Vol. 1028 No. 3
65. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the engagements that he has had regarding proposals of the European Union on the change of land designation currently in agricultural use. [53260/22]
I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, and the Ministers of State, Senator Hackett and Deputy Heydon. There has been quite an amount of commentary about the EU nature restoration law. Unfortunately, that commentary is taking place in a vacuum because we have a Commission proposal but we do not yet have a formal Irish response. What have been the Minister's engagements to date? How does he plan to ensure an informed dialogue can take place in respect of this proposal?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue.
The proposed nature restoration law was formally adopted by the European Commission in June. The proposals set out legally binding targets in the form of a regulation that will have direct effect across a broad range of ecosystem types, both on land and marine. These proposed targets would require the restoration of parts of these ecosystems to good ecological status by set dates. The proposed regulation has the potential to impact across a number of Irish Departments. In Ireland’s case, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, is responsible for co-ordinating Ireland’s response to the proposals.
The Commission’s proposals are now being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council. It is expected that discussions at Council and European Parliament level will run well into next year before the final regulation is agreed.
We continue to be proactively engage with the NPWS and I will continue to engage with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The key is that we are engaged actively on the matter and we are working hard at national and European level to ensure that our voices are being heard on the matter.
I am aware that farmers and their representatives are concerned about the potential of these proposals but I will work closely with them, as I always have done, to ensure that we will keep farmers doing what they do tremendously well, that is, producing food in a way that is world class and sustainable.
I recognise that this is at an early stage of the process but we can see how the debate is becoming polarised. The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine has had two hearings on this. In one case we have had corrections to statements that have been made. We met with farm organisations, which are incredibly concerned about what this might mean. We have heard from environmentalists who critique anyone who raises any questions at all on this. We know that if we do not approach this correctly that it could create a space for people to manipulate facts and to contort issues but there are genuine concerns. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will have an important role in setting out precisely what the current proposal would mean for Irish farmers and how any negative consequences can be addressed and in outlining how it intends to ensure the farmers' voice is heard at Directorate General level within the European Commission and within the wider European institutions.
I agree. Engagement with farmer representatives will be important in this regard because there is concern. The Deputy is also correct that it is very much at an early stage and is just emerging from European level at this stage. A number of Departments are involved and will be affected. It will be important from a farming point of view and I will meet with farm representative organisations and work closely with Government colleagues to ensure that our issues and concerns are clear at national level and clearly communicated at European level. It is something that I will engage in in a much deeper way with farm representatives. It will go well into next year. I will engage closely over the coming period with farm representative organisations as well as ministerial colleagues on the proposals on the table, the views on them and ensure our national voice and position at European level too.
It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is carrying out an appraisal of the current proposals in respect of what they will mean for land holdings on a county-by-county basis, whether they will mean a reduction in the land that is available for agricultural use and, if that is the case, how that will be managed or how the Government will approach those discussions at European level. We are living in a biodiversity crisis and that will mean that major decisions will have to be made. However, a large portion of the land that may be affected comprises private land holdings that are currently being used to produce good-quality food. We need to approach this sensitively. What would be helpful first is a full appraisal and evaluation of what this could mean if implemented in its current guise. Then we can make the collective decision the Minister spoke of on what Ireland's position needs to be and how we can try to come to that position at EU level.
My team is engaged in assessing the proposals with a view to me engaging further with farmer representative organisations to discuss them. There is also a land-use review under way, which will be important in informing our approach. My Department and myself are centrally involved in that. The issue is important. The regulation and the proposals are getting significant attention from my staff and it is something that I am also paying close attention to. I will engage closely with farmer representative organisations and with ministerial colleagues.
66. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will outline the process through which the carbon or methane footprint of Irish farms is calculated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53054/22]
Will the Minister outline the process through which the carbon or methane footprint of Irish farms is or will be calculated? Farmers are under severe pressure and are worried about how all these carbon emissions will be charged to their business. It is important that we set out how it is to be done and what baselines we will put in place.
The compilation of the agricultural greenhouse gas inventory is a matter for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. As part of this process, the EPA determines the total amount of methane, N2O and CO2 emissions generated by the aggregation of all farms. The EPA takes activity data, for example, total animal numbers by category or fertiliser sales data and applies an emissions factor to determine total emissions. Carbon measurement at farm level will become ever more important in the context of the recently agreed sectoral emissions ceilings of a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture and as a mechanism to demonstrate environmental ambition at farm level.
Through the Bord Bia sustainable beef and lamb assurance scheme, SBLAS, and the sustainable dairy assurance scheme, SDAS, introduced in 2014, we have a solid foundation on which to build. To date, more than 300,000 carbon footprint calculations have been completed. The Bord Bia quality assurance audit process for beef and dairy farmers facilitates the collection of the relevant farm management data required to complete a carbon footprint calculation via the sustainability survey.
The Department’s animal identification and movement, AIM, data is utilised to generate an inventory of all animals on a farm for each month of a production year. Weight gain per animal is derived from a herd’s average daily live weight gain, DLWG, figure which is provided by the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, to Bord Bia. Both models generate a result by tracking all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of the farm practices required to produce 1 kg of output, that is, "1 kg of fat and protein corrected milk" or 1 kg live weight gain.
These emissions can be categorised into emissions from: the digestion of feed; manure management; fertiliser use; concentrate feeding; and electricity and machinery use. The emissions are summed up across the beef or dairy production system and divided by the output to generate the carbon footprint.
The carbon footprint results are then communicated to members of the schemes via the farmer feedback report. To date, more than 5,000 farmer feedback reports have been generated and dispatched to SBLAS and SDAS members.
Since 2020, Bord Bia has collaborated closely with Teagasc and the ICBF to improve the data collection, methodologies and accuracy of the beef and dairy models.
One issue that farmers are concerned about is that they are not getting any credit for the carbon they sequester through pasture, crops and hedgerows. There is also a need to establish a carbon measuring, reporting and verification process which farmers need to work with. It is in place in Northern Ireland.
Farmers wonder how the baselines are being set out and how they will be supported in putting in place measures to help reduce the carbon footprint. Things seem vague at present. Farmers are examining the various processes in place. There are pilot schemes and so on. In Northern Ireland, the ground on every farm is tested to a depth of 30 cm. Here, only one in every 20 units is tested, to a depth of only 10 cm. Therefore, we are behind the curve and not being fair to our farmers. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
I would not agree. I outlined in my initial response the activity that has been ongoing for a significant period, or since 2014, regarding carbon assessments, on-farm navigators that have been developed and carbon-footprint calculations that have been done in this regard. I agree with the Deputy that it will be really important for farmers to have an income stream from the sequestration of carbon.
The EU is developing the platform on which carbon trading will work. It will be important to be able to step that out at national level. It will be key to have farmers benefit from that. Teagasc is doing a lot of research on how we can measure carbon capture and sequestration. The accurate measurement of sequestration so it can be monetised is one of the challenges. However, there is a lot of potential. It is something we have to continue to step out.
I thank the Minister for his comments. This is a case of us chasing something very fast without having the research and knowledge base built up concerning how we will measure what farmers sequester through their daily practices and with hedgerows, etc. There have been many pilot schemes and a lot of research has been done but, as the Minister said, we do not yet have the science to show farmers will be rewarded for the good work they already do. The problem is that we have put the cart way before the horse in that we are trying to penalise people for carbon emissions without having a proper method of measuring what they are contributing. If we are to maintain confidence in farming and what is happening with carbon emissions, it is important to get the science right before making further decisions.
The research, science and measurement tools will be really important. We are doing a lot of work in that regard. Other member states and other countries across the world are putting a lot of effort into this also. Getting the measuring tools right and accurate represents an important starting point. The infrastructure that needs to be put in place to allow for carbon to be traded and monetised will be important.
There is a lot of potential, as we are very much aware. We are investing in the research that will allow what I talk about to come to fruition, reach its potential and, importantly, ensure an additional income stream for farmers.
67. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his proposals to support farmers in complying with new tuberculosis, TB, regulations. [53261/22]
The Minister will be aware that one of the most hotly discussed topics in marts and elsewhere at the moment concerns the new TB regulations. I would appreciate it if he would outline his proposals to ensure farmers will not be financially penalised in the implementation of these new regulations.
I thank the Deputy. I am very much aware of the acute stress caused by a TB breakdown on a farm, and I am committed to driving down TB rates. Everyone in the industry is single-minded in their ambition to reduce the incidence of TB.
As a result of EU Animal Health Law Regulation 2016/429, new requirements concerning TB testing have been introduced. These regulations came into effect in April 2021 and are directly applicable to all EU member states.
The bovine TB stakeholders forum, which comprises representatives from across the agrifood sector, leading researchers and officials from my Department, has agreed to the introduction of these mandatory requirements on a phased basis. The requirements of phase 1 are that cows of all ages and males over the age of 36 months moving from farm to farm or through a mart must have been TB tested in the last six months and must also be moving from a herd that has been tested in the last six months. If the animal being moved does not meet the requirements, it must be TB tested 30 days prior to, or 30 days after, movement into the new herd. The animal is restricted to the receiving herd until the test is complete and clear.
The regulations are being introduced in two phases. Phase 1 is to be implemented on 1 February 2023. A campaign to inform farmers of these new requirements is being rolled out. Farmers will be notified of the requirements by way of an email or hard-copy leaflet containing "frequently asked questions" whose answers will explain the requirements. Farmers will also receive a text message with a link to the leaflet and "frequently asked questions" on the Government's bovine TB website, www.bovinetb.ie. There will also be a number of media articles concerning the requirements. Farmers can also contact their regional veterinary office for information and advice. No date has yet been set for phase 2 which will see the rule applied to all animals. Phase 2 will commence only following engagement with farm organisations. These new requirements are aimed at reducing the level of transmissible disease in animals, including bovines. The financial working group of the TB forum is examining the financial aspects of the programme to ensure a sustainable funding model for it is developed.
The Minister is of course right that farmers are incredibly stressed when there is a TB outbreak on the farm, but they are also stressed by the failure to get on top of this issue. Since 2016, the TB eradication programme has cost around €100 million per year. It is estimated that expenditure up to 2030 will amount to a further €1 billion. The EU has reduced its contributions to the scheme precisely because it has not been working. Therefore, it is crucial that when we are talking about putting in place punitive measures, we have the evidence that they are going to make a difference. There have been major costs affecting individual farmers, the sector as a whole and the Minister's Department in terms of resources. What step-by-step analysis is the Minister carrying out to ensure the burdens being placed on farmers are having the desired effect?
TB rates have been going in the wrong direction in the past few years. That is not acceptable. The objective of a TB eradication programme has to be to eradicate the disease or see figures go down. It is important that we follow the science on how to make progress on this issue. The re-establishment of the TB working group, comprising representatives of all the farm organisations and key experts, is important in determining how to step this out. The Deputy is correct that farmers, whenever taking these steps, need to be confident and assured that they will make a difference, prevent the transmission of TB and drive down the incidence rate. Pretty much all the steps taken and discussed by the TB working group are based on the scientific research and advice. New tools should enable us to make real progress in this regard. It is important that people work together and that the approach be science led.
The key word is "partnership". This has to be seen as a partnership. It is impossible to quantify the damage done as a result of the categorisation letters issued by the Department. I realise that was before the Minister's time but relationships need to be mended. Lest people believe farmers are not contributing, they should note that in 2020, farmers contributed €37 million directly towards testing. They are paying €8 million annually in disease levies.
The labour contribution that goes into it is unrecognised and not taken into account, but it has been valued at €20 million per annum. Farmers are as frustrated as anyone that the figures on the other side of the balance sheet showing TB numbers are going in the wrong direction. It would be useful if the Minister could give an assurance that he is doing everything in his power to ensure there will be no additional cost burden on farmers, given that the regulations in themselves are enough of a burden.
There is no doubt that it is farm families that suffer the consequences of a TB outbreak. That is very damaging from a financial point of view. There is a significant contribution for farmers on an ongoing basis in regard to the testing regime. It is important that everybody works together in a spirit of partnership. That is why the work is done in a TB forum. I recognise the contribution of all of those who have taken part. They have worked in a very constructive spirit. They are grappling with some challenging issues and they are considering measures which can make a difference, but which will require everybody to recognise that and come together.
Issues relating to finance and cost are being addressed within the finance working group stream of the forum. I look forward to continuing to work with the forum and its working groups on how we can make progress. Thankfully, we are starting to see figures going in the right direction and I hope it will increase and we will see real progress in the time ahead. Ultimately, that is how we will support farmers and benefit everyone.
68. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of families that are giving up fishing due to the failed delivery of a third Irish decommissioning scheme; and if 50 or 60 families will lose their right to catch fish in Irish waters (details supplied). [53530/22]
The Minister stated publicly that the task force he set up resulted in the industry asking him for a third Irish decommissioning scheme. Could he tell me how many families are giving up because the Government has failed to deliver? Is it 50 or 60 families losing their right to catch Irish fish in Irish waters? Could he answer exactly how many?
The seafood task force, which included representatives of the five fisheries producer organisations and the four main fisheries co-operatives, recommended in its October 2021 report that a voluntary decommissioning scheme should be implemented to help restore balance between fishing fleet capacity and available quotas, following the reductions in quotas for stocks arising from the Brexit trade and co-operation agreement.
I announced the scheme in July of this year, and it was opened for applications by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, in September. The scheme makes €60 million available in funding for those who apply to take part in the scheme and an additional €20 million in tax relief.
In line with the recommendations of the task force, I am also requiring that owners of vessels who choose to participate in the scheme must ensure that crew working on their vessel are compensated for their loss of livelihood following the decommissioning of their vessel. Crew payments can range up to a maximum of €50,000 per individual. As the scheme is due to close on 18 November, it remains unclear how many applications will ultimately be received. However, BIM has recently informed me that 24 applications have been fully submitted, while a further 30 are at various stages of preparation.
The scheme runs concurrently with a series of schemes aimed at creating jobs in the seafood sector and in coastal communities, including the €45 million Brexit seafood processing capital scheme, the €20 million Brexit allocated to the sustainable aquaculture growth scheme and €25 million for the blue economy enterprise development scheme. In total, €225 million in supports and developmental strategies have been announced which will contribute to sustaining employment in the seafood sector as a whole, providing new career opportunities and ensuring those transitioning within the sector are supported.
As the Minister is aware, I did not support this decommissioning because I always felt there were enough Irish fish in Irish waters for Irish fishermen to fish. They wanted to fish their way out of the problems they had. All they ever asked for was a fair share of the quota, which has been denied to Irish fishermen for many years, not just recently.
The Minister publicly welcomed the EU Commission’s approval of the scheme submitted to it to see if it would be okay under state-aid rules. In hindsight, were the Minister's chosen words, welcoming the loss of so many jobs the correct way for a Government Minister to act?
As the Deputy states, I welcomed the approval that I had sought. I brought all of the representatives of fishers across the country together into a task force to advise me how to support the sector. As part of the report, they unanimously sought a voluntary decommissioning scheme and I then sought approval for that. I welcomed the fact that I got approval for the scheme.
As we discussed at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine earlier, what we would all like is more national quota. That is something I am fighting for at national level. However, there is also a reality alongside that. Since the quotas and relative stability were established in the early 1980s, they have remained unchanged, Brexit apart. Brexit has had an impact. I am working with the representatives of fishers themselves to decide how to respond to that at national level and in regard to the challenges we have coming out of the trade and co-operation agreement and also in terms of the strategy we have at European level to try to improve our position.
The decommissioning scheme has been sought by fishers themselves. I am surprised that Deputy Collins does not recognise it as a requirement and as something that would help the fishers who remain. I am working closely with the fishery representatives to respond to the various schemes, not just this one, but many other schemes to support the fishing sector in every way possible to try to maximise its value to coastal communities.
I will never support a scheme that takes Irish fishermen out of Irish waters. I could not do that. It would not be right of any Irish politician to do anything like that. The Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation was opposed to this as well, and it is a fishing organisation.
I spoke to the Minister at the committee meeting on energy costs and fuel costs. The fishermen who are fishing at the moment are seriously concerned. They do not have the supports from the Government, perhaps not the Minister personally. The French and the Spanish are supporting their fishermen. They made sure they got their fuel subsidies because energy is a major cost, but the Irish have not. There is a fund, to which the Minister referred. I know he is looking at it, but he needs to work on it. The fund must be distributed immediately. What will the Minister do if the budget of €60 million is not enough to properly compensate these families who are losing everything they worked for, in some cases they are third and fourth generations?
It is a fair feat to be able to hold two positions at the one time, even in the one contribution. In one sentence, Deputy Collins says he is against the scheme, and then in the next sentence he is looking for more money.
I am, because I know what will happen. They are walking away from fishing. They have no choice. I am not supporting it.
No. I am sorry, but Deputy Collins cannot answer his own question.
The Minister cannot answer it either.
In the following sentence, Deputy Collins was looking for more money for that very same scheme.
Is there enough-----
I am sorry.
The Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, along with all the other fishing organisations was part of the seafood task force, which unanimously recommended that there should be a decommissioning scheme. I am following through on that request. I am also following through in the many efforts I am making at European level to try to improve our quota position. There has been some success in that regard in terms of securing more blue whiting, for example. I am also battling at European level to try to improve our mackerel quota. Those are all hard-earned, hard-fought opportunities where we try to improve our position.
We must also work at national level to ensure we have as many viable, economically sustainable fishery families as possible. I am working to respond to the requests of the fishing sector on how we can do that. The decommissioning scheme is one of the requests.
69. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the Government will allocate an emergency support fund for the fishing industry to assist the industry with the cost-of-fuel crisis, in the same way that other EU member states have done so. [53262/22]
As the Minister is aware, every single fishing organisation in this State, in an unprecedented way, united together months ago. We have the producer organisations, the inshore sector, the islands fishermen, the aquaculture sector and even the flag organisations. They appealed for an emergency fund to help address the fuel crisis. When is the Minister going to introduce it?
We discussed this issue at length a few hours ago at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Deputy Mac Lochlainn is correct. I have been working closely and listening to the fishing representatives on this issue for a long time. I met with them shortly after the illegal invasion of Ukraine to discuss this issue. They requested specifically of me that I would do a second month tie-up scheme this year to support the challenges with fuel for the whitefish fleet. I delivered promptly on that.
It began in June and will run until the end of November, and it is delivering €12 million into the sector to support the challenges relating to fuel. That is on top of the one month recommended by the seafood task force to respond specifically to Brexit.
As I have said to the fishing representatives throughout, I am continuing to monitor the situation. Fuel prices have gone up and down. For a few weeks, they looked as though they were going to fall a bit but they have spiked again. I met representatives of the producer organisations last week and representatives of the fishing co-operatives earlier today. I am assessing the situation with fresh eyes, particularly in light of the fact the scheme I have in place is due to run out at the end of November.
It is a difficult time. Marine gas oil is different from most other fuels in that there is no excise duty on it, so there is nothing to reduce in that regard, and the VAT is fully refundable. The EU has given capacity to member states to draw funding down from its European maritime funding allocation to put towards that specifically but that would mean taking funding out of other purposes for which it could be used to support the sector, specifically for short-term liquidity aid. It is not something I would do lightly, but I have been monitoring the issue closely and am reassessing it in light of the situation.
The funding for the tie-up scheme comes from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, not from the Exchequer. We have appealed to the Minister to explore both the Exchequer and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. There are resources in the fund that could be deployed here along with Exchequer funding. A package was announced in the budget to address the cost-of-living crisis and the energy crisis for a range of sectors, but not for that of fishing.
The Minister has met these representatives at least twice if not three times. This sector is in crisis. The break-even price was 60 cent per litre but it has been at well over €1 for the best part of this year. That is just not sustainable. I speak to fishermen every day, as I am sure the Minister does, and they tell us this. There needs to be an urgent intervention. I again appeal to him to put money on the table to keep them at sea and delivering seafood for our people.
I have put money on the table, with the €12 million to fund the additional month of the scheme, which the sector specifically requested of me to address the fuel crisis and the challenges in that regard. I accessed that from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, because that is bringing fresh funding into the fishing sector, rather than take it out of the EMFF, which is already in the fishing sector and allocated. The option is still there. The European Commission has given flexibility to member states to use that maritime funding in liquidity aid and, therefore, I still have that option after bringing the €12 million into the sector, which is at play until the end of November through that additional month of the tie-up scheme.
I have been monitoring the prices closely month by month. As I said, we cannot reduce the excise given there is no excise on marine gas oil but there is the state aid flexibility given by the Commission to use the maritime funding but, as the Deputy will appreciate, that would mean using future funding for now and that is something that has to be considered carefully. I have been monitoring and assessing the situation, not least in light of the funding I have put in place being due to run out in November.
What I cannot understand is that the Minister has the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, which is money intended to compensate for the loss of quota. That is to be deployed to assist the industry with that separate issue. He again talked about how using the EMFF would mean using funding that is supposed to be there for other issues, but why is he not talking about Exchequer funding? France, Italy, Spain and Sweden - I am sure there are many other countries but these are the most prominent four - have all made interventions, through either subsidies or emergency supports to their fishing industries. I just do not understand why we have not deployed Exchequer funding in the way we have done for the rest of the economy, whether that is business or residential.
I am genuinely appealing to the Minister to make an intervention with Exchequer funding primarily, or with European funding if necessary. There needs to be something on the table to keep our fishermen at sea and get them ready for next year.
As I said, I have put €12 million into this scheme, which has been running from June and will continue to the end of November and which was sought from me by fishing representatives. It has been welcomed by those who have availed of it and it has been important to them. I am now reassessing that situation. It is important from a food security point of view that fishing is happening, and that has been the case. Our full quota has been fished month by month.
Nevertheless, the spike in the price of fuel in recent weeks has caused me to reassess the issue, not least in light of the €12 million I have put in being due to expire at the end of November. It is a situation of which I am very much aware and I am engaging on it all the time with fishermen and women. There will always be asks for additional funding but when it relates to using future funding now, any measure has to be considered carefully to ensure it is appropriate, and that is what I am doing.
