Skip to main content
Normal View

Thursday, 14 Jun 2012

Other Questions

EU Directives

Questions (6)

Billy Kelleher

Question:

6Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he has had ongoing discussions with farming groups in relation to the practical impact of the changes to wetland drainage in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28530/12]

View answer

Oral answers (8 contributions)

Responsibility for the drainage and reclamation of wetlands is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and I simultaneously introduced legislation on 8 September 2011 in this area to address a European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland relating to Ireland's implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive which requires environmental impact assessment for certain categories of farm development.

The ECJ judgement is in regard to the restructuring of rural land holdings, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture, and land drainage works on lands used for agriculture. Naturally, it has been a priority to address the findings of the court and thereby minimise the prospects of significant fines being applied against Ireland. This case, which opened in 2006, remains before the court for adjudication and an oral hearing has been set for early October 2012.

In introducing these regulations, however, I have also sought to ensure the system introduced was appropriate, accessible and reflected the particular circumstances on Irish farms. It is for this reason that, with the exception of the drainage and reclamation of wetlands, responsibility for removal of field boundaries, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture, and land drainage works on lands used for agriculture, has transferred to my Department from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

My officials have had significant consultation with the farm bodies at all stages of the process, including meeting the representative organisations on a number of occasions to discuss progress and explain the requirements of the new regulations. In addition, I published a comprehensive guidance document for farmers which is available on my Department's website and in hard copy format at Teagasc, from agricultural consultants and at local Department offices. I also provided a leaflet to every farmer in the country explaining the regulations that now apply in this area.

From telephone conversations I had with people in Duhallow during the day, I understand the entire region could be described as a wetland at present. The difficulty concerns information. Some of the local authorities seem to have maps of what is designated as wetland but the landowner or farmer does not. Is there information within either the local authorities or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government? Should it be made available to farmers? A farmer's definition of wetland may vary from field to field. I have seen some farmers get into serious difficulties with the local authority because of what they described as a wet field, which would have been traditionally known as such, but which they would not have classified as a wetland. Is it possible to have farmers notified as to which lands or territories they own that are designated under the wetlands directive?

I am not sure if there is an exact map that distinguishes what is what. However, what the Deputy stated is true. Full planning permission is required in regard to wetlands and the relevant documents and small leaflets have been handed out to every farmer. I will come back to the Deputy in respect of how a farmer may know this before he takes any action.

Is the Deputy happy with that?

May I intervene on that point to say there are designated wetlands and there is a map but there is some confusion among some landowners in regard to land that while it may not be designated as such from a European habitats point of view may be categorised as wetland. That is the ambiguous area that needs to be clarified for people. There is a difference, however, in terms of the eco-system and the actual designation that goes with that at a European level, between wetlands and wet land that is so because of heavy rain or poor drainage. We have tried to clarify as much of this as we can through the information leaflets that have been sent out.

We will take Ceist Uimh. 7.

I am sorry, Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Legislative Programme

Questions (7)

Michael Moynihan

Question:

7Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the talks he has had in relation to the creation of a climate change bill and its potential impact on the objectives of Food Harvest 2020; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28512/12]

View answer

Oral answers (9 contributions)

In launching the national climate policy review in November 2011, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, confirmed the objective, in line with the programme for Government, to introduce climate legislation within the lifetime of the Government. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, announced a three-pronged approach to the development of a robust and comprehensive response to Ireland's obligations, challenges and opportunities in the area of climate policy. These included a public consultation process, which ran from February 2012 to end April 2012, to ensure that the widest possible range of views is brought into the debate on future policy; an analysis by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, secretariat of future policy options; and ongoing work, through the Cabinet Committee on Climate Change and the Green Economy to drive sectoral progress on emissions mitigation. As part of its analysis the NESC Secretariat has been asked to examine options for policies and measures to close the distance to Ireland's 2020 targets and the development of a basis for a long-term 2050 vision for a low-carbon economy.

I realise the Deputy's question relates to the challenges for the agrifood sector. When one takes out the traded sector in terms of emissions, namely, the 106 biggest emitters in Ireland that will be part of an EU emissions trading system, 40% of Ireland's emission problem comes from agriculture and food production. If we are being asked to reduce our emissions by 20% as a country, from the base year until 2020, that is a huge ask for the agrifood side. In my view, when those targets were set, Ireland's burden, or the target set for us, was inappropriate. That has been shown to be the case since, in terms of the figures that were released recently. Nevertheless that is what we are dealing with now.

I have made it clear at a European level that I believe there is a contradiction between climate change policy, on which the European Union is rightly trying to give global leadership, and food security policy. The reality is that Ireland produces food at one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. In other words, the carbon intensity of food production in Ireland is lower than it is practically anywhere else on the planet yet we are under pressure to limit food production in order to meet climate change targets. That makes no sense.

If I may interrupt the Minister, I will call Deputy Moynihan.

To conclude, we are putting a plan in place, as a Department, working through the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change and the green economy to do what is reasonable but at the same time seeking not to damage the aspirations and ambition of our Food Harvest programme targets. That is the appropriate way to move ahead.

The important element in whatever climate change Bill is implemented is the targets in Food Harvest 2020. These were discussed during the past two years and have been the targets of both the last Government and this one, as well as the wider community within the agricultural sector. What is the timeframe for the implementation of this Bill in regard to when it will be published or introduced? I am encouraged that the Minister is looking to balance the book between the Food Harvest 2020 programme, the production of food and food security and the climate change issue.

The only definite commitment I can give the Deputy today with regard to a timeframe is that climate change legislation will be introduced within the lifetime of the Government, as long as it runs its full term.

Is there something I do not know?

Something unforeseen could happen. I am committed to the climate change agenda. I am also committed to our Food Harvest plan and to expanding the Irish food industry so it can fulfil its full potential. Both of those things can be done. Many things can be done in Irish agriculture to reduce emissions. Grazing seasons can be extended. We can look at ways of changing how we spread slurry. We can consider direct drilling in arable farming. A series of practical things that are doable and affordable for farmers can have a positive impact on the emissions that may come from spreading slurry. The management of the grazing of herds can be examined. One can do a great deal in relation to food conversion efficiency to reduce methane emissions from herds. We can reduce the time it takes to bring a beef steer or beef heifer through its full life cycle. It is obvious that the shorter the animal's life cycle, the fewer the emissions that come from it. I am interested in making practical policy direction proposals within the agriculture sector that are aimed at reducing emissions in a reasonable way, where appropriate. I am not in the business of reducing our ambition or expectation in terms of growth and expansion in this sector. I do not think that would be appropriate or in the interests of the environment.

I heard the Minister mention "changing how we spread slurry" as a means of potentially reducing carbon emissions. Has he given any thought to the possibility of introducing a national plan to promote anaerobic digestion, the conversion of slurry into bio-gas and the creation of fertiliser? Such an approach would reduce the potential for run-off into our streams and rivers.

That is a useful suggestion. The answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes". The last Government introduced an anaerobic digester grant aid scheme for which farmers could apply. Just two of the ten applications that were made have actually progressed. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is actively considering how it can encourage and support the development of anaerobic digesters in Ireland. I think it needs to be done at district level. We need to ensure that multiple feedstuffs - not just farm slurry, belly grass from beef factories or waste from dairy processing - go into the anaerobic digester. We have worked on this with Professor Jerry Murphy of University College Cork, who is Ireland's leading expert on anaerobic digestion, and we will continue to do so. I hope to introduce new initiatives by the end of the year to support anaerobic digestion, particularly at quite a large-scale district level. There are economies of scale that can be achieved to help anaerobic digestion to be financially viable.

Animal Diseases

Questions (8)

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

8Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his plans to review the TB testing programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28538/12]

View answer

Oral answers (6 contributions)

We have already dealt with a question on TB testing. It is crucial to go through it again. As long as I can remember - I have been farming since I was 14 years of age - TB has been the scourge of every farmer. Given the lowest levels on record were achieved in 2011, we need to put every effort into the eradication of TB. We were delighted to receive telephone calls two months ago about the new regulations that were being introduced. There is no way we can be seen to be soft on it. We have a chance of a lifetime to eradicate it. Every effort has to be made to that end. Like everybody else, I was delighted to hear what the Minister said earlier about the ongoing negotiations with the farming community. The eradication of TB needs to be a priority. We need to consider the role of badgers and deer in this context. Such matters have to be examined in conjunction with our other efforts.

The bovine TB eradication programme includes a comprehensive range of measures, including the mandatory annual testing of all cattle in the national herd, the early removal of reactors, the payment of compensation for cattle removed as reactors, implementation of a range of supplementary tests such as post-derestriction and contiguous tests, a wildlife programme and the depopulation of infected herds in some cases. These measures have proven to be relatively effective in recent years, as evidenced by the significant reduction in disease levels over the past decade. For example, herd incidence has fallen from 7.53% in 2000 to 4.18% last year. Reactor numbers in 2011 - 18,500 - were the lowest recorded since the commencement of the programme in the 1950s. Reactor numbers and herd incidence have continued to fall in 2012.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The eradication programme is scientifically based and my Department continues to monitor and review the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme on an ongoing basis in light of experience and research. In this context, my Department reviewed the programme last year and concluded that, if we want to progress towards eradication, it was necessary to address all other potential sources of infection, including from neighbouring herds and the movement of high risk animals, in addition to the emphasis which has been placed on badgers as a source of infection in recent years. It also concluded that it was necessary to ensure that testing is conducted in a timely manner. In light of this, my Department introduced a number of changes into the TB programme earlier this year to prevent the spread of disease from infected herds to clear herds and to tighten up on overdue testing. These changes were made following a number of consultation meetings with the farming organisations.

I emphasise that the changes are based on research which demonstrates that increased risks are attached to the movement of certain animals. The changes are also designed to protect clear herds from buying in high-risk animals. For example, the restrictions imposed on the movement of inconclusive reactors are based on research which showed that standard inconclusive reactors which passed the retest and moved out of the herd, subsequent to passing the test, were 12 times more likely to be TB positive at the subsequent test or at slaughter compared to all other animals in the herd. The new controls on the movement of animals out of herds which have been identified as contiguous to a herd experiencing an active high-risk TB breakdown are based on research which showed that the risk of such herds disclosing TB is almost three times greater than the risk in the case of herds tested on a round test.

Following representations from the farming sector, my Department has reviewed the new arrangements. I have clarified that my Department will contact herd owners prior to restricting their herds under the contiguous testing programme and that herds which are trade-restricted pending a test will not be excluded from the Russian trade. In addition, I have made a number of changes to the new arrangements relating to overdue tests so that herd owners who, having genuine reasons, negotiate a delay of up to one month with the departmental veterinary office prior to the overdue date will not have any penalties applied. In addition, herd owners who postpone their tests with the permission of the office or are contiguous to a high-risk breakdown and are waiting for a test will be permitted to buy in animals for a limited period.

Everybody is committed to the eradication of TB. It is vitally important, particularly for suckler producers in the west who sell at the end of the year. As a farmer who had reactors on the farm last year, I understand the concerns in this regard and know full well the damage they can do. I heard the Minister speaking about the approach that is taken if there are some fields of barley, forestry or silage fields between contiguous herds. Such matters have to be taken into consideration. Flexibility is vitally important. The rules of the scheme, as they were being implemented in recent months, had to be followed. Farmers and veterinary officers throughout the country want to get the best results. There has been significant co-operation on the TB scheme between farmers and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over 50 or 60 years. A little common sense is needed at this time, however. The worst affected farmers are those who have had no TB showing up in their own tests - they may have had generations of clear tests - but cannot sell their weanlings because of the test results in a contiguous herd. I appeal to the Minister to make sure a common sense approach is taken when departmental officials are discussing these matters with farmers.

I should not intervene in the debate, but I wonder if the approach that is adopted if there are fields of barley between two farms also applies if there is a roadway between them.

I agree with what Deputy Moynihan has said about flexibility. Regardless of the decisions we make, we should stand by them. We cannot have an open-ended approach even if there is a roadway or a field of barley between the farms, or if the four-month or six-month rule applies. One has to do the whole lot together. Reference has been made to wildlife. In the 1960s, there were approximately 2,500 or 3,000 deer in this country. That number had increased to 25,000 by the 1980s. At present, there are almost 250,000 wild deer in Ireland. If we do not do something about that, in five years' time there will as many deer as there are unemployed people.

There is nothing in place in relation to TB in that regard. Although I am a farmer, I think we have to be ruthless when we make decisions. Deputy Moynihan referred to suckler farmers. Regardless of whether we provide for four months or six months, we need to be ruthless. There should not be an open-ended approach on the part of the farmer, the vet and the Department. If these are the rules, we should stick to them.

Food Industry

Questions (9)

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

9Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the extent to which he and his Department can identify prospects for increased production in the beef, lamb, pig meat and dairy sectors with particular reference to the need to maximise increased employment opportunities here and meet emerging market requirements within the EU and outside; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28630/12]

View answer

Oral answers (5 contributions)

This is a very good subject. When I read theIrish Farmers’ Journal today, I was not quite shocked to read that this country imports €3 billion worth of food every year. Someone said to me that if we all ate Irish chickens, we could employ an additional 1,300 people. It is not good enough that we import such an amount of food.

I believe the Irish agri-food sector is well positioned to take advantage of greater demand arising from increasing global population. Exports in the agri-food sector have performed strongly in recent years and offer the potential to increase significantly in the coming years. The Food Harvest 2020 report sets out the strategic vision for the agri-food and fishing sector and includes specific growth targets for the dairy, beef, pork and lamb sectors.

From a dairying perspective, the ending of milk quotas in 2015 represents an exceptional opportunity to increase milk output, and Food Harvest 2020 has targeted a 50% increase in milk production in the period to 2020. This target is ambitious but I believe it is realistic because the dairy sector has the capability to expand at producer and processor level.

The beef industry's ability to maintain and expand employment levels will depend on the extent to which its product offerings are competitive in EU and world markets. In this regard, my Department and its agencies provide an array of financial and infrastructural supports to underpin production and employment in the beef sector.

The pigmeat sector is the third largest individual component of the Irish agri-food industry and supports approximately 7,000 jobs, many of which are in rural communities. Production, prices and exports increased significantly in 2011, and robust domestic demand, coupled with a strong performance in export markets, should help ensure progress in the coming years.

I must interrupt the Minister of State.

To conclude, the Irish Farmers' Journal has shown that every product in Ireland except the pig has had a price increase this week. We need to have a serious look at getting another pig factory in the country so we will have improved competitiveness.

I congratulate the Minister of State and his Department on all the good work they are doing, particularly in regard to emerging markets and in particular China. Some local butchers in Dublin have raised with me the point that when the beef ban in China is lifted, the price of beef for butchers here will rise dramatically. I know the Minister of State cannot interfere in the market but I wanted to raise the issue with him in the House as one to consider.

The farmer will not mind if beef prices increase, as I know, coming from a farming background. There has been an increase of some 250,000 extra cattle registered this year. With prices remaining buoyant, there will be many more animals by 2015. Being a farmer, I had better not say anything, but I am delighted the prices have gone mad.

Beef Discussion Groups

Questions (10)

Brendan Smith

Question:

10Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the progress he has made on the establishment of beef discussion groups; the number he will create; the number of farmers involved; and the financial support available [28525/12]

View answer

Oral answers (3 contributions)

The beef technology adoption programme was introduced in the context of the strategy for the long-term development of the beef sector as set out in the Food Harvest 2020 report. The strategy acknowledges that significant challenges exist in regard to farm-level profitability in the sector. Market realities dictate that a strong commercial perspective is vital to improving viability, securing sufficient returns and achieving long-term growth. It is evident that improved productivity and market orientation among beef farmers are essential to sustain future growth in the sector. It noted that initiatives such as the recently expanded Teagasc BETTER Farm Beef Programme highlight the significant growth potential when best practices are adopted inside the farm gate.

The Beef 2020 Activation Group, which was established to consider the next steps necessary to achieve the sectoral output targets contained in the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, recommended that an effective discussion group programme be established with publicly funded support to underpin effective management and technology transfer in beef farming similar to that already operating in the dairy sector. Such a programme, it contended, could contribute substantially to the development of the beef sector.

The discussion group on dairy farming has been very effective and I have no doubt the beef discussion group will be equally effective. I am delighted the sheep industry has been getting the same recognition in recent weeks.

There is huge potential within the beef industry, particularly at the farm gate. There have been great advances in the dairy industry over many years and huge input from Teagasc at Moorepark and other locations. There is a huge effort to improve the quality of beef, the genetics and the raw material, for want of a better term, and this must be encouraged in every way possible.

I was present when this was launched nearly a year ago in Kilkenny, where best practice within the beef industry was discussed and put on display. It is from this that the idea of discussion groups has been implemented and financed by my Department, and we will continue to do that.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.

Top
Share