Vol. 1039 No. 2
53. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine given the critique of Ireland's forest programme by the D-G Environment, if the Government is redrafting the programme; where that process is at; if he will be conducting an updated cost-benefit analysis that includes impacts on water, biodiversity and environment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25305/23]
I am part of the Save Our Forests - Save our Land alliance, which the Minister may remember campaigned and protested against the deal between Coillte and the Gresham House vulture fund for Ireland's forestation programme. In January we put into the public domain a leaked letter from the Directorate-General Environment in the European Commission, which roundly criticised the proposed forestry programme from the Government, basically on the grounds that the Sitka spruce plantation model is damaging to Ireland's biodiversity. Where now is the forestry programme in the light of that critique from the EU? Has the Government taken on board criticisms made in that letter?
As the Deputy may be aware, the new and ambitious €1.3 billion Forestry Programme 2023-2027 will replace the previous forestry programme that expired at the end of 2022. The new programme is subject to state aid approval under the guidelines from the European Commission and is also subject to an ongoing strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and appropriate assessment, AA, process.
The new programme will benefit farmers, rural communities and the wider climate and environment for years to come. The Department has been engaging proactively and intensively with the Commission over the last number of months. The Commission is currently reviewing our formal state maid notification, which was made last month, on our proposed new forestry programme. They will ultimately decide whether the aid is compatible with EU rules.
As part of this deliberative process, the Commission department responsible for policies on competition, DG-COMP, is engaging in an inter-service consultation process with other departments, including with DG-ENVI, which is responsible for the Commission's policies on the environment. This process has not yet concluded but I expect a reply from the Commission shortly. In the final analysis some changes may be required to the published programme and all efforts will be towards receiving state-aid approval, while delivering on the enormous potential for forestry in Ireland.
The Deputy had a question on the cost-benefit analysis. My Department commissioned a cost-benefit analysis on the forestry creation and roads element of the proposed new forestry programme. This analysis considered the costs and benefits of the proposals and took account of a variety of factors, not all of which could be monetised, including water quality and regulation, landscape, and biodiversity, among others. The overall conclusions were positive and confirm that spending on new planting and new forest roads under the new forestry programme represent value for money to the Exchequer.
Part of the reason for the outrage at the Gresham House-Coillte deal was that it was going to further expand a failed forestry model of Sitka spruce plantations. They are bad for communities, bad for biodiversity, bad for water quality, and bad on just about every level. They make our forestry very vulnerable to disease and dependent on a monoculture economy. Interestingly, the European Commission letter, which we leaked and which the Government tried to suppress, essentially corroborated that critique. It said that reliance on the Sitka spruce plantation monoculture model was not acceptable to it because it was very damaging to biodiversity. All of this speaks to the need to radically reform the forestry model in this country away from the Sitka spruce plantation model and away from vulture funds. It speaks to the urgent need to reform the mandate of Coillte so that it diversifies forestry and develops a forestry model that is strong on biodiversity, helps communities and helps farmers to make a just transition, and develops a diverse forestry model that is less vulnerable to disease and to the ups and downs and dependence on a single monoculture model.
I am sure the Deputy has looked at the new proposed forestry programme for Ireland for the next five years. If he has, and if he compares it with the previous programmes, he will see a step change in what the programme offers our farmers across the country.
The Deputy will also be aware that we have a timber industry in Ireland. He might not value it and he might not value the jobs it creates in rural areas. The Deputy might not place value on it but I do. We have to strike a balance with our forestry programme. We have a massive challenge ahead with climate action. The Deputy knows that. We have a massive challenge ahead with biodiversity and water quality. We all know that. Forestry will play a significant role in the future of Ireland in terms of our land use and incomes, whether in respect of farmers or creating jobs. I must strike that balance. Life is not black and white. The Deputy might have a black and white view of life but I do not. I must strike that balance.
I must bring as many people with me as possible. We must deliver a forestry programme that works for the environment, works with communities and works for farmers. We have learnt lessons from the past and we know what does not work. To say we cannot have any Sitka spruce ever again in Ireland is, quite frankly, a naïve approach.
It is about the overwhelming dominance of Sitka spruce. It is an accident waiting to happen from of biodiversity point of view when we consider the pine weevil and the bark beetle that is moving across Europe and so on. It would damage the economic interests of farmers. We can see how things such as ash dieback can happen very quickly. We need to diversify the forest model in terms of biodiversity and the economic sustainability of it. Where is the research into developing markets for alternative forest products for a more diversified forestry model? It is not happening. There is a complete dependence on the single model, which is an accident waiting to happen, and which has meant that the EU has stated that the Ireland's forestry programme simply will not cut it. This is why there was such uproar from communities, farmers, environmentalists and just about everybody over the Gresham House deal because it would have expanded an already failed forestry model to the benefit of vulture funds. That needs to change.
We are diversifying the model. I encourage the Deputy to look at the new forestry programme. It is far more diverse than previous models. As the Deputy knows, forestry is a long-term project. It takes decades for forests to grow and thrive. We are not only diversifying the options available for farmers but also the tree species in commercial plantations. We cannot be all about saying, "Down with commercial plantations and we will not put up with this sort of thing". That is just a nonsense.
That is not what I am saying.
I know, but the point the Deputy is making is that he is critical of the model. What we are also doing is diversifying how we manage trees. This is also about management. We are seeing supports provided for continuous cover models, where there are trees of mixed age and species. Farmers are engaging with this initiative. It is a process. We are seeing Coillte transforming some of its monoculture plantations of Sitka spruce and other conifer stands into mixed species and continuous cover plantations. Progress is being made, albeit not as quickly as everyone would like. We cannot just click our fingers and change one type of stand to another in a year or so. There is a process here. We are engaging with it and with landowners. If we give this time, then we will see a significant change in how we deliver forestry.
54. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to support farmers in tackling ash dieback. [25028/23]
There is a growing concern among farmers and landowners regarding the impact of ash dieback on roadside trees. Potential safety risks stem from the trees themselves and there are also the challenges of safely felling infected trees. Farmers will potentially need to hire a tree specialist to properly assess the trees on their land and to safely remove impacted ash trees. Currently, however, there is no financial support for the management of roadside ash trees. Will the Minister of State provide it soon?
I am not sure if I should declare an interest in this regard. We have forestry on my family farm, although I do not think it is applicable because this question is about roadside trees and I do not think we would be availing of any funding for that.
I suppose the Deputy's question did not specifically relate to roadside trees but it is an essential element of this context. As I said earlier, I think about one quarter of our trees, whether in hedges or out in the countryside, are ash. Ash dieback, therefore, is having a significant impact not only on plantation owners but in the wider countryside as well. We are, therefore, going to see a significant visual change, sadly, in how our landscape will look like in the years to come.
The Deputy will be aware of the supports we have in place for farmers with plantation ash in respect of the reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS, initiative and we have increased the supports for that measure this year. We have also introduced a de minimis scheme for farmers to apply to while we are still waiting for the new forestry programme to be approved.
Turning to roadside trees, these are the responsibility of the landowners themselves. Having said that, though, we have roadside trees along main national roads and this aspect will be the responsibility of the transport sector. We need to examine this issue. There is something to be done in respect of evaluating how we can support farmers and landowners, and not only on their own farms but more generally, and whether there will be some sort of replacement process of tree planting in areas affected. I say this because we are going to see a significant change in the landscape. I read recently about a UK scheme where landowners there can come together and apply for grant support to manage dying trees, so there may be something in that approach that we can consider.
It is good that the Minister of State is looking into this issue. Regarding the schemes to date, the concern I am hearing about from farmers and landowners is that there needs to be more support in this regard. In all likelihood, as the Minister of State said, ash dieback will cause the death of the majority of ash trees here over the next two decades. This will impact roadside trees and increase the risk of falling branches and trees. This presents a clear public concern. Landowners are obliged under the Roads Act 1993 to ensure roadside trees do not present danger, which means they ultimately have the financial responsibility to manage roadside ash trees and pay for the services of professionals, consultants and contractors to carry out inspections. Many of us do not have the skills or expertise to assess the situation. Some of this work can only be completed by professionals, meaning farmers have no choice but to employ them. I understand farm organisations are calling for a financial support scheme to assist farmers in managing this issue. Is this something that is being explored or is the provision of expertise or advice being explored?
Regarding supports, again the responsibility for trees will vary, depending on where they are positioned. We probably need to look at this issue more cross-departmentally. Local authorities might have a role to play here, as might the Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Our focus has been on those plantation ash tree issues. Approximately 15,000 ha or 16,000 ha of ash were planted and these are all now affected by ash dieback. This is where our focus has been. I accept that not everyone is happy with the scheme but a significant number of farmers have applied for RUS and have been satisfied with it. Again, we will keep this under continual examination. I keep this matter under watch. The issue of ash trees in the wider landscape, though, needs to be examined as well.
Given all we know about this issue, we need to get out in front of it. We know the prevalence of ash dieback and its inevitable impact on roadside trees. A targeted scheme would also serve as a proactive measure to encourage landowners to engage in inspections and address risks before they become dangerous. There are larger issues in terms of the approach to the situation. Even the improvements to the interim reconstitution scheme for ash dieback do not cover the full costs associated with clearing and replanting affected sites and the financial loss incurred by farmers or compensate for the loss of timber earnings.
In her response to a previous question from Deputy Kerrane, the Minister of State spoke about exemptions from licensing for the felling of impacted trees. She is saying an exemption from the requirement to get a licence to fell trees, in the case of those infected by ash dieback, could cause environmental damage. If there is a danger in respect of a tree at risk from this disease and there is a delay in the licensing of felling, how much has the Department explored this situation? Will the licensing system be sped up for a situation like this? What research has been done regarding the potential need in this context?
Any farmer wishing to apply for RUS will submit an application for it. This is part of the process to avail of the scheme and an aspect of this will be the felling licence element. If people have significant concerns about any serious threat or danger in the short term, they could certainly reach out to the Department and highlight it. Unfortunately, many people are in the same boat here.
Returning to the original points about the widespread nature of this issue, Teagasc is working to try to identify species in respect of some trees potentially being resistant to ash dieback. Potentially, this may be 1% or 2%, but this would be nice if it were to prove the case. We need expertise in this regard. Anyone who has seen this disease can clearly identify it. If a tree does not look like it has it, however, perhaps it might be one that is resistant to ash dieback. We must examine this aspect too. If 1% or 2% of trees prove to be resistant, it would be great to mind them.
55. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the forestry programme; if he can provide a timeline for when it is expected that state aid approval will be reached from the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25113/23]
My question almost follows on from some of the comments the Minister of State made already. It is to seek an update concerning the new forestry programme.
The Deputy is aware we have our proposed new €1.3 billion programme, which will replace the last one. It is ambitious and has been increased in terms of supports for farmers. It is more cognisant of the impact of forestry on our environment. We have had to factor in all those issues and we believe we have developed a progressive and ambitious programme. We are keen that it is approved as soon as possible. As the Deputy is aware, the new programme is subject to state aid approval. It is also subject to an ongoing strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment process, which is well advanced.
Prior to our formal submission, we have been engaging intensively with the Commission. We made the submission last month. I think it was in the middle of April, but I will check the date for the Deputy. Our submission is in the hands of the Commission now. It will work internally. The submission will be sent to the Directorate-General for Competition and it will then engage internally with other directorates-general on it.
While we have not heard anything from the Commission yet, we expect to hear very shortly. We may still have queries to be addressed.
If there are any amendments to be made, we will be able to make them. Ultimately, we are very keen to address this. We know it is frustrating for farmers to wait. It is also frustrating for forestry companies. We flagged in advance that it would take time. This is the process. There is not much we could have done about it. We could not do anything until the new year. We engaged with the Commission to try to progress as much as we could before we made a formal submission. A formal submission has been made and we eagerly await a response from the Commission because we want to get this programme up and running as soon as possible.
Given that the submission was not made until the middle of April and the former forestry programme had been extended, is it not fair to say that the submission should have been prepared and ready to go earlier in the year, rather than in the middle of April? We are now towards the end of May. As someone put it to me the other day, we are in the middle of a major climate crisis and we cannot plant trees. I find that extraordinary.
The Minister of State said the new programme is ambitious. It sounds good. That is great, but it still does not exist for people who are interested in it. I imagine the number of those interested in getting into forestry is seriously dwindling. It goes back to my earlier point regarding confidence in the sector. People cannot plant trees today. We are nearly into June and we do not have a forestry programme for the next four years. How much longer will people have to wait? Is there any timeline? Do we know how long other countries which have sought this approval have waited? Do we have any indication at all how much longer people and the sector will have to wait for this programme?
I thank the Deputy. Quite frankly, the state aid rules were not available to us until January. We could not have made a submission on 1 January because we did not know what the rules were and could not engage with them. Unfortunately, we could not do anything about that. The last programme was extended by two years. In terms of afforestation over the past couple of years there was a drop-off for all sorts of reasons, but also because it was anticipated that a new programme would be available. That is typical of any final year of an old scheme. People tend to wait.
Trees have been planted this year. We opened up a de minimis scheme for people who had existing licences, which was approved by the end of last year. We have 6,000 ha of approved licences and, I understand, more than 1,500 ha have been planted this year under the de minimis scheme. Anyone who had a licence could apply for this and avail of the proposed new funding. Quite a few farmers availed of that.
Other countries in the EU managed to get around this in terms of what was announced and the wait for state aid approval. I am not sure about the argument the Minister of State has made. At the end of the day, we are nearly into June and do not have a forestry programme. Planting season will be almost finished before we have a programme. People are still waiting. This is leading to a worsening of confidence in the sector, a sector which was already bad enough to begin with. Does the Minister State envisage that the 8,000 ha target will be met?
Regarding licensing, there have been major issues with that on an almost annual basis. Can the Minister of State give confidence to the sector that when the new forestry programme is in place we will not see backlogs and major issues with licensing? Can she give a commitment to the sector that those issues will not arise again when the new forestry programme eventually comes to fruition?
In other European countries, they do forestry differently. We are an outlier because have a massive ambition to increase afforestation. A lot of European countries are not in that boat; they are maintaining what they have and managing it differently. I understand some forestry support across Europe comes through the CAP which is a different process and was negotiated at a different time. That might be a discrepancy in terms of us having to apply for state aid approval.
I can assure the Deputy and anyone listening that we have streamlined the licensing process over the past two years. There is no issue in terms of felling licences. That was where the crisis was when I took over as Minister of State. That has all been cleared up and is no longer in issue. There is no issue with supply. Afforestation licences will be issued when we are able to under the new programme. We issue a significant number of afforestation licences, but it is the follow-up in terms of planting that is the problem. I accept that is partially due to confidence in the sector.
We have heard from other discussions today that there is pressure in terms of other land uses. Farmers may have afforestation licences and wonder whether they will use them within a year or so. I encourage them to use them. We all look forward to new programme being available as soon as possible.
56. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his engagement to date with Irish infant formula manufacturers regarding falling birth rates in China; if there is a strategy in place for these manufacturers for the substantial fall in market share; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25225/23]
Irish farmers produce food of the highest quality. They have a clean and green image. One of the outputs of that is the infant formula that is produced and traded across the world. Has the Minister engaged with various markets, Bord Bia and the industry about the pressure the industry is feeling as its output to China, for example, is diminishing?
I thank Deputy Moynihan for raising this matter. As he knows, I have recently returned from leading a successful trade mission to China in co-operation with Bord Bia. The trade mission showcased, as we would expect, the very best of Irish food and drink to key existing and potential trade customers in China.
As a country, we have a hard-earned and well-deserved reputation as a supplier of safe and high quality infant formula to international markets, including China. It was our sixth most important agrifood export market last year, with total exports to China of €722 million, of which infant formula nutrition accounted for €266 million. The value of infant formula nutrition exports to China has reduced in recent years, largely due to the falling birth rate in China as well as the fact there has been growing import substitution by Chinese infant formula companies.
China’s demographics are changing significantly and Irish companies are responding to new market opportunities, for example by producing specialised nutrition products aimed at adults, including sports nutrition, and dairy nutrition products aimed at providing a healthy source of calcium and other nutrients for older persons. I was glad to launch two of those products from Irish companies last week when I was in China. I am also aware of the growing demand among Chinese trade customers for quality cheese products and other dairy ingredients from Ireland. There is real potential there, as I saw last week.
The research and development expertise available from Teagasc, together with the innovation supports provided by Enterprise Ireland and, importantly, the quality of our grass-fed and quality assured milk supply from Irish family farms are all significant in attracting and retaining multinational infant nutrition companies to locate and develop in here. My Department regularly engages with the infant formula sector on a range of regulatory and other issues. Over the period of Covid-19, my officials engaged remotely with their Chinese counterparts to ensure that interested Irish infant formula manufacturers were able to continue to comply with the detailed registration requirements for export to China during that time.
China represents a significant part of the infant food market – I understand more than 26% globally. Its population is changing significantly. In 2016 there were 17 million or 18 million newborns; that figure is now closer to 10 million when it would have been expected to be almost double that. It is very much a moving target for enterprises selling into that market.
Of course, there is also growing confidence in its own product internally, which is being restored after an issue some years ago. The share of Irish producers in that market is coming under increasing pressure. Based on the clean and green image Ireland has, has Bord Bia been able to establish a more aggressive or stronger campaign to ensure that the Irish product can maintain its position and grow in that huge market?
Bord Bia and the dairy companies working with it have been making significant efforts to build on the significant reputation we have as a quality, sustainable, safe and nutritious dairy exporter and increase various other strands of product into China. Infant formula is obviously a very important product that has to be produced to the highest of standards. Everyone takes very seriously what they feed their children. The fact we have such a strong presence in the infant formula market in China and other parts of the world is a reflection of the esteem in which our milk production system is held. We have been seeing significant change, as the Deputy pointed out, in the Chinese market in recent years with regard to infant formula. The Deputy pointed out the birth rate in China has dropped and the significant increase in domestic supply has been a significant factor. Infant formula milk exports to China peaked in 2017 at €618 million, whereas last year the same exports accounted for €266 million. That is a significant reduction. The Deputy has outlined the reasons for it. We are still a significant player, but we wish to develop the other opportunities in cheeses and nutrition drinks. There is a real market for the great nutritional qualities our milk products provide, on which Bord Bia and our strong dairy companies want to build.
These exports are built on the efforts of our farmers producing a quality, traceable, high-standard product. It means we hold a significant portion of a valuable market. It is diminishing for the various different reasons. Bord Bia is a significant player in communicating a message to the customers on the quality product we have. Does it have a particular campaign to take on the pressure that the infant formula and dairy industry is feeling from that area? Is a campaign being lined up with Bord Bia to ensure the Irish product retains and builds on its reputation within that market, not just in cheeses and products for older people, but on the more valuable infant formula? Will a campaign be in put place by Bord Bia to build on what we already have there?
Bord Bia works on that on an ongoing basis with the companies concerned. There has been a change in dynamic, that is, a significant increase in domestic supply and a preference in China for domestically produced infant formula in recent years. As the Deputy pointed out, a few years ago, the preference was for imported infant formula. That has been a change in dynamic. The level of market share of infant formula we had developed in China reflects the esteem in which our milk is held, and rightly so, given how we produce the milk through grass feeding and its health, nutrition and safety credentials, but other factors in the market have evolved in recent years. Bord Bia, with its companies, is working to make sure we maintain and maximise our share of the market there and look at developing new opportunities. It is fair to say we will probably not see the infant market grow in any significant way. The pressure is otherwise in China, but there is significant potential for growing other nutrition products, such as adult and elderly nutrition products and cheeses. There is very strong potential there for other strong products and it is important for us to work on all of those strands.
57. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the horse project in Cork; and the funding provided for the control of horses in Cork in 2022. [25223/23]
Will the Minister provide an update on the horse project in Cork and the funding provided for the control of horses in Cork in 2022?
Both the Department and I are fully committed to supporting sustainable One Health, One Welfare initiatives in line with the programme for Government and Working Together for Animal Welfare, our animal welfare strategy for the period up to 2025. We continue to support a number of urban horse projects nationwide as a result of our approach. These projects foster community leadership on education and responsible ownership for young people from disadvantaged communities and backgrounds. Supports for the projects are typically provided by the local authorities, and funding provided by my Department is paid directly through the local authorities to support these projects.
Through Cork County Council, my Department has supported a Cork city horse project, which was a collaborative initiative involving Cork city and county councils and community stakeholders, including the Traveller visibility group. We welcome further submissions through local authorities for assistance in Cork under our urban horse project scheme. In 2022, we provided combined funding of €4,150 to Cork city and county councils for the control of horses. To further encourage and develop projects nationwide, officials in my Department are planning a seminar dedicated to the promotion of urban horse projects.
It is good to hear that a number of horse projects are being looked at nationally, but the problem is the horse project in Cork was talked about ten years ago. It has been in the pipeline and it seems to be stalled. Will the Minister and his Department look to push this forward? Cork city and county councils initially came on board and, to be fair, people such as Valerie O'Sullivan, who was on Cork City Council at the time, really tried to push this. However, we need a champion for this horse project and horse projects nationally.
I encourage the Minister's Department to engage with Cork city and county councils to get this delivered. We are ten years on. The Minister has outlined the positivity potential, both from an educational point of view and an animal welfare point of view. There have been incidences of horses and other animals being left in atrocious conditions.
Deputy Gould is right in that it is an important issue and there are many challenges throughout the country. We all need to work to try to address this issue and provide support. The local authorities play an important role in that and the support, work and engagement with my Department is very important in that regard. We welcome ongoing engagement and further proposals. We continue to have a lot of work to do and progress to make to address the issue. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and the project.
The final part of my question was about funding provided for the Control of Horses Act in Cork in 2022. The same year saw an 80% cut in funding spent on the control of horses compared with 2017. Only €1,895 was spent in 2022 whereas €11,000 was spent in 2017. This can be seen on the ground, with horses that are not being cared for and some cases of unbelievable cruelty against these animals. My office is contacted by people who are crying out for the control of horses and enforcement of the Act and refer to graphic scenes of the conditions of these beautiful animals. We contact An Garda Síochána and the pound. To be fair to An Garda Síochána, it is doing its best, but we need a much stronger enforcement of the Act.
What is the Minister doing to ensure local authorities, An Garda Síochána and everyone else are part of this? Horses, beautiful animals, are to be left in fields with the summer coming. We have seen times when horses died because of mistreatment or not being fed, watered or looked after. Will the Minister look at that and ensure the enforcement is delivered?
There is a role for everyone. Leadership is required from my Department in this regard, which we are determined to provide and have been providing. The animal welfare division in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has commenced communications with local authorities with a view to arranging a conference to encourage greater participation in urban horse projects nationwide.
The seminar is expected to be attended by local authorities and representatives from existing projects, non-governmental organisations and community stakeholders to gather together people who are working in the area to assess where we are at and to ensure we encourage greater participation in those urban horse projects which can make such a difference.
I thank the Deputy for raising the particular one in Cork today. I will continue to look to make progress on the matter.
58. Deputy Brian Leddin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps his Department has taken to fulfil the programme for Government commitment to increase the veterinary presence available on all live export consignments to third countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25214/23]
I ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps his Department has taken to fulfil the program for Government commitment to increase the veterinary presence available on our live export consignments to third countries and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. It is important to clarify at the outset that my Department only permits animals to be transported in compliance with the EU's animal welfare legislation, which is among the most progressive legal frameworks in the world. Furthermore, Ireland has national rules to protect the welfare of livestock being exported to third countries on ships, which lay down controls that are more stringent than EU rules and which have been held up as an example by the European Commission to other member states. We support the safe export of live animals as it helps to offer an important market competition outlet for farmers. Nevertheless, we work from a perspective of constant improvement, and my officials have been exploring all possible options which would allow us to increase the veterinary presence on live export consignments, including the potential for national legislation.
We are currently examining the possibility of increasing the number of consignments which are accompanied on the voyage by an official veterinarian with a particular expertise in the transport of animals by sea. To this end, training of official veterinarians new to this area is taking place in early June to increase the pool of expert veterinarians available to accompany these consignments.
Over the past three years, my Department has actively contributed to developing new EU rules on welfare on ships exporting livestock, which are being introduced by the Commission in 2023. Among other improvements, these rules require that an official veterinarian travel on board the first voyage with livestock to a third country after a ship approval inspection. Ireland has operated a similar measure based on its own national rules for a number of years, and it will now operate throughout the EU.
Department officials and inspectors monitor compliance more generally through a system of official controls, including advance checks of paperwork and veterinary checks of the livestock vessel and of all animals before they travel. A Department official veterinarian boards the vessel before and after loading and is also present during the loading process to ensure the highest standards of welfare are maintained.
I thank the Minister for his answer. From speaking to farmers and not from speaking to animal welfare activists, many of them find the trade in live exports quite objectionable. As farmers who care for their animals and who have a long tradition of caring for their animals, they would say it makes more sense and the right thing to do is to slaughter these animals at home as much as possible. There is a trade in live export to the European Union and to north Africa. I do not believe it is a critical part of the market. It is certainly small numbers compared with the total beef kill nationally. However, for as long as it exists, we need to ensure the highest standards. It is not acceptable that it should be on select voyages to north Africa and elsewhere. We should maximise the veterinary presence on these shipments.
I absolutely agree with the Deputy. The welfare of animals must be paramount, and the comfort and welfare of those animals must be assured on any journeys undertaken. The conditions of travel, etc., must be appropriate for the animals. It is an important market outlet. In the past, nearly all our animals were exported live without much processing. It is now a small part of our overall livestock sector, but an important part nonetheless. It offers an important outlet in terms of balancing the market and making sure outlets other than going straight to the factory for processing are available. I certainly think the farming community want to see it continue.
I come from a farming background, as many of the rest of us in the Chamber might be. Along with those of us who are not from a farming background, we want to ensure animal welfare is central and protected. That applies to any journey they undertake as live exports. The processes and oversights we have in place are very strong and, as I said in my initial response, we are seeking to enhance that further by training additional veterinarians to accompany live export trips as well as overseeing the loading and management.
I understand there is a risk of legal challenge by exporters if we require a vet on every shipment. However, we should call the exporters’ bluff on this matter if that is what they are saying to us. As a food exporting nation, we need to be careful we maintain our reputation for high-quality produce and that our food is produced to the highest standards. I think this falls very much into that category. I know the Minister is particularly conscious of the need to maintain that reputation. We should do everything we can to ensure the absolute confidence in the welfare of animals that are exported overseas. We should move to end the live trade export practice altogether.
I respect the Deputy’s position; I have a different view. However, we all agree on the imperative of animal welfare, maintaining their well-being and making sure they are in comfortable circumstances at all times and especially when they are travelling. I believe the rules and regulations we have in place are robust and strong. We are providing additional oversight through the training of additional veterinarians. It is an important outlet for the market as well. The key point is that the rules and conditions under which those animals travel are absolutely appropriate and have proper oversight. We will continue to maintain and further develop that.
61. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the results of a recent survey of more than 250 farmers by researchers at University College Dublin, which suggested that over half had experienced moderate to extremely severe depression; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25226/23]
UCD recently conducted a survey of farmers and, unsurprisingly, found very high levels of stress among farmers, with over half reporting extremely severe depression. I am not sure if the Minister of State is aware of the survey and the causes. If he has an action plan for the stresses on farmers, I ask him to outline it to us.
I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue. We probably do not shine a light on it often enough. Mental health is a critical issue facing all of society, including farmers. Farmers are particularly vulnerable to pressures owing to the issue of isolation and all the pressures that come with the role.
I am aware of the UCD study. I have met its authors because I was keen to get their take on not just the results but also the process they went through. The study has revealed the extent to which Irish farmers are experiencing a range of challenges and stressors that are negatively impacting their mental health. They highlight the importance of mental health initiatives to support farmers. The Government has prioritised farm safety, health and well-being. We have secured dedicated funding of €2.5 million in budget 2023 for a range of initiatives, including initiatives to support increased awareness of mental health among farmers.
In my experience, a lot of the challenge has been identifying farmers who are under pressure and struggling and signposting the supports to them. It is not that we do not have a lot of supports for people who are suffering with their mental health; it is a matter of identifying where people are under pressure.
In a lot of other work settings, people are surrounded by colleagues and are in a workplace where people can identify that they are under pressure and maybe have that conversation with them. In the isolation of farming, when the farmer may spend a lot of time on their own, those pressures can be compounded by that isolation but also may not be picked up on by others. That is why, along with the HSE and the Department of Health, my Department is co-funding a farmers' physical and mental health awareness programme called On Feirm Ground. Approximately 250 agricultural advisers have received training and this year the programme will be rolled out to staff in my Department and other professionals who are in regular contact with farmers. The idea is that it starts with the advisers, which is a very trusted position in a farmer's life. I am talking about the conversation over the gate at the end of a farm visit. Advisers will be supported to understand so that if they do see a farmer under stress, they will be able to ask him or her the right questions, use the right language and signpost the supports that are available.
The UCD survey identified 55% farmers with moderate to severe mental health issues and 40% with moderate to extreme anxiety and stress. It also drilled in to look at the sources of those different stresses. Some of the top three included not just the farm and ordinary farming activity but the perception that farmers are the bad guys in climate change and the enemy of so many people. This causes great anxiety for farmers. They are the custodians of the land. They know they are not going to be taking the farm with them to the grave, that they are passing through and that they are going to be handing it on in better condition than they got it. That is their aim. They need to know that somebody has their back and that they are not the bad guys. They are part of the solution to climate change pressures. That weighs very heavily on many farmers. While you can signpost different services, this is more of a global or national message. They need to know that somebody has their back and that they are recognised as part of the solution and not the enemy. I am trying to get a handle on whether there could be a more global approach to this, as well as the hands-on day-to-day approach.
The Deputy is dead right. I do not think it was a surprise for him when he saw the three main contributors to the stress. In any of his dealings with constituents, with farmers down in Cork or at the farmers' meetings that I and my ministerial colleagues have, the same points keep coming up. Farmers feel blamed when the debate about the environment comes up. As the Deputy says, farmers are custodians of the land. I want to put on the record that we as a Government have farmers' backs. We will continue to articulate the important role farmers play in food production, in feeding a population far bigger than ours here in Ireland, but also in contributing hugely to our rural economy. That is vital because of the spin-off benefit that has. Their role is really valued. At the same time we need to articulate clearly on national media debates and all the rest, and we all have our opportunity to do this, that farmers are on a journey to produce food more sustainably in the future and are part of the solution to the climate challenge. We all need to call out any commentators in the environmental area who seek to paint everything as black and white, who seek to paint people to blame or not to blame. Farming is making a huge contribution through making its activity more environmentally friendly into the future, improving water quality, reversing biodiversity loss and all those measures. Farmers are at the heart of that and they should not be blamed for the damage and the challenges we have.
I very much agree with the Minister of State about the perception and the fact that there were no major surprises in that survey. Farmers feel very much under siege from climate activists, unfortunately. It is not about a blame game. We need to know that everybody is in it together and farmers are very much to the forefront on that. After the marts closed down due to Covid and a lot of the trading was online, when they reopened, people returned to the mart not just for selling. The engagement at the mart is not about buying and selling cattle and livestock; it is about meeting people. It is about the human engagement and the interaction. Has that mart platform been explored and mobilised to support farmers with outlets for accessing services? It is an ideal platform because so many people are in there for the chat. It is not necessarily about buying or selling the cattle. That should be mobilised and I am not sure it is being done as it should. Is there any particular plan for mobilising the marts and that platform to support farmers?
The Deputy is dead right. Covid brought this home to us when the main social interactions farmers had were all taken away from them - the mart, the pub at the weekend for a pint, a local sports match or a religious service. They were all opportunities for farmers, who spend most of their week on their own in isolation. That compounds the pressures they might be facing. If a farmer is sitting in a tractor for 12 hours a day and listening to media commentary telling them they are to blame for all the challenges in the country, no wonder they will feel bad about themselves. At the same time, if they lose the social interaction piece the Deputy spoke about in the mart, which is so important for them being able to engage in, then they do not have the ability to release that the same way.
Through my Department I have funded eight European innovation partnership, EIP, projects. These are locally-led initiatives that look at peer-to-peer support and a range of different supports to develop and support the meitheal, where we all look out for each other. My Department is also funding the DCU-led FarMHealth research project, examining farmers' mental health literacy and help-seeking behaviour, which will inform the development of educational mental health interventions for farmers. A lot of this is about identifying where a farmer is under stress and reaching out. We also have the Farmers' Health and Wellbeing booklet, which went out to 122,000 farmers as part of the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, application process.
62. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when his Department's review of the EIA agriculture regulations will commence; if he will require screening of all hedgerow removal, land drainage and conversion of land to agricultural use, regardless of the scale of such operations, while such a review is ongoing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25216/23]
When will the Department's review of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, agriculture regulations commence? Once it commences, will the Minister require screening of all hedgerow removal, land drainage and conversion of land to agricultural use, regardless of the scale of such operations, while such a review is ongoing?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. As part of the programme for Government, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has committed to conducting a review of the EIA agriculture regulations. I am happy to announce that this review process formally launches today, with the opening of a six-week consultation period seeking views from all stakeholders to inform the review process. The review will involve a full review of the EIA agriculture regulations in their entirety. These EIA regulations apply to three different on-farm activities, including restructuring of rural land holdings, namely, the removal of field boundaries or the recontouring of land, commencing to use uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture and land drainage works on lands used for agriculture.
To address the other aspects of the Deputy's question, it is important to note that the requirement for screening is already set out in the regulations with SI 456/2011, as amended. At present, all screening applications received are assessed by my officials in accordance with Article 8 of the EIA regulations and all applications undergo ecological assessment and on-site assessment before a final decision is made. This process will continue during the review period.
As I outlined, the public consultation informing the review will be open for a period of six weeks. My Department looks forward to welcoming submissions on all parts of the regulations, including the current thresholds. I encourage Deputy Ó Cathasaigh and all stakeholders to engage in this consultation process to help inform the outcomes of the review. The details of the public consultation are available on the Department's website.
The Deputy has 30 seconds.
I will be very brief. It is very welcome that that has been launched today. However, there is still a need for that screening process. I have raised the issue of hedgerows with the Minister of State again and again. People need to exceed 500 m before that screening process kicks in. What we are worried about is that, over the consultation period, people will take advantage of what will most likely be more lax regulations in the interim.
We do not want to see a rash of hedge clearing or scrub clearance - those semi-natural environments referenced by the Minister - happening during the consultation period. I welcome the initial part of the Minister's statement but we need additional protections in the interim while we are carrying out that consultation process.
