A vote has been called in the Dáil so we need a temporary Chair while the vote is in progress.
Draft Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023-2027: Discussion
I propose Senator Paul Daly.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Senator Daly will be Acting Chairman for the duration of the vote in the Dáil.
Senator Paul Daly took the Chair.
I inform the witnesses that a vote has been called in the Dáil, but we will proceed with the meeting until the Deputies return. This will allow the witnesses an opportunity to read their statements into the record. Members have already received the statements and the Deputies will be back to put their questions. Rather than sitting around waiting for them to come back, the witnesses can at least read their statements.
I remind witnesses and persons in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Members are requested to ensure that, for the duration of the meeting, their mobile phones are switched off completely or in airplane, safe or flight mode, depending on their device. It is not sufficient for members just to put their phones in silent mode as this maintains a level of interference with the broadcasting system.
With effect from 25 January 2022, members and witnesses have the option of attending committee meetings in the relevant committee room rather than participating via Microsoft Teams. Masks should continue to be worn by those present when not addressing the committee. Room capacity will continue to be reduced in the short term until all microphones and seating can be returned.
Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as far as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third party or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matter arising from the proceedings.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance relating to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts, and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.
For the second part of today's meeting I welcome the representatives from the Environmental Pillar and BirdWatch Ireland and thank them for coming before the committee today to engage on Ireland's draft Common Agricultural policy, CAP, strategic plan. The witnesses today are Ms Oonagh Duggan, head of advocacy, BirdWatch Ireland; Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith, CAP consultative committee representative, Environmental Pillar; Mr. Fintan Kelly, agriculture and land use policy and advocacy officer, Environmental Pillar; and Dr. Oliver Moore of Cultivate, UCC Centre for Co-operative Studies. I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements. We can start with the Environmental Pillar if that is okay.
Mr. Fintan Kelly
I will start in that case. I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for inviting the Environmental Pillar to speak. I am the agriculture and land use policy and advocacy officer at the Environmental Pillar.
The trajectory of Irish agriculture is a significant challenge in respect of the protection of biodiversity, water and air quality and the management of greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a long-standing societal failure to align the sector with planetary boundaries, our environment's carrying capacity and Ireland's legal obligations. Policies that have prioritised a productivist model of agriculture focused on specialisation, intensification and concentration have degraded our environment and locked farmers into an unsustainable commodity-driven food production system, which has left many economically vulnerable and at the mercy of fluctuating global markets and inequities in the food supply chain.
Notwithstanding positive environmental interventions, such as Ireland's world-class, results-based agri-environment schemes, successive CAPs have by and large failed to meet head-on our looming biodiversity and climate crises or the socioeconomic crisis facing many farms, particularly smaller farmers and those on marginally productive land. While there are elements of the CAP strategic plan that we strongly support, this CAP and other Government policies will, regrettably, fail to address the defining social and environmental issues of our time because, ultimately, they are not designed to do so.
As the main financing mechanism underpinning the social, economic and environmental well-being of rural Ireland, it is essential that supports are credible, targeted and measurable. Many of the proposed actions are not ambitious enough or targeted enough to deliver the degree of change needed. The level of ambition within the CAP strategic plan is not aligned with the level of ambition highlighted in various overarching strategies that span the same timeframe. The CAP is supposed to be the vehicle for change, but it is not clear what the roadmap or the destination is. For example, the EU biodiversity strategy has a target to expand protected areas to 30% of the EU's land and sea, with 10% strictly protected by 2030. It also sets the ambition to restore nature by 2030, and the Commission has promised ambitious binding targets under new restoration legislation. Agriculture is the leading pressure on protected sites nationally, but the CAP strategic plan is not tailored to rise to the challenge outlined in either the EU's biodiversity strategy, Farm to Fork, or the European Green Deal.
Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith
We are aware that the CAP cannot address everything; however, the CAP's own objectives include environmental care and preserving landscapes and biodiversity. The CAP is therefore responsible, at a bare minimum, for ensuring that what it funds will not impact the environment negatively.
Climate change is with us now. There is a report nearly every other day on levels being breached. Ireland's emissions profile means it is essential that significant reductions in agriculture and land use emissions are delivered over the short and medium term. The CAP strategic plan does not have the ambition to deliver meaningful climate action. There are no clear deliverables listed such as reductions in tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and associated timelines. The agriculture sector has to meet a cut in emissions of between 22% and 30% by 2030, and it is not clear how the CAP, worth €9.8 billion, will help the sector achieve its target. The timeline of the CAP strategic plan runs from 2023 to 2027, in parallel with the climate action plan targets for 2030. Despite the importance of agriculture and the land use sector to the climate action plan and the Climate Change Advisory Council's carbon budgets, there is a lack of policy coherence across the board.
As for methane reduction, the IPCC's sixth assessment report, AR6, updated our understanding of the global carbon budget and the need for net-zero emissions of long-lived gases - for example, CO2 and N2O - and for a strong, rapid and sustained reduction in methane emissions. There may be arguments about the multiplication factor to be applied to methane in a steady state in respect of the amount of methane, but nobody is in any doubt that increasing or decreasing methane has a large and immediate effect. The biggest reward would be in terms of greenhouse gases. If a reduction in methane levels will not be politically possible, methane must not be allowed to increase. Dairy cows produce at least one and a half times the amount of methane that beef cattle produce. The suckler carbon efficiency programme of the CAP will have a positive effect on emissions produced by beef cattle, but any gains will be drowned out if dairy cattle numbers continue to increase. There is no programme in the CAP strategic plan to help farmers to reduce the number of dairy cattle. There is an extensification eco-scheme which will help to reduce the push for any extensive farmers to become intensive but it will have no impact on the stocking rates of intensive dairy farmers.
As for land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF, the climate action plan and the carbon budgets place a strong emphasis on the need for increased afforestation and the re-wetting of high-carbon soils. While we would question the feasibility of the targets that have been set, it is clear that any actions must deliver scientifically credible carbon sequestration and be targeted as the right action in the right place. Without immediate action, the EPA projects that emissions from the land use sector will hit between 7 million Mt CO2 eq and 11 million Mt CO2 eq in 2030.
As for re-wetting high-carbon farmland, one of the biggest reductions proposed in the climate action plan is reduced management intensity of 80,000 ha of farmed organic soils, which would deliver direct savings of 880,000 Mt CO2 eq by 2030. The scale of the challenge merits significant attention within the CAP strategic plan. In the absence of an actual intervention, there needs to be a plan started now to include how the strategic plan's agri-environment climate measures, AECMs, can support farmers to achieve these objectives and how we should investigate sustainable paludiculture. Lessons can be learned from the various Irish European Innovation Partnerships, EIPs, and the extensive work throughout northern Europe. One item related to this is that the target of 2024 for GAEC 2 needs to be brought forward immediately to protect peatlands and wetlands.
As for forestry, the current proposals for native trees on farms in the next CAP are wholly inadequate, lacking overarching objectives with targets. Under the current draft eco-scheme proposals, farmers would have to plant between three and six trees per hectare per year, but there is an absence of conditionality or guidance, which means that this initiative will fail to achieve maximum benefits for nature.
As for water quality, the EPA has stated: "Reducing the nitrate levels in our waters must be a priority." The EPA highlights that levels of nitrate pollution are strongly related to increasing agricultural intensification. The EPA has produced pollution impact potential, PIP, maps, which indicate where the greatest risks are for nitrogen and phosphorous run-off. There is no targeting within the CAP strategic plan to ensure that safeguards such as buffer strips are tailored to protect water quality form agricultural run-off, especially in areas indicated by PIP maps.
The pillar also recommends that the definition of "vulnerable water area" for tier 2 be "any water body where agriculture has been identified as a significant pressure". Priority should be given to those identified as having a critical source area, supported by EPA PIP maps. These should be moved to tier 1.
As for renewables, we welcome the move to fund farm renewable energy technology.
As for training, all aspects of the renewed agriculture knowledge and innovation systems, AKIS, must be based on a foundation of the three elements of sustainability.
Dr. Oliver Moore
I will cover a number of different areas, the first of which is the process. Ireland’s CAP strategic plan was submitted to the European Commission. The Commission will assess this plan, and reply to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This feedback, known as observation letters, will be made public. This is a final opportunity to bring our CAP plan more into line with its own strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and with the more ambitious targets of our recently adopted climate action Act. We need to continue to strengthen ambition while bringing everyone into the process. My colleagues have outlined the issues in more detail. To be clear, we have one final opportunity to get this right before we are stuck with a CAP until 2027.
In the SEA evaluation of strategic alternatives, both organic farming options, namely, reaching our organic targets and organics, agroforestry and extensive farming, scored the highest environmentally. The organic budget and annual opening of the organic farming scheme, OFS, are to be welcomed. However, the plan is to continue with the current structure for implementation, which is preparing to fail, frankly.
Ireland has among the lowest rates of organic farming in the EU. We must address a number of issues. Payment rates for farmers in the organic farming scheme are far too low. They are about 50% of what is required to be competitive, with the exception of-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----significant increase in the current plans. Group organic certification is now allowable and must be developed. Public procurement needs a mandated organic-specific percentage of supply increase. Processor competition, for which there is a real need, is lacking. A full suite of supports, covering production, research, advisory-extension services, processing, marketing and more, needs to be developed, as proposed in my submission to the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action last year. I ask members to refer to that for more detail.
In the Irish climate action Act, diversification's contribution to climate change targets is described as "TBD", or "to be decided". Therefore, work clearly needs to be done on diversification to complement what Teagasc is doing and it needs to be done with imagination. This is an opportunity. There are at least three areas under which to consider diversification. Diversifying farming practices and agricultural outputs being the first. Much was made in the SEA of “the right measure in the right place”. By extension, we need the right farming practice in the right region. Diversification may help in some environmentally stressed regions. How do we address numbers declining in tillage and horticulture? What level of mixed farming and local market fulfilment can be reached? How do we enable import substitution and emerging areas, such as hemp co-operatives, social farming and community-supported agriculture? Teagasc research shows that farmers are willing to engage in forestry as a form of diversification------
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----for example. However, the provisions in CAP do little to build an appropriate forestry base. There is a strong case to bring in expertise from elsewhere in the EU to assess and evaluate current policy and develop better practices in forestry and agroforestry. Approaches such as the co-operation areas, including building from the European innovation partnership base are to be welcomed and must continue to grow. We need to begin approaching these questions.
Diversification also relates to farm incomes. According to the European Commission, "the share of Irish farmers in the value chain fell from close to 20% in 2008 to just around 18% in 2016. This is below the long-term EU average of roughly 25%." How do we address this sustainably? Teagasc supports research, sharing good practices, and technical assistance, but we need policy to mainstream on-farm diversification. The LEADER programme does much, but more is needed.
The regional economy needs to be taken into account when considering diversification. Reaching our climate targets in a just transition framework means supporting new directions for regional economies. There are many elements to this, including developing food hubs, local and regional markets and processing opportunities, while also supporting digital infrastructure and the other targets in the Our Rural Futures policy. Rural broadband roll-out has been especially poor thus far and needs to be taken seriously as a national need.
Finally, I will address fairness, which involves farmers, sectors, population groups and regions. For farmers, Ireland will move to 85% convergence by 2026 and 10% redistributive payments. While this is welcome, it is the slowest pace and lowest redistribution possible. Why is this? Other concerns include the lack of a small farmer scheme and social conditionality references. In addition, the size requirement of producer organisations, at €2.5 million turnover, is too high.
Modelling needs to be done on the impact of redistributive payments at high percentages; on allocating redistribution exclusively to small and medium sized farms, which Italy plans to do for farms below 50 ha; and on differentiating payment levels by farm size. Policy expert Matteo Metto has reported on CAP and fairness in Ireland. I ask members to refer to him for more details and, ideally, invite him to speak to the committee.
For women farmers, potential new entrants and people in rural areas, there is a need for access to land, supports, resources and opportunities. Land observatories and land mortgages have been suggested. Developing diversification and organics would also help to revitalise rural areas and provide welcome opportunities for people in rural areas and those who would like to relocate them.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I thank the Chair, the Deputies and the Senators for inviting BirdWatch Ireland to speak today. BirdWatch Ireland is a charity with 15,000 members and 25 branches nationwide. We have offices in counties Wicklow, Offaly, Donegal and Mayo. Our mission is to protect wild birds and other biodiversity. We do this through surveys and monitoring, which relies on over 700 skilled volunteers, education, awareness raising and events, habitat and species projects both in and off our network of nature reserves, and policy and advocacy to press for the changes needed to address the biodiversity emergency.
We have a long history of working directly with farmers and supporting them in conservation actions for threatened wild bird species. We also work closely on agriculture policy, which is the biggest driver of biodiversity decline in Ireland, but also on other issues affecting farmland birds such as forestry, peat cutting and climate change mitigation and adaptation. For the record, I am one of two Environmental Pillar representatives to the national CAP consultative committee.
Farming in Ireland over the millennia has shaped our wild bird profile, but populations have declined sharply in the face of the dramatic changes in agriculture in the past 50 years. Farmland birds such as the curlew, which are intimately linked to our heritage in song, music, poetry and stories, are slowly but surely disappearing from the landscape, with some, such as the corn bunting, already gone.
Every six years, BirdWatch Ireland publishes the birds of conservation concern in Ireland assessment. We use a traffic light system, with red identifying species of highest conservation concern. There are 16 farmland birds on the latest red list. These are: birds of meadows, including the corncrake, meadow pipit and whinchat; birds of arable and mixed farmland, including grey partridge, barn owl, yellowhammer, stock dove and kestrel; birds of damp pasture, including the curlew, snipe, lapwing and redshank; and birds of uplands and coasts, including golden plover, dunlin, red grouse, and twite. Farmland birds are the fastest growing group on to the red list, having moved from amber, and are in serious trouble.
In addition, one third of our wild bee species are at risk of extinction and 85% of our internationally important habitats are in unfavourable condition. These include grasslands, heaths, fens and other wetlands. Species and habitats that rely on good water quality are also under pressure because water quality is declining. Agriculture is the biggest pressure and threat to these, but farmers also have a unique role in the conservation of biodiversity, especially farmland birds, and agriculture policy must, with its reach and funding, support them in this role.
Biodiversity in Ireland is in accident and emergency. The emergency was declared by Dáil Éireann in May 2019. In order to tackle this emergency, we need to act like it is an emergency. Farmers and conservationists are on the front line together on this and, with the same determination used to tackle the Covid crisis, we can turn this around as long as urgent, effective and well-funded policies and actions are put in place.
The focus of Food Vision 2030 is a continuation of an intensification model with unambitious tweaks to address the environmental challenges in agriculture. The CAP strategic plan for 2023-2027, which was sent to the European Commission in December for review and approval, includes some improvements for farmland biodiversity, but it is far from an emergency response. Ireland still has the opportunity to increase ambition.
Most importantly for biodiversity is targeting the funding and supports to where it is needed most.
Between 2% and 5% of the €9.8 billion Irish CAP budget will be spent on effective measures for biodiversity, which is really a small amount. Much greater support and targeting of actions and funding is needed for all farmland, but it is especially needed for farmland with a high nature value and for pulling the brakes on the intensification model.
I will now outline the key changes needed in the CAP strategic plan. The land eligibility rule changes which would remove the threat of 30% of a parcel containing scrub and other habitats being red-lined is good but it must be accompanied by an effective communications campaign to encourage farmers to retain these important habitats.
The space for nature condition of the basic payment, known as good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, 8, is good as it will apply to all farmland but small wetlands need to be added to the list of habitats and the forestry definition should apply to native woodlands only. Furthermore, GAEC 8 requires retention of landscape features such as hedgerows. Irish farmers are allowed to remove hedgerows as long as the same length is replanted before removal. This is facilitating the removal of hedgerows all over the country and must stop. You cannot compare the biodiversity supported by old hedgerows with that supported by new whips. Retention of landscape features means keeping them. Farmers can choose to go up to 10% space for nature on farmland in the eco-scheme but, under this scheme, there is no requirement to improve the quality of these habitats and that is a major concern. Specialist ecological advice should be made available to help farmers improve the quality of hedgerows, ponds, wetlands and more. Unless there are measures for improvement, the state of nature will not change.
The inclusion of an agri-environment scheme measure and European Innovation Partnership for breeding waders is positive but, according to BirdWatch Ireland mapping of important areas for waders and based on our direct experience with the curlew EIP, the budget for the EIP should be in the region of at least €30 million to save this group of rapidly declining red list species.
We welcome the proposed co-operative projects which build on the results-based approach taken with the Burren programme but the funding allocation should be significantly higher to ensure broader geographical scope.
The areas of natural constraint, ANC, payment still has no linkage with environmental action and this is hugely regrettable because it is such a large amount of money. The Natura and commonage AECM payments should also be linked to actions to support the conservation objectives of Natura sites and species.
Underpinning the CAP throughout is a requirement to adhere to national and EU environmental law. The most common breach of cross compliance relates to the nitrates and water framework directive conditions. We really need stronger education and awareness campaigns regarding environmental law and its enforcement.
During the Covid crisis, the State chose to try to vaccinate everyone and not just 20% of the population. Partial, isolated and poorly funded measures will not solve the biodiversity emergency and they do a disservice to farmers who could otherwise have a good news story to tell. We call on Deputies and Senators to support these changes to Ireland’s CAP strategic plan.
As I outlined at the outset, our colleagues who are Deputies are still caught in a voting situation. I have a few questions myself but if I ask them and then have to suspend the meeting, we are open to the possibility of repetition. If the witnesses do not mind and with their indulgence, we will suspend until our colleagues can rejoin us. We will then resume with a session of questions and answers.
Sitting suspended at 7.53 p.m. and resumed at 8.01 p.m.
I apologise. We had to suspend for the voting block. Senator Daly has taken the witnesses' opening statements and members will have read them during the day.
I welcome the witnesses and I apologise on behalf of all of us, but the votes take precedence when they happen and we have to attend. I grew up with wildlife such as birds, bees and butterflies. It was all part of nature and our bringing up and the love for wildlife was number one in my home. However, that was always done with co-operation and people used to ask to come on the land. They loved to view some of the animals and we loved to be with them when they were doing so. Things have changed, unfortunately, and there is more of a dictation setting and finger pointing at farmers that they are anti-wildlife and anti-this and anti-that. A rogue trader will probably be found in every business. I have been looking into BirdWatch Ireland and its representatives might explain who funds the organisation.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
We are funded by memberships and donations. We have 15,000 members nationally. In addition, we conduct survey and monitoring work that we tender for competitively, as we do for our conservation projects on which we work with farmers, such as the curlew European Innovation Partnership. We apply for, and are in, a competitive process for those projects. Other than that, we do survey work for some of the local county councils. We apply for grants as well through State bodies.
Does BirdWatch Ireland not get any State funding outside of the grants?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Through the Irish Environmental Network.
BirdWatch Ireland is here to discuss its views on the CAP plan.
Absolutely, but it is important to know where we are coming from, too.
I come from beautiful west Cork where a fabulous development is proposed that cleared planning recently. It will be super for our rural community to set up a lovely community centre. From what I gather - the witnesses can claim I am in the wrong - from media reports this week, An Taisce and BirdWatch Ireland have opposed this and gone for a judicial review. It will be a disaster for the community if they succeed and will put a negative view out there about BirdWatch Ireland.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
We are going to a different topic, altogether. We will go back to the CAP.
That is fine. Those are the questions I want to-----
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. We can talk about it afterwards.
No, certainly not. There will be no discussion.
We can talk about it privately. That is no problem.
Will both groups elaborate? I will play devil's advocate. If all their asks could be delivered, we would live on a better island, but, realistically, that cannot happen. In a concerted, genuine effort all round to achieve what we need to achieve and what the witnesses' requests are, they have very little reference to science. A problem I have with climate change is that we keep referencing science and scientific changes, be it for the administration of slurry, anaerobic digesters or the improvement of the breed of animal or cattle. Can much or any of what the groups are requesting be achieved by science? Would the science proposed to meet the solution be an issue for some of the species BirdWatch Ireland have mentioned?
I ask the Environmental Pillar, in particular, to reference the issues they have raised in a global context and, in particular, issue of carbon leakage. The prediction is the population of the world will have essentially doubled by 2050. We have to be cognisant of ensuring food security. If we were to meet all the Environmental Pillar's requests, would we end up in a situation in which we would have to import food from Brazil, which is the example that is always used? It is taking out the rainforests, known as the earth's lungs, to produce meat. Looking at this globally, can the witnesses give me a perspective on how we can balance it on an all-round basis and ensure food security as we go along with that?
I recall growing up, when we were cutting the meadow, being sent out ahead of the tractor and the finger-bar mower to run the pheasants, especially their chicks, away. Machinery has probably played as much a part as farming practices and modern technology. Farming practice and the world being what they are, we will not reverse the advances we have made in machinery. How can BirdWatch Ireland propose a solution for that?
The witnesses have made a CAP submission. I do not want to sound like I am opposed to anything they said. However, the CAP as we know it is a cheap, traceable food policy and all their requests are environmentally related. When and where do they see the purpose that CAP was initially introduced for changing? At what point do they think the public will be prepared, through additional costs on their food, to subsidise much of what they have been requesting? It is a roundabout way of asking the question.
Dr. Oliver Moore
I will answer the last one first. Europe has changed CAP in this and the previous rounds, not us. There has been a move over the past few rounds of CAP to move it away from a straight payment to paying for good things. There is a still a good opportunity for farmers to earn good money by doing good. I agree the move has been environmental, but it still allows farmers to get money, not out of direct payments, but out of eco-schemes, which are there to allow farmers to do something good and get paid for it. It is not something we have changed; it is something Europe has changed.
I will go back to a few other issues such as the science. I could have given the Senator a 20-minute dissertation on methane. It would not have helped this argument.
All of our material is based on science.
There are many possibilities within CAP that could help combat climate change, but many of them are future oriented. We may be able to reduce methane by using sunk carbon in the sea, but we do not know at the moment. Climate change is happening and we can only rely a certain amount on what might be possible to do. We need to act now and use approaches we know will reduce greenhouse gases. We should reduce the number of cattle and sheep in the country. I understand that this is a political argument more than anything else, so if that cannot be done politically, we must not increase the number. All the experts on methane, Ag Climatise and so on say that this is based on the premise of there being no increase in numbers. However, there seems to be a move to increase them. CAP should provide a mechanism whereby farmers can be supported in reducing their impacts. We are not demanding that numbers be reduced without some form of compensation; rather, we are saying that this CAP plan lacks any ability to support farmers.
What is the Environmental Pillar's opinion on food security and carbon leakage?
Dr. Oliver Moore
I will address the issue of carbon leakage. At European level, there is a concerted effort to prevent carbon leakage because of the fear and risk of leakage. There are what are called mirror clauses. The French European Presidency announced that reciprocal environmental and health production standards for European products and products imported from third countries were going to be one of its focuses. If it was a rule for products in the EU, it would be a rule for all products brought into the EU as well. It is not a full EU position but the idea of mirror clauses is to deal with the risk and fear of carbon leakage and the problem that one country might opt for a stricter stance. The EU is working on this in respect of forestry, antibiotics and across the board through the European Green Deal. There is a specific effort towards reciprocal standards. That argument is done.
To be fair, we have carbon budget parameters now. Agriculture is aiming for between 22% and 32%, but carbon intensive foods will make that harder to achieve. We have to consider the carbon intensity of the foods that we are producing. That is happening globally. It is why discussions will happen about how the European Green Deal integrates into WTO diktats.
The argument about leakage is not relevant because we now have targets for agriculture and there is a focus on having reciprocal standards.
Mr. Fintan Kelly
I might address the Senator's point on the role of technology and our emphasis on science. One of our core messages as people who are interested in protecting the environment and the socioeconomic well-being of rural Ireland is that, in examining various policies that the Government adopts nationally and at EU level and while recognising that CAP is the primary financing vehicle for implementing these policies on the ground, we see many different targets but we do not see how CAP will achieve them. We do not see the mechanisms.
We are supportive of technology. If there are technologies that make it easier for farmers to have livelihoods, increase farm incomes and improve the environment, that is fantastic and we want to see them being invested in and implemented. The main problem arises in light of the Climate Change Advisory Council's technical report on carbon budgets. Large reductions in emissions have to be made at national level by 2030. There is a programme for Government target of 51%. Irish agriculture's emissions profile is 32.6% of our total emissions. The council has linked 85% of Ireland's agricultural greenhouse gas emissions directly to cattle, be that in the form of methane, feed or nitrogen fertilisers in support of the feed.
The three most ambitious scenarios that the council has generated for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector involve a reduction in the size of the dairy and suckler herds. As policy analysts and people who are concerned about the future of rural Ireland, we view it, similar to committee members, as an unprecedented level of change in rural Ireland, our socioeconomic well-being and the environment. Other sections of the report set out targets for increasing afforestation from 2,500 ha per annum to 20,000 ha per annum by 2028 and to rewet 110,000 ha of drained organic soils, namely, land that was drained and is now being used for suckler farming, dairy farming, tillage and other such activities.
What the council is telling us is that, as a society, we need to change fundamentally how we manage land and how we farm. These are major changes that are supposed to happen primarily over the lifetime of the current CAP. As conscientious observers and people who have an obligation to speak up not just for the environment, but also for rural communities, we cannot see a roadmap for delivering those changes in the current CAP. That is worrying.
Deputy Collins mentioned that environmentalists seem to be dictating to farmers. We do not want to be seen to be dictating or saying there should be this target or something should be done that way; rather, we are observing a national dialogue with input from expert scientists and multiple objectives that people are trying to achieve across the board, for example, air quality, water quality, biodiversity and protecting farm incomes and the viability of family farms. At the moment, though, we do not see that policy coherence being reflected in CAP. We do not see a plan for how we will achieve these objectives coming through. Combating climate change is not something that we can just decide we will not achieve. It is something that we have to achieve for the well-being of our farmers, our society and the global community.
What is BirdWatch Ireland's opinion?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I am not 100% sure as to what the Senator's question about the science meant. Did he mean as it related to birds or-----
No. I meant how mechanical science and advances in mechanisation affected bird species.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
It has affected some species, for example, the corncrake. We encourage farmers in places such as Inishbofin, Donegal and the islands off Donegal to use practices like centre-out mowing, which would give the chicks an opportunity to get out of the way of the mowers. Farmers would also be funded through schemes to delay mowing until after the chicks had fledged and had a chance to survive. There are ways of doing this. Through our conservation work, we test and trial methods with farmers on the ground. We also examine the experience in other countries. There are ways to help, but we need more habitats and we need more farmers doing this. The key issue is that there is not enough funding to target methods and help farmers to move in this direction.
I have some questions for the witnesses from Environmental Pillar. We have discussed organics in the past and we have heard that 2% of all agricultural land in Ireland is under organic production compared with 8.5% in the rest of Europe. The Minister has set a target of 7.5% by 2027, which is already around the EU average. If we are going to start playing catch-up in that area, will smaller farmers get elbowed out of the way by bigger farmers and holdings, which could start reaching that target faster than small farmers might?
Dr. Oliver Moore
It is good to have a decent target to reach. That 7.5% would bring us up from where we are currently, which is a very low level. While there would be the occasional case of very big organic farms taking over areas, so to speak, in general it is not really a problem. Organic farms tend to increase diversity, employment, biodiversity and a range of things in rural areas. If we manage to bring in more organic farming, it will work well. We have a long grazing season and that suits organics. I understand the payments are low for beef and sheepmeat, but with increased payments in those areas, farmers could easily move across to organic. They need extra supports and payments. That would be a full spectrum of supports from all the areas I mentioned earlier, including production, processing, third level, marketing and public procurement. There is a whole suite of areas. I am glad to see-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----doubled for payment. That is fantastic. My biggest fear in growing organics is not that it would have a negative impact on farmers, because I think it suits Irish extensive livestock farming. What is different about organic farming is that there is a potential premium and market, whereas often schemes come along and the consumer cannot buy into them. I love what the witnesses from the previous session do. It is fantastic but I cannot buy into that product. I cannot buy that milk. It is just not possible. There were 60,000 farmers in REPS 2 but I could not buy those products. Nobody could. There is a market of €20 billion for organics between France and Germany alone and Ireland has the third lowest level in Europe. We could really suit organics based on our grazing season and based on British and Irish breeds working well with organics. I would not fear anything other than a more vibrant agrifood sector with more organics and I would look forward to that.
I was asking about the speed at which we have been trying to get people to change over. We are talking about going from 2.5% to 8% in five years. Can smaller holdings do that? Is there a role for smaller holdings in reaching that target in that short space of time or will they be pushed aside and these big farms take the funding to reach that target? Do the witnesses think we can even reach that target in five years, by 2027?
Dr. Oliver Moore
I should probably finish but I will speak once more on organics and then let everyone else in. It is more my area. The 7.5% target is very ambitious. It will be quite difficult to achieve and it will be very difficult to achieve at the payment rates being offered for beef and sheep, which is where most farmers are currently in organics.
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----5% sustainably, keeping prices good for farmers and avoiding any negative impacts in different ways. Going from where we are at, we have never reached our organic targets. We did not reach our targets for 2020 so I am not so interested in the figures as I am in the methodology and reports. I do not want to see the negative effects the Deputy is describing potentially happening. That might happen if loads of farmers came into beef and sheep and there was no competition in processing or prices. Nobody wants these things. People want to see a sustainable growth in organics, so opening the scheme year on year is a good sign. We should also increase the payment rates for horticulture. Horticulture does not take up a huge amount of land. I want to see it grow sustainably and work for farmers. I have no interest in big megafarms coming in and taking over, but that is happening in conventional farming anyway so I do not think it is a problem in organics. We just need to do this slowly, carefully, methodically and in a full spectrum kind of way.
I have a few questions for BirdWatch Ireland. Ms Duggan said that 2% to 5% of the €9.8 billion in Irish CAP money to address biodiversity matters is very weak and more funding is needed. What kind of target or how much of that €9.8 billion would be needed?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
A big chunk of the funding is going to the co-operative projects. This is one element of the agri-environment scheme and it would be good to see more funding go to that project to widen its scope. That is the main chunk of that percentage I was talking about. We do not know what the call will be for the breeding wader programmes for birds, for example. That will be a specific scheme. We believe that should be in the region of €30 million to address breeding wader declines. That funding is going to support farmers on the ground and it is targeted. We would also like to see more linkage between the existing measures that are in the agri-environment scheme, like the Natura and commonage payments being more lined up with the conservation objectives of the different sites so they can help improve those areas. Many of those would be peat habitats. To improve the quality of the habitats, there could be a carbon dividend there.
In all of this, there is a good news story to tell once you start seeing a reversal in declines. I am tired of talking about the decline in farmland birds. We need to be talking about success stories. Farmers can help with this but we just need to get more money to them to support and incentivise them. Diversification to support farmland birds is an ecosystem payment. It is an ecosystem service and payment for ecosystem services. Society wants more biodiversity, not less. There is a good opportunity here if we just target that money more to where it needs to be.
Ms Duggan also spoke in her opening statement about the wild bee species. We all accept they are at risk of extinction. Will she give us an indication of the seriousness of the issue? Is it too late for some of them at this stage? Are they gone?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
No, I do not think it is. There are some that are very rare, like the great yellow bumblebee, which has its stronghold in Belmullet. There is a project kicking off there, which I believe is an EIP project to help with that species. Again, this is all about working with farmers. This is the farmers' good news story. They are doing the work supporting the habitats for bees. Bees need food and shelter, which means flowers and places to nest. If we can help bring back those habitats, we will be helping the bees. Of course, all of society can help in their gardens but farmers have a lot of habitat on their land and they have a lot of land, so that is where big dividends could be made.
Ms Duggan said that the budget for the EIP should be in the region of at least €30 million. I ask her to delve a little deeper into that. What species would that be for? What would the money be spent on and how was that figure arrived at?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
On the budget for the European innovation programmes, that has yet to be decided. We need a scheme to support breeding waders, that is, birds such as the curlew, redshank, dunlin and lapwing, that like wet grounds. These are birds with which members may be familiar. The money would go towards supporting farmers in regard to actions on their farms in an area we would hope to map in our farmland bird hotspot mapping project in order that funding can be properly targeted. All of the funding would go towards supporting farmer actions such as wader scrapes and other types of habitats.
I thank the witnesses.
I welcome the witnesses who are on site and those who are joining us online. It is good to have them here.
On organics, I was very happy to hear my colleague Deputy Martin Browne raise that issue. I note the scheme was opened to farmers today. Let us hope there is a good uptake. All members of this committee are in agreement that we are good at what we do in Ireland in agriculture. There is a proud tradition in that regard. Members are also in agreement that we can do much more in organics to catch up with our European counterparts. I accept Dr. Moore's point that we need to do that in a way that is sustainable and achievable. I take his point that achieving a 5% share that is long-lasting and stable is better than lurching towards some bigger percentage.
I have a question for BirdWatch Ireland with regard to the Department and its obligations under the nature and water directives. Is the Department meeting its stated objectives under the needs assessment? On the CAP strategic plan, the witnesses can correct me if I am wrong but my sense is that there is a large pot of money in Europe that we are not fighting for on behalf of farmers in Ireland for the types of schemes that are going to pay nature dividends and, as stated by Mr. Stanley-Smith, help farmers to do good things. Is that true?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
The CAP budget is €9.8 billion, which is a huge pot of money. If that money was well targeted, we could, through that pot, make huge headway on water, climate and biodiversity, with farmers doing the work and us supporting them. The Deputy also asked if the Department is meeting the objectives of its needs assessment. In our view, the CAP regulation is weak. There was a lot of horse trading in the final negotiation. Negotiating is difficult with 27 member states arguing for different levels of ambition. In terms of the regulation, Ireland has stepped up in regard to some elements of the CAP strategic plan. It has an opportunity to step up further under a particular article, the number of which escapes me at this time.
In terms of water, there are measures within the CAP that could help but, again, not enough of the funding is being targeted towards effective actions that can happen on the ground. At BirdWatch Ireland we often find that bespoke advice, which we get from engaging with farmers about their farms and what is happening in their areas, is what matters most. They have a huge pride in what they are doing, especially when they learn about species. I am sure it would be the same with water when they learn about the measures they can put in place. If they are supported financially to put those measures in place, it makes a lot more sense to them and, obviously, to their pockets. We would like to see a lot more targeting. Within the agri-environment scheme measures on water there is some targeting but given that there are 130,000 farmers, that targeting reaches only a very small proportion of them. That is the issue. As I said, there is some targeting, but it does not reach everybody.
In regard to the eco-scheme, between the conditionality of the basic payment through to the eco-scheme, that is where one gets the biggest gains, again because one is targeting 130,000 farmers. Under the agri-environment scheme, we reach about 50,000 farmers but we reach fewer of them under the co-operative projects element which is even more targeted. We could be achieving a lot more with the money we have.
The following question is to all of the witnesses. Is the door still open on CAP? As I understand it, it is very much in the political space now. Is that correct? Is it the case that if we are clear enough in what we are looking for and are loud enough, we can influence that political decision that would be coming from Europe?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
The CAP is with the European Commission for review and approval. It will be assessed against the European Green Deal elements. There is scope for increasing ambition. I would like us to be as loud as possible in doing that. Do I expect to see a transformation at this point? I do not. There are tweaks that could be made to make it a bit better than it is. We have to remember that the CAP regulation finally agreed is not great. We can increase ambition under one of the articles. It is up to all of us to make those requests.
I thank Ms Duggan.
I thank the witnesses for coming in. I also thank those who are joining us online. My first question is to all of the witnesses. We talk about CAP as if we have to do X, Y and Z environmentally. In fairness, many farmers are doing things. Years ago the purpose of the CAP negotiations was to bring down the price the farmer was getting for the food he or she was producing but it was subsidised so that the people in the cities and other areas who could not afford it would be able to afford it? Do the witnesses recognise that was the reason CAP was introduced in the first instance, that it was not about the extras that have been added to it over the years? I presume they would agree with that.
It is a while since I last met Ms Duggan. Birds migrate and come back to Ireland. Of the species in this country, what percentage migrate and come back?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I cannot say. There are 212 regularly occurring species in Ireland. I would not be able to give a percentage in regard to migration.
In regard to the species that are declining, are they migrating or resident species?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Of the 16 farmland birds, there would be a mix of resident species. For example, red grouse in the uplands is resident. The curlew breed is here but it also migrates. There would be a mix of both.
With migrating birds, do we know it is a problem in the place they migrate to or if the problem is here? Can we pinpoint that here?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
The 16 farmland birds are actually breeding here. We can pinpoint that.
What about the migrating ones?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
A percentage might be breeding and migrating but those 16 breeds of farmland birds are ones we can say for sure we know what is going on with their populations and that they are declining. That is based on the bird atlas done some years ago.
We talk about the bees. They are very important. As part of GLAS farmers had to put out sand in a field and leave it in the corner. Maybe farmers are arriving at the wrong conclusion but I have heard farmers say that if you put it on a field and there was a ditch beside it, while bees increased around it, some went into the ditch and other wildlife like badgers were coming along. Would that be a factor?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I am afraid I am not a bee expert. I would not be able to answer that. Wildlife all co-exist. I can imagine there might have been badgers around.
I wonder have any studies been done on how, when we try to improve a situation, some other part of wildlife harms what we were trying to achieve. That is what I am trying to get at.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
The Deputy is saying the badger was -----
He was biting into the ditch and getting rid of the bees.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Okay.
I have heard this from several farmers.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Yes, that can happen, but as long as you have enough habitats for the bees, some badger snuffling around should not have an impact. The problem is we do not have enough habitats. Farmers putting out a couple of piles of sand might not be enough. Then it might not be done in the landscape. I am not even sure how effective that measure is. If it is done on a landscape scale, there should not be an issue with some localised badger doing whatever he was doing in that pile of sand.
Regarding the corncrake, curlew and other birds, there were so many pairs around the country. How did they come to those figures? I know where there were curlews and they were never counted.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
We want to know where those are so the Deputy will have to let us know. There are a range of surveys nationally, especially on the likes of the curlew but also on other species. The breeding bird atlas was conducted and published in 2013, I think. That would have been based on the survey work done by volunteers through citizen science. They were skilled volunteers who knew what they were looking out for and could recognise the signs of breeding activity, for example. That is how it is done. I am sure there was also some population modelling included.
Has any study been done on the GLAS scheme, now rolled over, where the wild bird cover is sown every year? Has that helped the situation?
Ms Oonagh Duggan
There has been no evaluation of that. That is something that we have called for. It is very important when we are undertaking measures that there is some way to monitor if it is having a result. Anecdotally, however, we know the wild bird cover in certain areas increased the local passerine, small bird, population and that birds of prey also benefited from the wild bird cover because they would eat the small birds. It helped with the food chain. We would hope that monitoring and evaluation of all these schemes is done so that we know money is being used for the best possible result.
I know a few people who have gone into the results-based environmental agri pilot, REAP. In fairness, it has an option of cutting the meadow from the middle out when cutting the silage, hay or whatever. It is at a later date in July.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
It is 15 July, I think.
I presume BirdWatch Ireland welcomes its inclusion in REAP.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Absolutely, yes. We do indeed.
I will turn to organics. There is a problem. Ms Duggan spoke of 20,000 ha of trees every year. Being realistic, we are allowed plant 4,500, is it, or was it 2,500 trees per ha last year? We should take an holistic view of this. There is an opportunity which I have spoken of many times. Just think that there are 130,000 farmers in Ireland. Each single farm payment application is something around 32 ha. One thousand trees is an acre, generally. There are bigger farmers and smaller ones. I am just averaging it out. If you could get one of those farmers to put in 1,000 trees in the next few years, would we not achieve 130,000 acres of trees that would do an awful lot of good? That is about 45,000 or 50,000 ha of a win that we could have between now and the end of CAP. We should encourage the farmers. I am not saying you put them all together. You could put them down by a ditch so that a farmer would not interfere with them, as it were, and sow them in different places that would help biodiversity without inhibiting a small farmer. That is one scheme. The eco-scheme, in my opinion, will help a lot under the new CAP. It is low-hanging fruit in my opinion that we can get. Anyone thinking we can plant 20,000 ha of trees for the next 15 years would have to start making more land.
I was listening to Mr. Kelly on the phone after the voting. I will call it straight because I do not believe in beating around the bush. Mr. Kelly should think about the farmers around this country who went down with stone shores years ago on small farms and, with spades, shored it or gravel tunnelled it. There are dairy cows in Kerry and a lot of the west is shored land. Mr. Kelly knows the terrain probably as well as I do. To tell those farmers they will rewet the land would be like a red rag to a bull. Anyone who comes out with that should know it will not wash. There is a saying in the countryside: bad land is like trying to tame a wild duck. It is hard done. If you tell a farmer with 30 or 50 acres that the piece down the end of the field that they have been all their life working on, that they have put blood, sweat and tears into, that they are going to let the land go back into the wild after they have been fighting with it all their lives to keep it right, it is not a runner. I will be honest. We need to look at other solutions.
I thank everyone for coming in. There was tree planting under AEOS and under the old REPS scheme. Under the eco-scheme I think 4% has to be done for biodiversity to qualify for CAP.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Or up to 10%.
But it is a minimum to qualify.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
Yes.
And then you have to do your eco-scheme after that.
Mr. Kelly wants to come in to answer some of those questions.
Mr. Fintan Kelly
I will respond to the two points Deputy Fitzmaurice made on the forestry targets and the rewetting of organic land targets. I come from the same neck of the woods so we will both speak straight to each other. That is our way. I was quoting those particular targets because they are targets that have been put forward by the Climate Change Advisory Council. One of our jobs as an environmental NGO is to analyse these various policy drivers or policies that might be adopted by the Government and to try to give a view of what the environmental or socioeconomic impacts of that might be. We would then give some advice or indication of what the best pathway forward might be. I totally agree with the Deputy on the target.
I think it was something like 200,000 ha per annum but based on the track record of afforestation figures, that seems totally unfeasible.
As an environmental NGO, we would not be supportive of a roll-out of the forestry type on which the current model of forestry in this country is based. It would have devastating impacts on biodiversity, water quality and the socioeconomic well-being of many rural communities. Having looked at what the Climate Change Advisory Council is saying, if we are to achieve anything like the target figures, we need to see radical change in the type of forestry we plant. That change needs to be informed by science, covering the best tree in the best place and with the right management. There also needs to be real engagement with communities because the planting figures we are seeing now indicate that people are voting with their actions. What people's behaviour tells us is that they do not like the forestry model we have. I agree 100% with the Deputy on the feasibility of the figures.
On the re-wetting of agricultural soils, I also agree that there would be massive resistance to the reclamation of improved agricultural land. One of the key points we are making today is that we see targets and ambitions but we do not see how the Government is proposing to meet them. We see real constraints, although we also see opportunities. Ms Duggan spoke about the conservation status of breeding waders. Obviously returning some of that land to a wetter condition or to wetland would have massive benefits for biodiversity, climate change and water quality but if farmers have to give up their land and return it to a wetland state or a lower management intensity, they should be compensated.
To go back to the earlier point about the purpose of CAP, while it was originally designed to be a system to subsidise food production, the CAP we have now is much fairer for farmers because it reflects the multiple goods and services that farmers provide to society. If a farmer who is managing reclaimed land at the moment is incentivised or rewarded for managing it less intensively, is happy to do that and delivers certain public goods and services, then that is a win-win. We are not saying farmers should be dictated to, their land should be take off them and their ditches blocked overnight. What we are saying is that there is a real need to recognise the scale of change that is required and in that context, there is a need for engagement, open dialogue and for everyone to learn from each other. We have our perspectives but every time we engage with farmers, we learn something because they are environmentalists as well. They are experts too. Our message is that there is a need for massive change and the CAP as it exists currently is not capable of delivering that. We need to see a better roadmap for how we are going to get to where we need to be and we need to bring everyone together.
I agree with Deputy Fitzmaurice with regard to land that has been reclaimed through blood, sweat and tears over generations. We all accept that we have challenges to meet because of climate change and that we have to adapt but that will be a cul-de-sac. Farmers will just not go there and that will not happen. It just will not happen. It has cost farmers an awful lot of money to make land productive and it is a source of pride to them to have managed to do so. We have to meet our climate change challenges but we have to find another route because the re-wetting of productive land that has been worked for generations to arrive at that state will not happen.
On the forestry question, there is a win to be had there. I think the target in the climate action plan is 8,000 ha per year. I laid out some figures earlier and have spoken to several Ministers about this previously. If there are 130,000 farmers and they get 1,000 trees planted over the next few years under the next CAP, that equates to something like 45,000 to 55,000 ha. If the target is 8,000 ha per year, then we could reach a seven or eight year target. We also need a certain amount of planting to make sure we are supplying the commercial timber sector but I am talking about the farmer planting down by the ditch. The group that was here earlier talked about whitethorns and breasting the trees like years ago and there is a lot that farmers are willing to do, in all fairness to them. That is workable.
It would be no harm if the odd person from the Climate Change Advisory Council went out on the ground to see the reality. The advisory council can put out all of the figures it wants but it needs to look at where we can get a win to get things moving. Working with farmers, as Mr. Kelly pointed out, can lead to wins, perhaps in the context of the eco-scheme under the new CAP. However, as the Chairman has said, land reclamation will not fly. Anyone who went down the country and suggested that to a farmer would get a bit of a shock.
I thank the witnesses for coming in.
Deputy Carthy is waiting to get in but I just want to ask one question about ground-nesting birds and their predators, specifically mink and buzzards. Mink are a non-native species and are doing serious harm to bird life, hares and other species that have their young on the ground in unprotected areas. Have our guests any views on how mink can be controlled or curtailed? In my part of the country, mink are a serious problem for wildlife.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
To be honest, we know that mink are having localised impacts in some areas but our assessment is that they are not the number one issue to address when it comes to helping ground-nesting birds. The biggest issue there is providing habitat for them and that involves farmers working to help them with their habitat. There are predators out there that have an impact but they would be more in the line of corvids and foxes. That is why we need to be very careful about where we put trees because trees provide cover for foxes and crows. We really need to make sure that trees are not planted in places that are important for ground-nesting birds because otherwise we will lose even more of them. That is one issue. There is no issue in relation to buzzards. Buzzards are not a threat to our ground-nesting birds. The main diet of buzzards is rats, rooks and rabbits, the three Rs, so we would not consider them a threat to ground-nesting birds at all.
Sincere apologies but I missed quite an amount of the meeting. I will try not to repeat what others have said already. I will start by sincerely thanking our guests for being here and for the work they do. It is important that the need for conservation, biodiversity and alternative ways of doing things is articulated at committees like this and in society at large, regardless of whether politicians agree with everything that is put forward.
One issue that would be useful to explore further in the context of the opening statements is the fact that we are in a very late stage in the CAP process. The CAP strategic plan has been submitted to the European Commission. The detailed plan was published this week and it is a fairly comprehensive document. There was quite an emphasis in the opening statements on the need for the CAP to do more in terms of meeting the objectives set out. What would be useful for this committee to bring to the Department and beyond is the witnesses' perspective on what needs to be changed in the Irish strategic plan in the context of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2.
I noted Ms Duggan’s comments earlier in respect of eco-schemes. Eco-schemes are a set of options on which farmers need to take a number of actions to hold on to a large chunk of their Pillar 1 payment. I understand the limitations that have been set out in respect of Pillar 2, particularly in the case of the agri-environment schemes, as I mentioned at an earlier meeting. In some instances, the people we most need to reach may, for many different reasons, be partaking in those types of schemes. Will our guests be specific - I apologise if they already have been - about what needs to happen in respect of both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2?
Sometimes this committee gets bogged down in discussing what the CAP needs to deliver, without taking a step back and recognising there are many things we expect the CAP to deliver that could be delivered directly at a national level. We do not always need to operate these matters from within the Common Agricultural Policy. What needs to be done, whether in or out of the CAP, that could be delivered outside of the CAP? Once it does not fall within the remit of state aid, the sky is the limit in terms of what we can deliver nationally through Exchequer funding or alternative schemes.
To return to the general points, I agree with our guests’ objectives. I agree with the carbon targets we have set ourselves and I recognise the need for action. I would not start here if we were deciding what type of agriculture model we would develop in Ireland, but we are here and this is the starting platform. I understand that when people hear about €9.8 billion of CAP funding, they think it is a lot, but in real terms it is less than what was available in previous times. If we are to look at CAP funding as a payment to farmers for carrying out a service, our guests are correct. In every round of the CAP, the number of services we expect farmers to carry out on behalf of society is getting larger. The CAP started off as a way of delivering food to a starving Europe and it has expanded to much greater issues such as rural development, environmental biodiversity, climate action, animal welfare - the list goes on. The difficulty is we are asking farmers to deliver more services with less money and for less money, at a time when their alternative source of income, namely, the price they get for their product, is also under severe pressure in terms of input costs and the market price they receive. This is not easy and there are no easy solutions, as our guests will appreciate. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear how we can address that.
Mr. Kelly talked about the need for real engagement with communities. The fundamental problem is that, in the context of our climate action targets, there has not been real engagement with rural or farming communities, or at least they do not feel as though they have been consulted or engaged. Most of the people I meet tell me they were adhering to the principle of "reduce, reuse, recycle" before it was ever a term. In any farmyard, there will be a bucket of screws and nothing is ever thrown out. Baling twine is wrapped up and used for something else. Farmers will argue they were the protectors of the land before it was popular, when Government and European policies were advocating the destruction of the land for all sorts of reasons. In many respects, it was farmers and the communities around them who were at the vanguard against some of those destructive measures, yet for many of the people I speak to in my constituency, climate action means additional taxes and charges and their livelihoods being put under threat. They have not been engaged with to any great degree; in fact, they believe their lives are being made more difficult by something they regard as not necessarily their fault. On the other hand, they really want to play a part. Most farmers think in terms of generations in a way most other people do not. In most cases, when they farm the land, they are thinking about who is going to take over the land when they pass on.
Do our guests recognise that we need to get a better sense of what engagement is? Do they have a sense of how we can do that? I do not pretend to have all the answers and I get very frustrated sometimes with Government policy set out under the guise of climate action that is actually destructive. Whatever we might think of some Irish farming practices, at an international level we are world beaters in almost every sector in the context of sustainability, yet moves are made to reduce and reduce. We tell farmers, not only in Ireland but throughout Europe, that they cannot use certain pesticides, for example, but we will import food from the far end of the world where those pesticides are used. We talk constantly about the number of cows in Ireland, while trade deals are negotiated all the time that will see beef and dairy come to European shelves from countries that do not have a fraction of the level of oversight. Unless and until we get to that point, these discrepancies and frustrations will grow. I fear that, as those frustrations grow, it will lead to downright opposition to the progressive changes we need to make.
Our guests acknowledged this in the context of forestry policy. It is a really good example of how to make a mess out of something that should be an absolute success story for our country. The irony is that some of the trees that will be planted will be of very little benefit to the environment and will be planted in places where they will be probably more destructive than if we had left the land alone. We have seen this in parts of the west, where there are swathes of peatland on which acres of Sitka spruce have been planted. It is madness from an environmental point of view and, to many communities, when they hear forestry, that is what they think of.
In the short time that remains, each of our guests might give us a sense of how we can improve that engagement and turn the rhetoric of engagement into a working, live partnership between farmers, rural communities and our shared objectives of creating better conditions for land, wildlife and our country at large.
Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith
I might respond to the first part, about the status of the CAP. Our CAP strategic plan has gone to Europe and it is being analysed there, as are all the other CAP strategic plans. The Commission will write back to Ireland with its views on what needs to be changed, what is good and bad and so on. At that point, we in the Environmental Pillar will analyse that response from Europe and we will be quite happy to share our analysis of it. There will be some toing and froing between the countries and Europe for a short while after we receive the response. If we can provide any useful analysis of the response from Europe, we will certainly do so.
Mr. Fintan Kelly
On the mechanisms and how we might encourage better engagement, I strongly believe there is nothing as powerful as a good example. We have seen that with the Burren Life programme. That is a very simple idea that has gone around the world, and Ireland is now one of the leaders when it comes to results-based agri-environment schemes. It has had a very positive impact on communities in Ireland and throughout wider Europe.
We must identify the win-wins. We must go down on the ground and try to get as many of them implemented as possible. When we do that, we have to see how we take the next step, that is, how we take these lessons we have learned from these case studies and implement them nationally. That is something we have not done enough of. There have been many good targeted schemes, such as things that have found solutions for how to address water quality issues and whatnot, that just have not been rolled out. That would be one suggestion. We should try to be better at identifying best practice then rolling out the results from that.
Another suggestion is we really need a properly funded National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS. Our rangers are the people on the ground who are engaging with communities on some of the most difficult conservation issues we have in the country, and the NPWS has been cut to smithereens over the years. That originally came from an attitude that any environmental regulation was bad, but as that has played out, the result has been much worse for communities because we have had no engagement, we have ignored many issues and it has got to the point things have had to go to Irish courts or EU courts. Then rules have come in a very abrupt way that has not improved the situation. We must get much better at recognising the need for grassroots engagement and ensuring we fund the positions and the people who can deliver that at a community level.
What Mr. Kelly mentioned is worth noting. He is correct in what he says about the Burren project and that has been very successful. However, at the beginning of that, it was not working with the farmers but talking to them. When the farmers took it by the scruff of the neck, it was they who made a success of the project and not the experts. The farmers in the Burren should take a salute for what they did and what has been achieved. As Mr. Kelly said, it is being rolled out everywhere now.
Does Mr. Moore want to come in?
Dr. Oliver Moore
Yes. I thank Deputies Fitzmaurice and Carthy for their remarks. With respect to the process, when the observation letters come back from the Commission, it is what is in them that will decide on the last few changes that can be made. The change-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----observation letters, I would imagine. With the way things are going and all the different limits and restrictions on pesticides, animal welfare and everything, the different------
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
------being so low in organics as well in terms of fertiliser inputs, veterinary bills and so on. We need to be able to talk to farmers as well, with far more that just two Teagasc advisers, about organic-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----advisers 15 years ago and we have two now. We so suit organics and we have the potential to talk to farmers about how to do it better, like how basically to do more-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----the costs are far lower. Organic farmers are not the ones worrying about fertiliser prices at the moment. Also, on Horizon Europe funding, one third of the agriculture stream is now going into organics. We need to be accessing that money and-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----information possible about transitions that are needed. In Cloughjordan we are going to do events on just transition, farm diversification and rural diversification on 22 April-----
(Interruptions).
Dr. Oliver Moore
-----stakeholder events. We need to start doing this kind of thing. We need to start bringing as many people as possible together to talk about diversification as much as just transition and what is going to be involved. It is about what it is possible for people to do without it-----
(Interruptions).
I will give Ms Duggan the last word but ask that she be brief.
Ms Oonagh Duggan
I thank the Chairman. I want to follow up on the engagement question. It is kind of reinforcing what Mr. Kelly said about the Burren. The European Innovation Partnership element of the CAP in Pillar 2 and the co-operative projects rely on farm advisers and ecological advisers going out on the ground. It is very bespoke. They are powerful tools to work with farmers on the ground and that is where you get the engagement. However, from looking at the sums, there is only about €200 million in that pot. That is not enough. We need a lot more money. If we are serious about engagement, we need a lot more funding out there to talk to farmers about what needs to be done. I was born and raised on a dairy farm in County Limerick. I was trying to think of what my dad would say now about what is happening with dairy farming and the need to change. All I could think of is he would need very bespoke advice on what would suit his circumstances to bring down emissions, work with biodiversity on the farm and look at water quality. That is what is needed and there is not enough of that in this CAP.
This might be a controversial topic but about 73% of the CAP budget is unattached to outcomes. Look at the basic payment. There is the 25% going to eco-schemes but we are not sure how much that is going to be effective for results. A substantial portion of that CAP funding is not given to ecosystem services. It is about paying farmers the direct payment to adhere to the law, so it is not all about providing services. The main area we get bang for that buck is the advice on water and climate through Pillar 2, but that budget is tiny. It is only €1.5 billion. The eco-scheme is €1.4 billion. They are very close but the targeted outcomes will come in Pillar 2 whereas we believe they will not in Pillar 1. Hedgerows Ireland and colleagues who were here earlier would say there is no focus on improvement of hedgerows in the eco-scheme, so we are going to be paying for the status quo. That status quo has allowed the removal of hedgerows in GAEC 8 and GAEC 7 currently. Monaghan County Council can say only 12% of its hedgerows are in good condition at the moment. We need to be paying and building up that big pot of funding in Pillar 2 to support farmers.
I thank Ms Duggan. I thank the representatives from the Environmental Pillar and BirdWatch Ireland for attending and making their presentations to the committee. Our next public meeting will be with representatives of the agricultural sector to discuss the TB eradication strategy.
The joint committee adjourned at 9.18 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 February 2022.