I welcome the Minister, Deputies and staff to another day of work.
Priority Questions
Common Agricultural Policy Review
Charlie McConalogue
Question:1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking at European Union level to ensure a fully funded Common Agricultural Policy post 2020 and to prevent cuts to the existing budget in the next programme over 2021 to 2027; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18460/18]
I ask the Minister the steps he is taking at European Union level to ensure delivery of a fully funded Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, post 2020, and to ensure there will be no cuts to the existing budget in the next programme, which will run from 2021 to 2027. The Minister knows the CAP represents up to 75% of average farm incomes and it is absolutely crucial that the budget be maintained. There is a tremendous onus on the Minister to do everything within his capacity at a European level to ensure the budget is protected. I look forward to hearing what steps he is taking to achieve that objective.
The future of the CAP is of enormous importance for the agriculture sector in Ireland and across Europe. The CAP has evolved considerably and very effectively in recent years in response to changing market, consumer and environmental demands. It also plays a central role in delivering the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth sought under the Europe 2020 strategy. It is important that the CAP continues to evolve in a way that supports the achievement of European priorities, particularly in the context of securing a strong CAP budget for the post-2020 period. This can only be achieved by reinforcing the relevance and effectiveness of the policy in helping to achieve broader societal goals. This is something that I strongly believe in and will continue to actively pursue at Council level as the debate on the future CAP and its budget intensifies over the coming months.
There will be budgetary challenges arising not only from the UK decision to exit the European Union but also from the need to address other EU policy challenges such as those relating to migration, security and growth. In that regard, the CAP should not be seen as a policy of the past, and it is already addressing some of these new challenges. The Taoiseach, in his address to the European Parliament in January 2018, already indicated that Ireland is open to contributing more to the EU budget but only if the money is spent on policies that contribute to the advancement of the European ideal. More clarity will be provided next Wednesday, 2 May, when the European Commission publishes its multi-annual financial framework, MFF, proposals.
Key to delivering as strong a CAP budget as possible is ensuring that we form alliances with like-minded member states where it is possible. In that context, I regularly meet my European ministerial colleagues at the Council of European Agriculture Ministers and separately in more formal bilateral meetings. In that regard, on 16 April, I met the Austrian Agriculture Minister and on 25 April I met the Dutch Agriculture Minister. This will be followed by meetings with the French, Germany and Danish Ministers on 2 May and 3 May. These meetings give me the opportunity to discuss future CAP policy and funding. Ultimately, the approval of the MFF is a matter for the European Council and it will be ratified by the European Parliament.
As the Minister pointed out in his response, the CAP will be crucial in the next number of years for farm families right across the country. The next number of weeks will be crucial politically in how the Minister addresses this matter.
There may be up to 20 member states that at this stage have indicated a willingness to increase the budget to ensure there is no cut in the CAP or other programmes. With Brexit and the resulting €3 billion hole, there is immediate pressure on the budget, even before we consider the pressure from other budget lines with requests for increased funding. Will the Minister outline those countries that are at this stage resisting an increase to the budget? It is absolutely crucial we build alliances with like-minded countries but there is a tremendous onus on the Minister to ensure he engages with those countries that are not yet favourable to increasing the budget so as to impress upon them the importance of them contributing more to Irish agriculture, especially in light of the impact of Brexit on the agriculture sector.
To the best of my knowledge, the outliers, if I might use that term in the context of those resisting a commitment to increasing the budget contribution, include the Dutch, the Danes, the Austrians and, if I am not mistaken, the Swedes. As the Taoiseach stated, we are committed to contributing more to the EU budget. The Deputy's figures relating to the consequences of the UK departure are slightly conservative, as this could be in excess of €4 billion. As I stated, yesterday I had a meeting with the Dutch Minister and I have had bilateral meetings with the Danish and Austrian Ministers. I engage on a rolling basis in bilateral meetings with all Ministers across Europe, and I will continue to do so. Officials in my Department also meet their counterparts.
This is of enormous financial importance. The point is very often lost that we are net contributors to the EU budget; we pay more than we receive. However, in the agriculture area, the pattern in skewed in the other direction and we get more from the CAP than we contribute to that budget. It is very important and we are working effectively and diligently to try to ensure an adequately funded CAP.
The backdrop to this is of exceptional concern. The European Commission previously indicated a range of options that could mean cuts of anything from zero to 30% in the CAP budget.
In recent days, Commissioner Oettinger outlined a potential cut of 6% in the CAP budget. It is crucial that the percentage of the budget ring-fenced for CAP remains so dedicated. The overall budget must be maintained and there must be no slippage in terms of the percentage of the European budget which goes towards agriculture.
Documents relating to the next programme from the European Commission regarding the framework for CAP were leaked recently. A €60,000 maximum for single farm payments is outlined in these documents. Will the Minister back that cap given that he has failed to achieve the commitment in the programme for Government to reduce the maximum cap to €100,000? The onus is on him to ensure that he uses his offices to achieve the €60,000 cap.
As regards the option for co-financing of Pillar 1 payments, our objective must be to ensure it comes from the central EU budget. However, in a worst-case scenario where that does not happen, is the Minister open to co-financing Pillar 1 payments at State level to ensure that there will be no decrease in farmers' payments?
On the latter point, I ask the Deputy to reflect on the fact that we are absolutely resisting the co-financing of Pillar 1 payments because that would skew the performance of the Internal Market and the commonality of the agricultural policy. We must resist co-financing at every opportunity because it could mean that rich member states could put their hands in their pockets and supplement their farmers to the disadvantage of other member states. One of our core objectives is to remain the commonality of CAP.
On capping, we exhausted all opportunities in the context of the programme for Government commitment, which it was not possible to achieve within the current CAP. There is resistance across the EU to reducing the cap below €150,000. We are supportive of a reduced cap and we welcome the content in the-----
Will the Minister back the reduction to €60,000?
If the Deputy were listening, he would have heard me say that we welcome the proposal and are anxious to ensure that it is put in place.
The issue of adequate funding for CAP is a current and ongoing debate and, as the Deputy stated, proposals will shortly be published by Commissioner Oettinger, who is responsible for the budget. However, that is not the end of it and these matters will develop in the coming months. We have categorically stated that we are prepared to increase our contribution. We have also stated that we acknowledge that Europe faces new challenges in terms of security, etc., but that such new challenges require new money rather than raiding the budget of an existing and successful policy.
Basic Payment Scheme
Martin Kenny
Question:2. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to introduce a flat-rate basic payments system based on a payment per hectare rather than the almost 20-year old system based on a historical reference year. [18344/18]
As the Minister is aware, Commissioner Hogan this morning mentioned that the new CAP is going to be more made in Dublin than Brussels. Specifically, in the context of the basic payments under Pillar 1, the traditional method of referring to 2000 or 2001 to decide the amount of payment farmers will receive is almost 20 years old. Most farmers understand that it does not work anymore and a new system must be put in place. Is the Government prepared to consider the possibility of a flat-rate payment per hectare, some of which would be front-loaded to ensure that smallholders get the best payment possible in order to secure family farms?
The framework for the next CAP is set out in the European Commission's paper The Future of Food and Farming, which was published in November 2017. It is critically important that the CAP of the future serves all citizens of the European Union. It must support family farms and underpin the production of food to the highest standards of quality and safety. It will also be required to contribute to environmental sustainability and the development of rural areas.
In order to ensure that I have heard the views of Irish citizens on the future of CAP, in January of this year, I launched a public consultation process which included a series of public meetings as well as an opportunity to make written submissions.
I am aware of the various potential options for the future distribution of CAP payments, including consideration of a flat-rate payment system. In that regard, officials from my Department are currently assessing all possibilities around the effective targeting of direct payments in the context of CAP post 2020.
We are all interested stakeholders when it comes to our future food supply and the protection of our environment. With that in mind, my officials and I will continue to engage with the European Commission and other member states regarding the future CAP framework.
It is welcome that the Minister is considering the distribution of CAP payments and what options are available in that regard. We have had this discussion many times in the House and at committee. The current situation whereby entitlements are bought, sold, leased and used as commodities of a sort is inappropriate. We must have a flat-rate payment across the board in order that a farmer knows what payment he or she will receive for every hectare of his or her farm and those with smaller holdings would understand that this would be front-loaded such that the first 10 ha or 15 ha would attract a higher payment, with a lower payment thereafter. That would ensure that very large-scale farms would not get the benefit of a huge basic farm payment and smaller-scale farms would be able to ensure their sustainability. That is the issue. Many farmers on smallholdings cannot survive. It is very difficult for them.
An interesting issue raised this morning was that of hobby and genuine farmers and what constitutes a genuine farmer. A farmer who is utilising all his or her land is a genuine farmer. Such farmers may not be able to make a living from that and may require off-farm income but they are still genuine farmers.
This question goes to the heart of CAP. We will have greater discretion. There is an appealing simplicity to the argument advanced by Deputy Kenny but there are concerns that such a system could skew payments in favour of large landholders who may currently have lower payments, to the disadvantage of smallholders. We must be careful in this area. If a farmer has a couple of thousand hectares in the plains of Meath, Kildare or elsewhere, which, I acknowledge, is not the case being advanced by Deputy Martin Kenny-----
The opposite.
The opposite. The flat-rate payment would relatively benefit a smallholder in the west of Ireland. We must ensure greater equity. I have heard the argument advanced that the entitlement agreed almost 20 years ago should no longer be relevant but we must bear in mind that in all iterations of CAP since then, we have continued to move away from that. Under the current CAP, through convergence we will have moved more than €105 million in the period up to 2020 from those with high average payments to those with low average payments. The question is whether we should throw out that system entirely or accelerate the journey towards convergence and bringing the lower payments up and the higher payments down. A lot of modelling must be done on that to ensure that we make the right decision. I am committed to ensuring that we protect the farmers for whom Deputy Martin Kenny is articulating a case for but we must be conscious that model could have unintended consequences.
I am trying not only to protect the farmers whose case I am putting forward but also to enhance their position. Many farmers on smaller holdings have not gotten a fair crack of the whip. Going back to 2001 or 2002, farmers in the west of Ireland who had a few suckling cows discovered that their farms were not intensive enough to be able to receive the entitlements they deserved, whereas farmers with better land in other parts of the country who were farming more intensively received larger entitlements. That is the imbalance in all of this. At the centre of CAP is the question as to whether it exists to support production or the family farm. That is the decision we must make. I advocate that it should be both but that the family farm must be the primary concern because consumers want their produce to come from family farms, not industrial farms. Most people across Europe understand that. We do not have industrial farms in Ireland and we should not go in that direction because it would not put us in a good place in terms of marketing our produce. In that context, it is very important that Pillar 1 be used to support the basic income of the family farmer. The vast majority of family farmers in my area and parts of Donegal, Leitrim and Sligo probably receive between €4,000 and €5,000 on the basic farm payment. That must be increased by at least 50% in order to ensure those farms are sustainable into the future. There is an opportunity in these CAP negotiations to do that.
I accept the point and the Deputy's bona fides. I agree with many of the views he has expressed. The question proposes a flat-rate system in lieu of the current entitlements regime, which dates back almost 20 years. However, one must bear in mind that a flat-rate system may further disadvantage many such smallholders. There may be-----
If it were front-loaded-----
A flat rate implies a flat rate per hectare so one cannot front-load-----
There is a little bit of change-----
There is. I welcome this exchange because these are the dilemmas we need to address. I think everybody approaches these with good intentions. We need to protect the family farm. We also need to ensure that we protect active farmers. We need to protect the edifice that is the Irish agrifood industry. Production is important. Trying to find a balance between all those competing objectives is a challenge in the context of ensuring that we have an adequate budget. We need to scope out all of the issues in the context of the submissions we received and that is under way in my Department.
Agriculture Scheme Administration
Jackie Cahill
Question:3. Deputy Jackie Cahill asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the €25 million low-cost loan scheme announced in budget 2018 for farmers and fishermen will open for applications; if the scheme criteria will be published in 2018; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18461/18]
I ask the Minister when the €25 million low-cost loan scheme announced in budget 2018 for farmers and fishermen will be open for applications, if the scheme criteria will be published in 2018 and if the Minister will make a statement on this. We are six or seven months past budget day and we have not yet seen the details of the scheme. There are extreme cashflow pressures after a wet autumn and the very late spring we are having.
One of my priorities is to improve access to finance for the agrifood sector. Food Wise 2025 identifies competitiveness as a key theme and includes a recommendation that stakeholders work to "Improve access to finance for agriculture, forestry and seafood producers and Agri-food companies".
I launched a new Brexit loan scheme on 28 March in co-operation with the Ministers for Business, Enterprise and Innovation and Finance, which will provide up to €300 million of affordable, flexible working capital to businesses that are currently affected by Brexit or that will be in the future. The scheme will be available to SMEs and mid-cap businesses. My Department’s funding model ensures that at least 40% of the fund will be available to food businesses, particularly in light of their unique exposure to the UK market. The finance will be easier to access, more competitively priced, at a proposed interest rate of 4% and at more favourable terms than current offerings. This will give Brexit-affected businesses time and space to adapt and grow into the future. The scheme will remain open until 31 March 2020.
I announced in budget 2018 that my Department is considering the development of potential Brexit response loan schemes for farmers and fishermen and for longer-term capital financing for food businesses. These schemes are developed and delivered in co-operation with the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, and take time to develop and operationalise. Consideration and discussions are ongoing in this regard and I will announce further details as they become available.
While continuing to explore additional funding mechanisms, I also liaise with the main banks on issues relating to the agrifood sector, all of which have specialised products available and have expressed a commitment to servicing the future financing needs of the sector.
The Deputy asked about a €25 million low-cost loan scheme. The €25 million is the cost to the Exchequer of the scheme. This money will come from my Department's Estimate. I anticipate that the loan fund will be multiples of that, as was the case in the initial venture we had here and the €150 million low-cost loan scheme. It is my intention that the criteria relating to the scheme will be published in 2018.
I understand that the €25 million is just a lever and I also understand how it worked in 2017. The month of May is approaching and the Minister has still given no commitment as to when the money from this scheme will become available. There is a serious cashflow crisis in all sectors. The horticulture sector suffered extreme difficulties with frost, wind and extreme rain during the winter months. Tillage farmers suffered hugely and we have debated providing assistance to them a number of times in the past six to 12 months. It is the same with the dairy and dry suckler sectors. There is huge pressure for working capital. Farmers are extremely anxious to know when the money will be made available. The Minister's reply was extremely vague. On the previous occasion, this was given over 100% to the main banks. Some of those who needed funding most did not receive it. There has to be Government intervention this time in order to ensure that those who are strapped for cash and under extreme pressure for credit are able to avail of these low-cost loans. The Minister referred to an interest rate of 4% for businesses. On the previous occasion, the rate was 2.95% and this should be maintained for farmers.
We are receiving numerous requests that the fodder scheme announced by the Minister be extended in view of the fact that poor weather conditions and poor growth continue to obtain. I ask him to consider extending the date for the fodder scheme.
The Deputy has stumbled across one of the dilemmas in the context of this proposal, namely, whether it is a working capital scheme or a capital investment scheme. My Department is engaged in consultations with the SBCI on that matter. The previous scheme was, as the Deputy said, a working capital scheme. An interest rate of 2.95% applied on that occasion, but the trade-off between the interest is in the volume of the fund that one can leverage. There was more demand in respect of previous funds than there was funding available. The outturn in respect of the previous fund was €150 million and there were 4,246 approved borrowers. The average loan was €34,000 and the average loan period was 41 months. If we opt for a lower interest rate, we will have a smaller fund. This scheme was oversubscribed. The question is what is most advantageous and whether it is a working capital or a capital investment fund to assist on-farm investment in primary production or the fishing industry. These issues are being teased through. We have had the initial €150 million. We have €300 million now for SMEs. I am trying to get this done as quickly as possible. It is not simply a case of having €25 million and therefore having a scheme. It takes much engagement with the European Investment Bank, the SBCI, the pillar banks here and the Department of Finance. There are many moving parts. I am trying to get it as quickly as possible but it will likely be the back end of the year.
The Minister referred to the 2017 scheme. When that was announced, I said that the money available would not be enough to meet demand. I was ridiculed when I said it. Unfortunately, my finger was on the pulse and the amount of subscribers for that scheme greatly exceeded the money available. The Minister talked about whether this is for working capital or long-term capital investment. The reality is that all sectors are under pressure for working capital. Merchant credit is also a major issue. Co-operatives and private businesses are carrying much of that credit at the moment but they will not be able to carry it in the medium to long term. In the aftermath of the extreme weather conditions over the past six to eight months, the real pressure is for working capital. The Minister must recognise that. This scheme needs to be skewed in that way for people who are under immediate pressure to clear their bills. On the past couple of occasions we had the opportunity to discuss these issues, we referred to the mental pressure on farmers and farm families. Farmers being able to clear their bills would be a major achievement in relieving that pressure. If farmers get access to working capital, they would be able to achieve that objective.
I appreciate that working capital at this time of year is always an issue in the context of merchant credit, etc. On the difficult weather, I have engaged with many, if not all, of the co-operatives directly and have been assured by all of them, in the context of the difficulty that some farmers are experiencing, that merchant credit is not an issue. I appreciate that this has to be paid back. The dilemma we face is the competing demands for capital investment as opposed to working capital. We are trying to work through that in the Department. This is a space that the State should not be in but it reflects that we do not have, relative to our competitors, competitive financial products available to Irish farmers at a cost comparable with other member states in the European Union. We are trying to address a gap in the market by developing a new product that meets that.
What about Deputy Cahill's point on the fodder scheme and a one-week extension to it?
A question has been tabled in respect of that matter.
I beg your pardon.
A question has been tabled in respect of it.
I will allow Deputy McConalogue in when there is a question on it later.
Fishing Industry
Michael Collins
Question:4. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if a scheme similar to a loan scheme (details supplied) will be put in place for fishermen. [18462/18]
Credit unions across Munster have, as they always do, come to the rescue, which I greatly welcome, for farmers by providing unsecured loans of up to €50,000. Can a similar low-rate loans - unsecured loans - be offered to inshore fishermen who lost much of their fishing gear during Storm Ophelia?
Food Wise 2025, the ten-year vision for the Irish agrifood industry, identifies competitiveness as a key theme and recommends that stakeholders work to improve access to finance for agriculture, forestry, seafood producers and agrifood companies. One of my priorities as Minister is to improve access to finance for the agrifood sector. I announced in budget 2018 that my Department is considering the development of potential Brexit response loan schemes for the primary sector, to include farmers and fishermen. The schemes are developed and delivered in co-operation with the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, and take time to develop and operationalise. Consideration and discussions are ongoing in that regard and I will announce further details on this as they become available. While continuing to explore additional funding mechanisms, I also liaise with the main banks on issues relating to the agrifood sector, all of whom have specialised products available and have expressed a commitment to servicing the future financing needs of the sector.
I understand that the specific ACRE and Cultivate loan packages recently launched by a number of credit unions in Munster are entirely commercial activities by the credit unions concerned and the Government has no role in the matter.
My Department's €240 million European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, Operational Programme for the seafood sector is providing a range of support measures to the inshore fisheries sector. A dedicated fund of €6 million is available to inshore fishermen to invest in adding value to their catch, for stock conservation measures such as v-notching, to support the work of the inshore fisheries forums and a range of other measures set out in the inshore fisheries conservation scheme, administered by BIM. Grants of up to 80% are available for those purposes. Separately, grants of up to 70% are available to inshore fishermen under the sustainable fisheries scheme for investment on board in selective gear, in quality, hygiene, energy efficiency and value adding equipment. Grants of 30% are available under that scheme for engine replacement. Under the new fishermen scheme, grants of 25% are available to young inshore fishermen to purchase their first fishing boat. BIM also makes available to fishermen a broad range of advisory services on matters such as business planning and environmental management. I believe that this wide range of supports under the EMFF programme clearly demonstrates my commitment to assisting the inshore sector to develop and prosper.
Inshore fishermen have been hit hard in the past 11 years since the salmon drift net ban and that has led to huge job losses in the industry. Inshore fishermen have had one of the longest and worst winters in living memory. I have spoken to quite a few fishermen in west Cork and that is the feedback I have got. They are facing substantial losses as the lobster and crab season is very slow to take off due to the low water temperature. Fishermen lost tens of thousands of euro worth of pots and materials and now face the prospect of having to take out personal loans. They need help at this time. Could the Minister work with the banks to help those hard-working people?
I welcome the fact the credit union movement has developed a product. It is a signal that there is a degree of competition emerging to the main pillar banks. That is very welcome. Many credit unions are active in sub-branch networks in coastal areas and that is very important.
The scheme I am developing, to which I referred in response to Deputy Cahill, is one that will be available to the fisheries sector as well. Through that, the competition that is emerging in financial services in terms of the credit union movement, which I welcome, and the funding that is available in the EMFF programme by means of grant aid assistance means there is a range of financial products and supports available to the inshore sector. I meet regularly with the National Inshore Fisheries Forum where we have an opportunity to discuss the issues.
I appreciate that the Minister is developing a scheme, which is very much needed at this time. I spoke to one fisherman who is trying to take out a personal loan of €10,000 to do up his punt and to replace the pots he has lost. The loan puts himself and his family under incredible pressure. I would appreciate if the Minister would speed up the development of the scheme to which he refers because it is hugely important to inshore fishermen. They are hard-working people. The Minister knows as well as I do the number of hours they put in and the dangers associated with their job. They have to ensure their punts are top quality to cope with the rough water they face and the long hours they spend at sea. There was a terrible storm in October which cost many of them tens of thousands of euro and they are now trying to replace what they have lost. The fishermen cannot go back out on the water because the water temperature is very low so their catch is at an all-time low. They are in severe difficulty at this time and I would appreciate if the Minister would work very quickly to provide a scheme to try to help them.
It is our intention to develop the scheme as quickly as possible. It is not an easy scheme to design. The issue that must be worked out is whether it is for working capital or for capital investment. I am engaged with all the actors, including the pillar banks, arising from their experience of the previous loan fund, which I accept was not targeted at the fisheries sector. This one will be, and we can benefit from their experience and where they see the market shortfall. I am talking to the SBCI about the interest rate relative to the size of the fund. Such issues require a lot of consideration before we bring a product to market but we will do so as quickly as possible.
Organic Farming Scheme
Eamon Ryan
Question:5. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when he will reopen the organic farming scheme; his plans for organic farming here; and the percentage of produce here that is organically grown. [18437/18]
We are advertising the country by means of the Origin Green programme, which is right as we have the potential to be a really green agricultural country, but that is not helped by the fact that when it comes to the league table for organic production we are second last in Europe. That beggars belief in a period when, according to a recent assessment by Bord Bia, the market is growing by something like 23% per annum.
The organic scheme was hugely successful when it was launched in 2014 to 2015 but it was then closed. When will we reopen the scheme? When are we going to show ambition in that regard? This has been talked about now for two years. Farmers are waiting. I know there is a consultation process but there is urgency attached to going in this direction. What does the Minister intend doing?
I recently announced the establishment of a new organic sector strategy group tasked with developing a strategy for the development of the organic sector for the period up to 2025. The group has already met twice and I expect will report back later this year with a detailed report and recommendations to drive the growth of the sector.
The terms of reference of the group are: to review the implementation of the 2013 to 2015 action plan; to assess the case for a targeted reopening of the organic farming scheme; and to draft a new strategic plan for the development of the organic sector up to 2025.
The new strategic plan will feed into the new rural development plan and Food Wise 2025. A public consultation process has been initiated by my Department and the deadline for receipt of submissions is 31 May of this year. Further details can be found on my Department's website.
This is an opportunity for all interested parties to contribute to the development of the new strategic plan for the sector. This strategy will incorporate sectoral and cross-sectoral recommendations, market developments, training and education, public awareness and wider EU policy. It is critical that stakeholders make their views known before the finalisation of this strategy, which aims to build on progress made, and provide clear direction for further development of the organic sector for the next seven years.
The current organic farming scheme under the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 has proven to be extremely successful, attracting more new applicants than any previous scheme, and encouraging a significant number of Irish farmers to convert to organic farming systems. This is a co-funded scheme, supported jointly through the rural development programme by the EU and the Irish Exchequer. At this point in time, the budget allocated to the new scheme in Ireland’s rural development programme has been fully committed and all targets set for the scheme within the RDP have already been achieved. Any possible reopening of the scheme could only be considered in the context of the available budget in the overall rural development programme.
With regard to the extent of organic production in Ireland, there are currently 2,127 organic operators, of whom more than 1,700 are farmers. The latest figures indicate that there are now some 72,000 ha under organic production, which is an increase of nearly 50% on the position at the start of the programme in 2014.
I welcome the consultation, which I saw on the website, although we must be quick as people are waiting. It is difficult to make a contribution to the consultation when one does not know the Minister's views. The Minister of State outlined that 1.7% of land in this country is in organic production at the moment. The average in the European Union is 7%. Does he think we should have that level of ambition and that we should grow to meet the European average? We could go further. Should we aim to be like the Italians, Spanish, French or Germans who have up to 20% of their land in organic production? Where are we going? What is the scale of ambition that the Minister seeks to reach? That is what must come first rather than referring to the caveat that it must be within the budget of the rural development fund.
Obviously, it has to be within the budget but it is the Government that sets the ambition. If they are to come back with a consultation against an empty space where there is no clear vision for what the Government wants to do, given that there is significant demand as the Minister of State himself would admit, a significantly growing market and significant benefits in a variety of ways, what is the scale of his ambition for organic farming in Ireland?
Ten years ago, the land cover was 1%. We have doubled it. The target at that time was 5%, set by the Deputy's former colleague and my predecessor, then Minister of State, Mr. Trevor Sargent. The scheme, when it was reopened, took in everybody who applied. It was the highest intake ever. It was unprecedented. Everyone who was in the scheme had their plan rolled right to 2020. That is why there are 1,700 farmers in it. We more than doubled the budget, from €4.5 million to €10 million. The reason that the public consultation period is so short is to try to ensure we receive proposals at an appropriate time this year from the group.
I also acknowledge the work of its predecessor, the organic focus group, which set targets, all of which were achieved. We are growing in the right direction. The purpose of the strategy is to set out some of the answers to the questions the Deputy has raised.
Has the Minister of State a view on what our level of ambition should be? If the Minister of State opened an unencumbered scheme tomorrow, as he stated, he would see ten times that number applying.
There are real questions as to how we would do it to develop horticulture and tillage, as well as beef and sheep, which have been particularly popular up to this point. In any consultation process, however, we must know what is the scale of ambition. Where does the Minister of State want to go? I accept it doubled from €4 million to €10 million but to be honest, we are spending that amount of money marketing, on a single trade mission trip over to Japan or whatever, that we are an Origin Green country. We should be spending ten times that in making this switch because it is one of the main solutions that will help Irish agriculture get out of the crisis it is in at present. It helps us on water quality, carbon emissions and on price to family farms. There is a myriad of different benefits. In my mind, €10 million is not the scale of support we should be giving. I am keen to hear the Minister of State's vision as to where we should go, rather than it merely being a blank space into which we are consulting.
For a start, I do not know that any trade mission has ever cost €10 million.
The terms of reference are to get the stakeholders and the experts to set out their vision for it as well. There are areas the Deputy has identified. We could open up a scheme without having it clearly defined. There are impediments in the current structure that are restricting expansion in the sector. The Deputy mentioned tillage and cereals. One of the main inhibiting factors is that 32% of all lamb produced organically ends up sold organically because the cost of buying imported supplementary feed is such that it does not render it economically worthwhile to pursue organic sales beyond the grass-fed lambs. That is the sort of area we need to look at when we are looking at scoping out a new scheme. We could open a scheme without consideration to any of those matters and it would not be effective. We need to ensure, if the scheme is reopened, that it is targeted in a way that makes it effective.