Written Answers Nos. 236 - 253
236. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide copies of all the correspondence between the Government shareholders and Coillte since 1989; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35362/14]
View answerCoillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act, 1988 and came into operation on 1 January 1989. There has been significant interaction between the company and its parent Departments over the intervening 25 years, ranging from operational issues such as applications for felling licences under the Forestry Act 1946 to obligations under the Forestry Act 1988 and the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies. It should also be noted that, as Coillte is a commercial company operating in a competitive environment, some of the correspondence may be confidential and commercially sensitive. In view of the volume of records, and the sensitivity of some of the records, it is not possible to provide all of the correspondence sought. However, if the Deputy would like to indicate any particular correspondence, I will ask my officials to locate the records, determine whether they may be provided and to do so if appropriate.
237. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide a list of all the contracts between Coillte and other State agencies; the total amount of funding from all State agencies transferred to Coillte since 1989; any cost benefit analysis or reviews related to State funding of Coillte; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35363/14]
View answerCoillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as contractual arrangements and sources of funding, are the responsibility of the company. As a commercial company, Coillte is required to publish Annual Accounts, copies of which are laid before each House of the Oireachtas, in accordance with the Forestry Act 1988. Coillte’s Annual Report 2013 was accordingly laid before the Houses on 30 June last. I wish to advise that Note 28 to those Financial Statements outline the sales and purchases of goods, property and services to entities controlled by the Irish Government.
While such contracts are operational matters for the company, a list was, however, also sought from the company. Coillte have advised that it was not possible in the time available to provide a “list of all the contracts between Coillte and other State agencies” as this would need to be clearly defined. The company further advised that the Coillte Group sold goods, property and services to RTE and the ESB in 2013 in the normal course of business but that a range of contracts would exist, some of which involve consideration being paid to Coillte for goods and services and some of which involve Coillte making payments.
In relation to the total amount of funding from all State agencies transferred to Coillte since 1989, Coillte advises that it has received some €12.4 million – mostly in relation to its provision of forest recreational facilities. I am advised that €1.4 million was from the Irish Sports Council in respect of Trail Managers Programme, €1.4 million was received and managed by Coillte on behalf of the Dublin Mountain Partnership while some €9.6m has been received from Fáilte Ireland. This latter amount encompassed funding for their development of Lough Key Forest Park in conjunction with Roscommon County Council and capital funding towards forest recreation infrastructure.
With reference to the undertaking of cost benefit analyses relating to such funding, Coillte and the Heritage Council have conducted research to evaluate the public goods value of three important services – Biodiversity/ Nature, Landscape and Cultural Heritage. These were found to have a cumulative value of over €500 million, with Biodiversity/Nature estimated to be €322 million, landscape to be €96 million and cultural heritage to be €92 million. Information on the valuation of such public goods, and case studies so illustrating, is available on the Publications page of the Coillte website. The Final report, from 2005, of a study on the economic value of trails and forest recreation jointly commissioned by Coillte and the Irish Sports Council is also available on the website.
Coillte have also advised that it is happy to engage directly with the Deputy to discuss the issues raised.
238. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the measures taken by his Department to ensure that veterinary physicians certifying test certificates for tuberculosis in cattle do not alter a certificate without due cause; the number of alterations of such certificates that were identified by the Department in the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and to date in 2014. [35467/14]
View answerVeterinary practitioners conducting testing under my Department’s TB and Brucellosis Eradication Programme are required to comply with relevant requirements set out in the protocol document (‘ERAD Document ER 4’) and to give a formal written undertaking in this regard each year. In this context, the ER 4 document sets out the following:
- The veterinary practitioner carrying out the Single Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin Test (SICTT) or blood sampling is solely responsible for the accuracy of technique and recording, and is the only person who may certify any aspect of the test/sampling;
- Meticulous recording must, at all times, be clearly demonstrable as the basis for secure Veterinary Certification so as to ensure continued approval to test/sample. The veterinary practitioner’s certifying signature must be clearly legible on all reports (where such are not submitted electronically) or other certifying documents;
- Requests for changes to original certification are only considered when made by the original certifier and where appropriate justification is provided. Form AHCS1 must be used to request a change where the test results are submitted electronically. My Department’s Regional District Veterinary Office (RDVO) requires an explanation and/or evidence of the reason for the original error and/or details for validation of the change in certification. Animals will not be added to, deleted from, or have readings changed on a certified test unless there is documentary evidence to verify that the change in certification is fully supported and this has been accepted by Department veterinary staff.
It will be clear from the foregoing that my Department has the requisite processes in place in regard to the matter at issue.
The number of AHCS1 forms submitted, affecting test certification, over the years 2011 to 2013 for both WTVI’s and PVPS is as follows:
|
YEAR |
AMOUNT |
|
2011 |
1,520 |
|
2012 |
1,393 |
|
2013 |
1,196 |
Figures for 2014 will not be available until year end.
239. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the measures taken by his Department to ensure that temporary identity tags on cattle are correctly recorded and the traceability of these animals is fully supervised; and the number of cases that have been identified in the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and to date in 2014 in breaches of the regulations. [35468/14]
View answerAll bovines in the State must be identified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and S.I. No. 77 of 2009 [European Communities (Identification of Bovines Regulations 2009]. The legislation requires that all bovines must be tagged within 20 days of birth with a specific individual tag that identifies the holding, with the birth recorded on the herd register of the keeper and details of date of birth, breed, sex and dam registered on the Department’s Animal Identification and Movement (AIM) database within 7 days of tagging. If a bovine animal loses a tag, a replacement tag must be ordered immediately by the keeper.
The identification of bovines is checked at the annual TB herd test and any identification issues are addressed at this time. Any unidentified animals found at the time of testing must be tagged with a temporary tag as supplier by this Department before testing. It is the keeper’s responsibility to correlate the temporary brass tag assigned for testing purposes (via the completion of an ER96 form) with the tag number assigned to the animal on the AIM system. The test details, attributed to the temporary tag, can only be correlated to the permanent tag by the Department, following the completion by the testing practitioner of Section B of the ER96 form, certifying that the correlation between the temporary tag and the tag assigned to the animal on AIM is correct. It is acceptable for a veterinary practitioner other than the testing veterinary practitioner to certify that the animals bearing both the temporary and permanent tags are correct and therefore that the details on the ER 96 form are in order.
This Department conducts periodic checks to ensure that the ER96 form procedures are being properly implemented. Inspections are also carried out under cross compliance for the Single Farm Payment to ensure that bovines are identified correctly and that all passports are in order. Where unidentified animal are found temporary tags are inserted. The number of such temporary tags used is not recorded. Penalties may be applied to Single Farm Payments where non-compliance with identification requirements is found.
The number of animals temporarily tagged at test in the years 2011 to 2014 was as follows:
|
Year |
Cases identified |
|
2011 |
3577 |
|
2012 |
2801 |
|
2013 |
2316 |
|
2014 |
1536 |
240. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his attention has been drawn to allegations of alteration of tuberculosis test certificates by a veterinary inspector (details supplied); and his views on such practices being widespread. [35469/14]
View answerThe allegation concerned has been fully investigated and was found to be without foundation as the Department officer referred to had followed the relevant procedures correctly. The assertion that an animal should have been destroyed is not sustained by the facts of the case since the animal concerned had already been slaughtered some 6 months before the retrospective correction of the record in regard to the sex of the animal took place.
241. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if Coillte sold the harvesting rights for the 950 acres of public forest at Kilcooley abbey estate to the new owner; if so the price paid for this sizable amount of forest; the reason for same when Coillte are unable to increase its afforestation plans in order to support our 17% treecover targets within the last national forestry plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35490/14]
View answerCoillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as the management of their forest estate, are the responsibility of the company. The company has, however, advised that Coillte has disposed of its interest in the leasehold of 402.92 hectares of land and trees at Kilcooley Estate, County Tipperary. As Coillte is a private commercial company, they do not disclose the price of individual property transactions for commercial reasons. The company also advised that the reason for the sale was that, in addition to being an attractive commercial proposition, sale of this leasehold interest meant that Coillte would no longer have to comply with onerous conditions relating to upkeep of walls, roads and buildings on the estate which are a feature of long leases of these old estates.
242. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his view on a politically appointed board of directors overseeing the ongoing sale of public land by Coillte; the oversights that are in place; if there are checks and balances in place; if there is an independent evaluation of sites before sale; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35491/14]
View answerThe Chairman and other members of the Board of Coillte are appointed by me, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in accordance with the Forestry Act 1988 as amended. As a State owned body, Coillte is subject to the Department of Finance ‘Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies' . In line with the Code, Board members are appointed to act on a fully informed basis, in good faith, with due diligence and care, and in the best interest of the State body, subject to the objectives set by Government. The Code of Practice states certain procedures that should be followed in relation to the Disposal of State Assets, the company’s compliance with which is affirmed to me annually by the Chairman of Coillte in accordance with Paragraph 18.8 of the Code. I understand that following the identification of property to be sold, which occurs primarily through approaches from third parties, there is an independent valuation done of the property in question. I am advised that valuations are done by professional auctioneers engaged by Coillte who have a panel of such valuers for this purpose, after which a reserve price is set. The company add that all sales are considered by a Property Sign-off Committee and that the Board is notified of all sales and has to give approval when sale price is over a certain level.
243. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the recent State loan of €60 million to Coillte for its board-making business in Waterford, who oversees the way this money is invested or spent; if a cost benefit analysis is conducted prior to granting the funding; if conditions and criteria attach pertaining to value for money for the public; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35492/14]
View answerCoillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act, 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as the project to upgrade the Smartply manufacturing facility in Waterford, are the responsibility of the company. I wish to state, in the first instance, that Coillte did not receive a State loan of €60 million. The funding of the project was an operational matter for the company, subject to my approval and that of the Minister for Public Expenditure, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, in relation to consent for borrowings under Section 24(1) of the Forestry Act 1988 (as amended). As indicated, Coillte is responsible for conduct of the project itself but, in the interests of oversight, NewERA will be regularly reviewing the project with the objective of monitoring delivery of the project within budget and on schedule.
One of the functions of NewERA is to review, from a shareholder perspective, capital investment plans of the commercial state companies under their remit, one of which is Coillte. The business case by Coillte for the borrowing of funds to invest in the upgrading of Coillte was accordingly thoroughly considered by NewERA and the shareholders Departments.
244. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will consider the establishment of a beef industry regulator in light of the collapse in the past 12 months of beef prices and the continual change in specifications. [35529/14]
View answerMy role in relation to the beef sector is to create a policy and support environment that will allow it to flourish in line with normal market principles. As I have stated before, I do not believe a Beef Regulator is appropriate. As the Deputy will appreciate, questions of price are ultimately matters to be determined between the purchasers and the sellers of cattle. It is neither appropriate nor possible for me or any other Minister for Agriculture in the EU, to intervene directly on these issues. Cattle prices are determined by supply / demand dynamics which are in turn influenced by the seasonality of production, the length of the production lifecycle and market conditions such as retail promotions, consumer confidence, competition with other meats and the overall macroeconomic situation. However, the State, through the Competition Authority already has a well established infrastructure for dealing with allegations of anti-competitive practices and I do not consider it appropriate to replicate that structure by establishing a beef regulator. I should also point out that there is an array of information available on the prices paid in Ireland and elsewhere. My Department collates the prices paid for domestic cattle on a weekly basis and reports this data to the European Commission in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1249/2008 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 148/2014. To ensure price transparency, results for Member States are published on the DG Agriculture & Rural Development website. The published weekly data includes market prices for carcases and live animals as well as information on production and herd inventories. This publicly accessible information allows stakeholders to monitor the evolution of the market situation in each Member State.
There is also a wealth of information available to farmers under the Beef Pricewatch section on my Department’s website, including the prices for Steers, Cows, and Heifers across the classification grid, for each DAFM approved factory. I have also committed to making this existing information even more user-friendly and my Department is currently working on developing a Beef pricewatch app which will be released shortly.
As regards the specifications applied at factory level, these are a matter for agreement between producers and processors. What is important, from my perspective, is that these specifications sufficiently remunerate farmers for producing quality animals, provide appropriate production incentives that are reflective of market demands, and are communicated to producers in a clear and timely manner. I will, of course, continue to engage with both farmers and processors to ensure that these specifications are applied in a fair and transparent manner. As the Deputy is aware, I established a Beef Roundtable earlier this year to facilitate such discussions between the parties. One of the key outcomes arising from this Roundtable involves better and more timely communication between processors and producers aimed at transmitting early and clearer market signals which bring about more strategically planned sectoral responses.
245. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he will take in relation to the seizure of 63 horses from Ballyguile Hill on 4 December 2013 by Wicklow County Council. [35533/14]
View answerThe seizure of horses in Ballyguile Hill, Wicklow was carried out by Wicklow County Council acting within its powers under the Control of Horses, Act 1996. Matters relating to the outcome of the seized horses are a matter for Wicklow County Council and should be taken up directly with the Council.
246. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding a single farm payment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry. [35542/14]
View answerThe person named submitted a Single Payment Scheme application form to my Department on 15th May 2014. However, as the person named holds no Single Payment Entitlements, no payment is due.
247. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding the proposed felling of trees at Newtown Stalaban Drogheda (details supplied) which is with his Department; if he will allow for extended time before any decision is made to allow for the views of Louth County Council and members of the public to comment to his Department on this very controversial application; if he will respond to a letter from a member of the public regarding this matter; and if he will amend the legislation governing the felling of trees to allow for such time as is necessary for full public consultation and referral to the local authority in cases where there is no immediate danger to any person whatsoever and which will allow immediate felling where such danger clearly exists. [35583/14]
View answerThe Forest Service received a general felling licence application (ref. GFL16380) on 13th June 2014, for the proposed felling of trees at Newtown Stalaban, Co. Louth and replanting of broadleaf tree species at the proposed felling site. No decision has yet been made in relation to this application. There are ongoing consultations between the Department and Louth County Council in relation to this application and a referral letter issued to National Parks and Wildlife Service on 15th September 2014 seeking its comments.
Regarding the concerns raised in the letter referred to by the Deputy about the presence of wildlife in the area, before making its decision the Department will take into account and be guided by the comments of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I will respond directly to the letter from the member of the public which was forwarded with this Parliamentary Question.
With regard to consultation with local residents in relation to felling licence applications, there is no provision or mechanism under the Forestry Act, 1946, for consultation with members of the public prior to issuing a felling licence. However, under the Forestry Bill 2013 (which was passed by the Dáil last week and is scheduled for the Seanad shortly), there will be provision to allow the Minister to cater for consultations where appropriate.
When consultations with Louth County Council are concluded and a response from National Parks and Wildlife is received, the Department should then be in a position to make a decision.
248. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not received the 2014 grassland sheep scheme grant. [35626/14]
View answerUnder the governing EU Regulations, payments under the 2014 Grassland Sheep Scheme cannot issue to eligible applicants until after 1st December 2014.
249. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will give urgent and detailed consideration to the request of Monaghan County Council in relation to CAP reform (details supplied). [35704/14]
View answerThe request of Monaghan County Council referred to by the Deputy relates to funding for the poultry sector under the 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme. That Programme was submitted to the EU Commission for approval in July 2014. I have already identified investment in relation to energy, water meters and medicine dispensers in existing poultry units as a priority area under TAMS II. The dates of introduction of any new investment schemes will be dependent on a number of factors, including the requirement to obtain EU Commission approval for the Programme concerned.
250. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will indicate the proposals he recently put forward to the European Commission to deal with the problems that will arise due to milk supplies running well ahead of quota; if he is aware that farmers are not in a position to meet super levy bills that will arise if current arrangements are not changed. [35706/14]
View answerAs the Deputy is most likely aware, any superlevy fine is set by milk quota Regulations agreed at EU level. Given that fact, it is not possible for me on a unilateral basis to change that rate without the agreement of both the Commission and all other Member States. At each Agriculture Council over the last year the issue of additional measures to ensure a ‘soft landing’ to milk quota abolition in 2015 was discussed. Several Ministers, including myself, called on the Commission to take action to ease the burden of the super levy in the final year of the quota regime but such an agreement was not forthcoming at the time and remains so presently. As there is no common position at the Council of Agriculture Ministers such an improvement looks unlikely to be achieved. It must be clearly noted that a number of other countries are opposed to any action on this and have sought to link the issue to possible measures to regulate supply after quotas are gone. I am obviously resolutely opposed to any talk of supply controls after quota abolition next April on the basis that these quotas have only served to shackle Irish farmers over the last 30 years. The resultant stalemate means there is insufficient support for any change to the regulations and no agreement has been possible. The current Italian Presidency of the EU agreed to consider the issue at its first Council meeting in July and I fully expect that the issue will remain high on the agenda for discussion at future Councils where I will continue to seek to have the matter progressed in a way that is fair to both Irish and EU dairy farmers.
The estimated total volume of milk supplies up to the end of August 2014, taking into account the relevant butterfat adjustment, leaves Ireland 6.44% over quota at end of that month. This compares to 0.36% under quota this time last year and is down from 6.79% over quota at end of last month. In preparing their enterprises for the post quota era, I have at all times urged that farmers have regard for the fact that milk quotas would remain in place until April 2015, along with the associated superlevy regime, and I would take this opportunity today to reiterate this call. I would again urge farmers to use the time period between now and the removal of milk quotas to identify, with their dairy adviser, steps to manage both their milk supply and their dairy herds so that they have an efficient herd as they enter the post quota era. In this regard, I am organising a major dairy conference on November 19 next to assess our readiness for quota abolition and to take stock of the current challenges and opportunities facing the sector.
251. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position in relation to a single payment appeal case for a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; the reason for the excessive delay in processing this appeal case; if he is aware of the hardship being caused to the person; and if he will take steps to expedite this appeal. [35747/14]
View answerA review of the land parcels declared by the person named under the 2013 Single Payment Scheme revealed that one of the land parcels declared by the person named contained ineligible features. Following the review of my Department’s decision, sought by the person named, a visit by a Department official to verify the position on the ground is necessary. The person named was informed of the outcome of this inspection in a letter dated 20th September 2014 and informed of his right to submit an appeal to the independently-chaired LPIS Appeals Committee.
252. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he continues to engage with the various stakeholders in the beef sector with particular reference to the need to address the ongoing issues of peaks and troughs resulting in substantial reduction in income to producers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35763/14]
View answerI am acutely aware of the pressure being felt by farmers throughout the country as a result of the decline in beef prices over the last 12 months or more. Not only am I aware of it, but I have made addressing the concerns of these farmers a priority for the Government. The deputy is correct in noting that the sector will always be subject to a degree of volatility. This is the same for milk prices, and indeed for cereals. As a country that exports most of what we produce, we are perhaps even more susceptible to the highs and lows of evolving prices than some of our neighbours.
This volatility has possibly never been more evident as it has been over the last three years. Prices in 2012 and 2013 rose steadily to an unprecedented peak of over €4.40 per kilo, but have since declined. In looking at these changes, we cannot ignore normal supply and demand factors. This year we have slaughtered nearly 13% more animals than last year and the number of animals slaughtered is 23% higher than at this stage in 2012. Added to this supply increase, there has been a drop in Beef consumption throughout Europe. The combination of these points is clearly taking its toll.
Putting structures in place to alleviate the impact of these price changes, and assisting farmers to be better prepared for these fluctuations, have been central to this Government’s term in office. The €1.2 billion per year secured in direct payments each year forms a constant and secure income for farmers, and this is a particularly important buffer as prices decline. In addition, the need to ensure a viable future for the beef sector has been central to the draft €4 billion Rural Development Plan submitted to the EU Commission in July.
The RDP includes a number of elements which will be of benefit to Beef farmers throughout the country, including the beef data and genomics measure which will be worth around €49 million per year and should bring about long term improvements to the sector though improving the genetic quality of the beef herd. Also, the continued support under the new agri-enviroment scheme GLAS and the €195 million per year support for disadvantaged areas should all benefit farmers in the event of fluctuating prices in the future.
These investment supports, together with the actions emerging of the Beef Round table, should put the sector on the appropriate strategic footing for the future.
253. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he continues to source new markets for the beef sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35764/14]
View answer256. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of potential new markets for Irish beef, lamb, pigmeat or poultry identified or identifiable now and-or in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35767/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 253 and 256 together.
I am constantly seeking to develop relationships in new and expanding international markets for all Irish meats and dairy products, raising the profile of Ireland and increasing international confidence in Irish production and control systems. My aim is to build long-term trading relationships into the future in these sectors, particularly in new and emerging markets and since taking office I have led trade missions to China, the US, Algeria and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the Middle East. In November I will lead a trade mission to China to progress further the advances we have already made towards gaining access to that lucrative market.
There is a strong demand for meat globally and my focus is to enable Irish exporters to take advantage of the opportunities that arise. My Department engages on a daily basis with many countries, in collaboration with Bord Bia and Irish embassies’ personnel on market access issues. These initiatives have led to a number of notable successes in securing agreement to import from authorities in Japan, Singapore, Egypt and Iran which allow the import of Irish beef; with Singapore, South Africa, UAE, Canada and the Russian Federation-Customs Union for the import of Irish sheepmeat and with Australia and Serbia for the import of Irish pork. To date in 2014, the Lebanon has agreed to re-open its market to Irish beef, sheepmeat and cooked meats. A certificate has also been agreed with Hong Kong allowing for the export of Irish sheepmeat and agreement has been reached with Namibia on a certificate for the export of beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat. In recent weeks we have also gained access to Vietnam for pigmeat and to the Philippines for beef, sheepmeat and pork.
In November 2013, the US lifted its ban on the importation of beef from the European Union. This was one of my priorities the previous year when I visited the US, where I pushed the matter strongly with the US Department of Agriculture Secretary of State, Tom Vilsack and in meetings with Senators. My Department is working with the meat industry to advance the various technical requirements to ensure commencement of the trade at the earliest possible date.
In December 2013, a delegation from my Department visited China for discussions with authorities there on the lifting of the beef BSE ban which prohibits imports from any EU country. While there are a number of stages to go before Ireland secures access for beef to China, I am hopeful that my visit in November will help to progress further our objective of access for Irish beef.
Irish beef is now listed with more than 75 high-end retail chains across EU markets. This wide portfolio of customers has contributed significantly to higher returns for Irish beef in recent years and reflects the success of Bord Bia’s differentiation and premiumisation strategy which focuses on the key attributes of Irish beef: environmentally sustainable, grass-based production systems, full traceability, quality assurance at all stages and superior eating quality. Among Bord Bia’s key initiatives this year is the continued development, global promotion and marketing of its Origin Green initiative, designed to establish Ireland as a world leader in sustainably produced food and drink. Over 200 companies are currently working with Bord Bia to develop, and commit to, sustainability plans setting out clear targets in emissions, energy, waste, water, biodiversity and corporate social responsibility activities.
