriculture Schemes

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

11. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland's new agrifund will be available for farmers to be drawn down; the outcome if all funds are not drawn down in the window for which the fund will remain open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37707/16]

I would like the Minister to give the House an update on the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland's new agrifund. When will it be available to farmers to draw down funding? Where exactly is it at the moment? Does the Minister expect it to be taken up in full? If not, will he extend the period of time that is available for qualification purposes?

I announced earlier this month that the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland has invited financial institutions to take part in the agriculture cashflow support loan scheme. A number of applications were submitted by the closing date of 25 November. They will now be the subject of a formal approval process. This scheme will enable farmers to improve the management of their cashflow and reduce the cost of their short-term borrowings. The loan scheme forms part of the three-pillar strategy in response to income volatility that I announced as part of last month's budget. Along with tax measures and farm payments, it will alleviate some of the pressures being caused by the current market difficulties. The Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland intends that the loans will be available in the market by the end of January 2017.

The scheme, with total funding of €150 million, will support highly flexible loans for up to six years for amounts up to €150,000 at an interest rate of 2.95%. This rate will represent a significant saving for farmers compared to other forms of unsecured short-term finance that are available. The loans will be flexible, with interest-only facilities of up to three years. While normal lending assessment criteria will apply, the fact that the loans will be unsecured will facilitate a more straightforward application process. The public funding of €25 million provided for the scheme includes €11.1 million from the EU’s exceptional adjustment aid for milk and other livestock farmers. The need for this scheme has been identified. It is expected it will be fully drawn down.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he give us an update on when exactly he expects banks to issue loans to farmers and these moneys to end up in farmers' accounts? It has been reported in the media that the timeframe for the scheme is being pushed out. It has been indicated that it will not be up and running until April or May. The idea underpinning the fund is that it will alleviate the cashflow problems that are being encountered in many sectors of agriculture. It is absolutely crucial for it to be made available as promptly as possible.

The Minister indicated that "normal lending assessment criteria will apply". Obviously, it will be unsecured. Will this mean that farmers who are under particular pressure because of cashflow difficulties will be excluded from the scheme? The Minister has refused to heed repeated calls to assist farmers in the tillage sector who are in crisis because they have lost many of their crops. I know they will be able to make applications under this scheme, but I suggest it is not the answer for them. Will he accept the rationale and need for a crisis fund to assist these farmers? Will he introduce such a scheme as quickly as possible?

On the final point made by the Deputy, this was one of measures the tillage farmers asked for when I met them. They also asked for a targeted agricultural modernisation scheme for the tillage sector and such a scheme will be announced in January 2017. They also sought to be included in the knowledge transfer and this has happened. The Deputy's assertion that this scheme is not what tillage farmers want is wide of the mark. In fact, it is what they asked for. Their access to it is funded through the €14 million that was provided by the Exchequer and thereby made available under de minimis rules, which allow for exemptions from state aid exclusion categories.

They have also asked for a crisis fund.

They have. I appreciate that. The beef industry has asked for compensation of €200 million for suckler cows. There is no shortage of people asking for help. We have to be realistic about what the State can afford. I appreciate the difficulties that are being faced in this sector. I do not believe the response to the myriad of issues being faced in the sector has been bad. While these are very challenging times for the tillage sector, I emphasise that we have implemented some measures. When the Deputy asked when the loan scheme will be up and running, he referred to media coverage suggesting that it might not happen until April or May. The chief executive of the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, Nick Ashmore, gave an update on the scheme to the participants in a recent beef forum meeting. He indicated that the corporation is operating to a January 2017 deadline. The Deputy also asked whether normal terms of lending will apply. Surely he is not suggesting we should make loans available to people who do not have the repayment capacity.

What about those in crisis, including tillage farmers?

It has been agreed that Deputy O'Keeffe will ask the second supplementary question.

We appreciate the work of the Minister in arranging this invaluable loan initiative. It came about as a result of the crisis in the dairy sector, which seems to be being resolved.

I support Deputy McConalogue in respect of this issue. The concern is that no matter what bank one approaches, the person with the best accounts for the previous year will get priority, and that has to be agreed here. The Minister mentioned that the tillage sector wants everything. We know there has been a collapse in crop prices but there is part of the tillage sector which had no crops to harvest last year. Some farmers did not even sow any crops so they cannot generate income. The concern is that the Minister is not focusing on the tillage sector, where there was a major mishap. I understand the concern about the collapse in prices in the grain sector, which we all accept is bad for the economy. However, part of the sector has experienced a total reduction in its income. I cannot see how farmers can go to any of the banks to ask for loans.

The point I want to make is that, in the context of the negotiations I had at the tillage stakeholders meeting, there was a range of requests, including some relating to the matters the Deputy raised. However, there is a limit to the resources available and it was felt that it was best to do something strategic. At the meeting in question, for example, a figure quoted by one of the participants was that 80% of the spring barley crop is planted on the basis of merchant credit. Merchant credit costs are equivalent to credit card costs. If this product can, at a rate of 2.95%, substitute for merchant credit, it will be far more effective and will improve cash flow. There are other more critical structural issues for the tillage industry that need to be grappled with but this is one response. It is not a panacea and I do not have the silver bullet that will solve all of the issues for the industry. However, it is an attempt to recognise the sector's critical importance and to do something in the context of the very difficult year those who operate within it have experienced.

Climate Change Policy

Mick Wallace

Question:

12. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department will create a roadmap for achieving the agriculture aspect of the 2050 carbon emission targets, as recommended in the first report of the Climate Change Advisory Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37568/16]

I call Deputy Wallace. I remind him that there might not be time for a supplementary question.

It was disappointing to read the sections on agriculture in the first report of the Climate Change Advisory Council. It is not clear that there is a strong appetite among the members of the advisory council to address the rising levels of greenhouse gases in the sector. The council's approach is summed up by the following sentence from its report, "an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry [is envisaged] which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production." The report does not define "carbon neutrality" or "sustainable food production". The Minister might do so.

The Climate Change Advisory Council has stated in its report that the national mitigation plan should provide a roadmap to achieve the national 2050 mitigation objective, which, for agriculture, is an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production.  I am disappointed that the Deputy would rail against that specific provision. If there is a growing global population, those people have to be fed, so one does not dismantle food production systems on the altar of carbon efficiency, although people must be fed in the most carbon efficient manner.

My Department has been actively involved in the development of the national mitigation plan, which is being led by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment.  The agriculture and forestry sectoral contribution to the plan, outlining the mitigation actions we are taking in the sector, has been submitted as part of that process.

Irish agricultural production has been independently and internationally recognised as one of the most climate and resource-efficient agrifood production systems in the world.  That is not self-praise. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre report of 2010, Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions, recognised that Ireland, with Austria, has the lowest cow milk emissions as well as the lowest emissions per kilo of pork. However, there is no room for complacency and we will continue to work with all stakeholders to find even greater efficiencies and reduce emissions further. This will not be an easy task, particularly in light of the limited cost-effective mitigation options available in agriculture. However, we continue to make efforts, and polices such as Food Wise 2025 provide a framework for the sector to engage with the national mitigation plan and for the development of a common vision of transition to a low carbon future.

If we wanted to deal with food security, we would lean a lot more towards tillage because we can feed many more people through tillage than through beef. Beef is feeding the rich world but it is not feeding anything like the same numbers elsewhere. With the same resources that go into producing 1 kg of beef, we can produce 24 kg of food from tillage. Consequently, there is no comparison.

It suits the Minister's argument to make out that I am attacking the farmers. I was born on a 36 acre farm and I reared pigs for years. I had 500 pigs at one point.

We are the most carbon-efficient producers of pork.

I am interested in food production. Ireland should have an educational programme promoting less consumption of red meat and a healthier diet. This notion that we will continue to produce more and more beef for the export market does not make any sense.

Before the Minister responds, I would like to apologise to Deputies McConalogue and Martin Kenny, who have waited patiently for more questions, but the time has expired. The Minister has one minute and there will be no more supplementary questions.

I do not mean to undermine Deputy Wallace's bona fides in respect of livestock; I think he has done that himself. He is singing the praises of the tillage sector. We need all of the sectors but we need balance in the debate as well. The Deputy should make himself a little better informed about carbon sequestration in the tillage sector. We need balance in the debate. We are committed in the agriculture sector and in my Department to reducing the carbon footprint further. The net point is that we have done a lot but we have some considerable distance to go. It would be foolish to sacrifice us on the altar of climate change and have the required food production outsourced to countries that have far larger carbon footprints. That would be illogical in the extreme. While we have more to do across all the sectors, including dairy, beef, tillage and forestry, we have travelled some considerable distance, something for which we never get any credit.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share