Written Answers Nos 1-65
57. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if the objective of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to permit the sale of unlabelled hormone injected beef and unlabelled genetically modified organism products from the US to be sold in Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14498/16]
View answerThe short answer to this question is no. There is no intention on the part of the negotiators in the European Commission to in any way endanger or undermine the comprehensive food safety and public health standards that are implemented in the EU in the context of negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
A number of key issues in this regard arise in relation to food standards, hormone treated beef and GMOs. All of these arose in the recent negotiations with Canada for a Free Trade Agreement and were resolved, and I believe they will also be capable of being resolved in TTIP.
We have made the point, and I am confident that it is shared by the European Commission and other Member States, that the principle of equivalence must continue to apply so that, even where food production processes in the EU and US are not identical, they will provide equivalent guarantees regarding the standards of production. This principle is already enshrined under the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture, and is also recognised by both sides as the basis for a TTIP agreement.
Equally, it is important that both the EU and United States retain the policy space to restrict certain practices and processes on social and ethical grounds, and this is also recognised, in principle, by both sides. For example, the EU Commission has made it clear that it will not allow the importation of hormone treated meat into the EU, and this is well understood by the US side. In relation to GMOs, there is a well-established assessment and approval process in place in the EU that restricts that marketing of GMOs to those products that have been formally approved. This should not change under a TTIP agreement.
58. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is satisfied that his strategic plan, food wise 2025, which promises an increase in agricultural output meets international obligations on carbon emissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14499/16]
View answerInternational obligations on carbon emissions clearly recognise the fundamental priority of safeguarding food production. The Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue 1.5 degrees, addresses this specific point in Article 2 of that Agreement. There is a clear link with what was agreed in Paris and the UN Sustainable Development Goal two, which is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture."
The Food Wise 2025 strategy aims to grow the Irish agri-food sector in an economic, environmental and socially sustainable manner, building on our strengths in the production of safe, healthy and nutritious food. Ireland is already one of the EU’s most efficient producers of milk and beef, in terms of carbon footprint per unit of output. Under Food Wise we are implementing measures to drive down the carbon intensity of our food production even further, resulting in both economic returns and environmental sustainability.
Food Wise 2025 includes clear and comprehensive commitments to managing the projected growth in the Irish agrifood sector in a sustainable way. The guiding principle underpinning this projected growth is that environmental protection and economic competitiveness will be considered as equal and complementary, one will not be achieved at the expense of the other.
Food Wise provides a framework for the agrisector to engage with the national mitigation plan and for the development of a common vision of transition to a low carbon future. There is a strong commitment in Food Wise 2025 to measure and monitor the sustainability credentials of the sector. As part of the implementation of Food Wise, an Environmental Sustainability Committee has been established. This implementation process will include evaluation and assessment of the delivery of sustainability and mitigation actions.
59. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his food wise 2025 strategic plan adequately addresses the issue of food insecurity; the details of any analysis his Department conducted into developing alternative sustainable sources of protein; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14500/16]
View answerFood Wise 2025 is an enabling strategy for the sustainable growth of the agrifood sector over the next decade. Food Wise includes more than 400 specific recommendations, spread across the cross-cutting themes of sustainability, innovation, human capital, market development and competitiveness; as well as specific sectoral recommendations.
Food security is defined by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as: “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. At national level, food security is addressed through a range of Government policies providing social protection and supports for low income, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. At international level, Ireland’s development aid programme has a strong focus on food and nutrition, including through funding from my own Department to the UN FAO and WFP (World Food Programme).
Food Wise aims to grow the Irish agrifood sector in an economic, environmental and socially sustainable manner, building on our strengths in the production of safe, healthy and nutritious food. Ireland is already one of the EU’s most efficient producers of milk and beef, in terms of carbon footprint per unit of output. But under Food Wise we are implementing measures to drive down the carbon intensity of our food production even further, resulting in both economic returns and environmental sustainability. In that regard I am satisfied that the strategy reflects food security considerations.
In terms of alternative sources of protein, Ireland’s agriculture is largely livestock based and, clearly, if we are to build on our strengths, this must be the focus of our objectives on food security. However we are developing our seafood industry and our tillage sector. In that regard, tillage accounts for 7% of agricultural land, and the opportunity to further significantly expand tillage production is limited by soil type and conditions. There is a support scheme in place to encourage production of protein crops under Pillar I of CAP.
The ambition that Ireland should be a global leader in sustainable food production, building on our natural advantages, is one that I hope is shared by all sides of the House, and Food Wise is a blueprint for how this ambition can be realised.
60. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the contingency plans he has in place for future agrifood trade should the UK vote to leave the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14481/16]
View answerThe prospect of a UK vote to leave the EU presents potentially very significant challenges from a trade perspective, and that is especially true for the Irish agrifood sector. I mentioned earlier that the UK is by far our largest trading partner, with CSO figures indicating that exports of agricultural products in 2015 were worth €5.1 billion and imports €3.8 billion. ESRI and Teagasc reports have highlighted the disproportionate impact that a Brexit is likely to have on the agrifood sector.
My Department has therefore been giving careful consideration to the potential impact, looking at the areas in which the greatest risks are likely to arise and on which we will need to focus if exit negotiations are to commence in the coming months. Although it is still too early to predict the outcome with any certainty, the main areas in which impacts are foreseen are in relation to tariffs and trade, the EU budget, regulations and standards, and customs controls and certification. I would comment briefly again on these areas as follows:
- On tariffs and trade arrangements, including the future direction of UK trade policy, it is clear that potential differences in tariffs could restrict trade in both directions and affect traditional supply practices, particularly for raw materials. Preferential agreements already in place with third countries could require adjustment to take account of a UK withdrawal. A further issue that could arise is the freedom of the UK to negotiate trade agreements with other third countries. This could present a competitiveness challenge for third country suppliers, such as Ireland. However, negotiating such agreements could be a lengthy process.
- On the EU budget, a Brexit would result in the loss of the UK contribution to the EU budget, which currently accounts for some 5-10% of the budget. This could have implications on future spending decisions within an already tight EU budgetary framework, which could place additional pressure on CAP funding in future years, given that it accounts for some 37% of the EU budget.
- On regulations and standards, while this may not have an immediate impact in the event of a Brexit, potential differences could arise over time if the UK takes a different approach to the EU, for example in areas such as origin labelling. This would be a significant issue in terms of additional costs, possible disruption of supply patterns and consumer preferences.
- On customs controls and certification, it is likely that difficulties and additional costs would emerge. It would be expected, as a matter of course, that a UK exit from the EU could see the return of border controls, together with customs and administrative procedures. This undoubtedly would lead to additional administrative costs. Also of concern is that a UK exit would give rise to ongoing certification requirements, which would have significant resource requirements within my Department and significant cost implications for the agrifood industry.
Finally, the possibility of a Brexit also raises issues for the fisheries sector, particularly in the context of the management and sharing of a large number of different fish stocks that we currently share with the UK and other Member States under the Common Fisheries Policy Framework.
Overall, it is in Ireland’s interests for the UK to remain in the EU. However, I and my Department are continuing to reflect on these matters so that we are prepared, if the UK decision is to exit, to establish our priorities for the negotiations in the agrifood and fisheries sectors, and to engage in these negotiations at an early date.
61. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to amend the Animal Health and Welfare Acts to remove the exemption for fox hunting from the legislation. [14456/16]
View answerLawful hunting of an animal is permitted under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. However, the Act prohibits the hunting of animals which have been released in an injured, mutilated or exhausted condition. In addition, Section 25 of the Act provides for the establishment of codes of practice and for the adoption of codes published by other persons for the purposes of providing practical guidance relating to any aspect of the Act, including fox hunting. The Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association has a detailed code of conduct in place in respect of the hunting of foxes. This code places responsibility on member packs to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare and good behaviour are maintained at all times. My Department has engaged with the hunting associations with a view to adopting codes under Section 25 of the Act in order to ensure that those who participate in hunting will continue to honour their obligations to maintain the highest standards of behaviour at all times.
I am fully committed to promoting good practices that respect the welfare of all animals and my Department devotes considerable resources to protecting animal welfare and in dealing with breaches of animal welfare legislation. Under the Act, on summary conviction, a person can receive a fine of up to €10,000 and, on indictment, €250,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years. There are fixed penalty payments for lesser offences. The Act provides the framework within which the welfare of animals can be safeguarded and I am hopeful that the substantial and significantly increased levels of penalties for offences of animal cruelty provided for under the Act will act as a deterrent to animal welfare abuses.
In view of the foregoing, I do not plan to prohibit the hunting of foxes.
62. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if the European Commission's Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiating position is to abandon the precautionary principle, whereby chemicals and pesticides used in the food system must be proven to be safe for animal and human health prior to use; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14497/16]
View answerThere is no intention on the part of the negotiators in the European Commission to abandon the precautionary principle or in any way endanger or undermine the comprehensive food safety and public health standards that are implemented in the EU in the context of negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
A number of key issues in this regard arise in relation to food standards, hormone treated beef and GMOs. All of these arose in the recent negotiations with Canada for a Free Trade Agreement and were resolved, and I believe they will also be capable of being resolved in TTIP.
We have made the point, and I am confident that it is shared by the European Commission and other Member States, that the principle of equivalence must continue to apply so that, even where food production processes in the EU and US are not identical, they will provide equivalent guarantees regarding the standards of production. This principle is already enshrined under the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture, and is also recognised by both sides as the basis for a TTIP agreement.
Equally, it is important that both the EU and United States retain the policy space to restrict certain practices and processes on social and ethical grounds, and this is also recognised, in principle, by both sides. For example, the EU Commission has made it clear that it will not allow the importation of hormone treated meat into the EU, and this is well understood by the US side. In relation to GMOs, there is a well-established assessment and approval process in place in the EU that restricts that marketing of GMOs to those products that have been formally approved. This should not change under a TTIP agreement.
63. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he plans to intercede and have the EU postpone superlevy fines and increase the intervention price to at least the cost of production, given that Irish farmers are experiencing a severe cashflow crisis due to the ongoing crisis in the dairy sector. [14501/16]
View answerI am fully aware of the pressures on dairy farmers right now and I am committed to working with all players in the sector to address these issues and ensure that we have a sustainable dairy sector going forward.
With respect to super levy repayments, the rules governing the EU milk quota regime, including the super levy system for production above quota, were set at EU level. It is not within the gift of individual Member States to amend these rules.
However at the request of Ireland and some other Member States, the EU Commission introduced a provision last year permitting payment of the levy in three annual instalments, without interest. This was on the understanding that the full amount of the levy was paid to the Commission by the Member State in 2015. Ireland was one of the few Member States to implement this scheme and make it available to our farmers.
As part of the discussions in the run-up to the March Council of Agriculture Ministers, Ireland proposed a further deferral of the payment to 2017 and 2018, to ease the financial burden on liable farmers in 2016. I also raised the matter with Commissioner Phil Hogan, in our recent bilateral meeting, as well as at the recent Council of Ministers meeting and encouraged him to reflect again on whether a legal basis could be found to facilitate a further deferral in super levy repayments for farmers.
However the European Commission advised that the legal basis for the Regulations under-pinning the scheme are no longer in existence and therefore further amendments were not possible. While Ireland has again raised the matter with the Commission, we understand that the view of its legal services remains that there is no legal basis for any adjustment to the timelines provided for in the relevant regulations.
Ireland has already raised the question of an increase in intervention prices at EU level. It is clear at this point, however, that there is no prospect of securing the agreement of a qualified majority of member states, or the EU Commission, to such an increase.
However, I very much welcome the announcement by Commissioner Phil Hogan of his intention to increase the flat rate ceiling for SMP intervention buying-in up to 350,000 tonnes, following my recent meeting with him. SMP Intervention is key EU support tool for dairy markets and is badly needed in this extended period of downward price volatility in the dairy sector. Intervention helps to put a floor under prices and this extension will be of particular benefit for Irish producers through the peak production period. Other measures agreed at EU level include Aids to Private Storage for Cheese and a targeted direct aid scheme of €13.7 million for Irish farmers, which was matched by national funds.
I can assure the deputy that I will continue to engage with the EU Commission and with other Member States to ensure that market support measures are deployed and extended as necessary.
64. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to report on his meetings with the new chief executive of Coillte Teoranta (details supplied) including his plans for future meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14503/16]
View answerI met with the Chief Executive Officer of Coillte, Mr. Fergal Leamy, on 24 May 2016. At this meeting he provided me with an overview of the company.
Coillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act, 1988 and , while day-to-day operational matters are the responsibility of the company, the meeting was an opportunity for the CEO to brief me about its structure , and the businesses in which the company is engaged.
As regards recent and ongoing developments, I was advised of Coillte’s disposal of its telecommunications masts and equipment locations in August 2015, and the progress on the development of the Smartply plant in Belview Port, outside Waterford city, which is one of the company’s panel board businesses.
We discussed the implementation of the Government Decision of June 2014 in relation to the formation of a joint venture with Bord na Móna in four named business areas and I noted the considerable progress achieved to date on the projects involved.
The CEO also gave me an indication of the company’s financial performance in 2015 and advised that a motion in relation to the payment of a final dividend of €1 million would be before the company’s AGM scheduled for the following Thursday (26 May 2016). The proposed payment of €1 million was in addition to the interim dividend of €4 million already paid by Coillte to its shareholders in December 2015. I advised Coillte that I was looking forward to receiving a draft dividend policy from the company in the near future for consideration by my Department, with the assistance of NewERA. The possible implications of Brexit on the company’s trading and finances were also discussed.
As regards the company’s plan for the future, the CEO also gave me an overview of their proposed future strategy for the company to 2025. In this context, the current restructuring of the company, as required under the Government Decision of 2013, was covered. I understand that the restructuring involves the adoption of a decentralised structure with 3 autonomous business divisions and transition to a Lean Centre with the objective of achieving significant overhead cost reductions.
I found the meeting to be very informative as it added to my understanding of the company’s businesses and activities and provided me with an insight as to the proposed strategic development of the company and ongoing challenges. My Department meet with Coillte on a regular basis as does NewERA on behalf of both Shareholders. There is no specific schedule for meetings between Coillte and I but I would propose to meet them on a regular basis or as the need arises in relation to specific issues.
65. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the expenditure on rural development programmes under the agri-environment options scheme in 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14472/16]
View answerThe total expenditure on agri-environment schemes under the Rural Development Programme (RDP) in 2015 was €131.73 million. This includes the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS4), the Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS1, AEOS2 and AEOS3), Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) and the Green Low Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS). The corresponding figure for spending on agri-environment schemes is expected to be €203.2 million for 2016. This is an increase of more than €71 million. This is mainly due to the continued roll-out of GLAS.
Expenditure under the REPS4 in 2015 amounted to a total of €32.25 million.
Expenditure under the AEOS in 2015 amounted to a total of €79.80 million.
Expenditure under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) in 2015 amounted to a total of €8.16 million.
In relation to GLAS, Tranche 1 applications with a start-date of 1 October 2015 and which have GLAS actions which are payable in 2015 were eligible for a 2015 part-year payment (covering the three month period 1 October-31 December 2015). Total expenditure on GLAS in 2015 amounted to €11.52 million. Balancing payments for GLAS 2015 will be made later this year.
