Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 15 September 2020
110. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if farmers will be provided with monthly stocking levels in order to calculate the stocking reductions required for the beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, instead of the practice of providing annual figures from which farmers are unable to calculate the necessary reductions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24343/20]
View answerWith regard to the previous question, I ask the Minister to take on the cartel that is the meat industry in Ireland, to which the Department is so beholden, if he wishes to do anything to help farmers. With regard to the beef exceptional aid measure farmers have to reduce their stocking densities. They are given a stocking density as an annual figure, which is confusing not just to farmers but to those who advise them. Will the Department break that down into a monthly stocking density to enable farmers to ascertain how much of a reduction they have to take out to qualify for the BEAM so that there is not a clawback?
The objective of the beef exceptional aid measure was to provide temporary exceptional adjustment aid to farmers in the beef sector in Ireland subject to the conditions set out in the European Commission implementing regulation. This aid was granted to provide temporary market adjustment support in response to a specific market disturbance as outlined in Ireland's notification to the European Commission. As part of the notification and approval process for the measure, the 5% reduction was part of the conditionality sought by the EU.
Approved BEAM participants have given a commitment to reduce the production of bovine livestock manure nitrogen on their farms by 5% for the period from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, compared with the period from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019. The most recent analysis of nitrates trends in participating herds indicates that two thirds of participants have already started to make adjustments to reduce their nitrates, with almost half the participants meeting that 5% reduction already.
Participants can access their most recent nitrates figures via the exceptional aid measure link when they log in to agfood.ie. Following recent discussions with stakeholders, provision is now being made to display the updated figure monthly, as Deputy McNamara suggests. This change will allow participating farmers to more accurately monitor the effect changes they have made on their farm have had on their nitrates figures. The Department's staff have made arrangements for the relevant data to be generated and the changes to the online display to provide monthly updates is expected to be in place for the start of November. Participants who need advice on how to manage their reduction can contact the Department or consult an agricultural adviser to work out which changes will make most sense on their farm.
I thank the Minister for confirming that the online display will be updated monthly. It will be of great benefit to farmers. I will use the limited time available to me to address this idea of a protected geographical indication, PGI. It is all well and good but all of the schemes that Bord Bia has promoted have worked not to the benefit of producers but solely to the benefit of processors. They are all being used to hammer prices. This nationwide PGI, while a good idea in theory, will be just one more thing that farmers will be penalised by processors for not adhering to. Further, it will make it harder for individual farmers who wish to register a PGI, because there will be one PGI register for the whole country which will be in the control of processors rather than producers. The whole PGI mechanism, be it in Ireland, Italy or any other country in Europe, is about a product. It gives control to producers. I am not surprised that it is happening this way in Ireland because it is the way that the Department and Bord Bia work. They give power to processors rather than producers. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind when developing a PGI, so he does not just give more power to beef cartels.
I thank Deputy McNamara for his contribution. I assure him that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with me and the Ministers of State, Deputy Heydon and Senator Hackett, will work to get the best possible return for farmers and their work. We will work with State agencies and all in the sector to ensure that is the case. That is why we are taking the initiative with regard to the food ombudsman and why I think there is merit in developing a PGI. It is important that it is done in a co-ordinated way and properly marketed and driven. Effort and resources must be put into this PGI, once it is hopefully agreed in partnership, to ensure it is properly marketed abroad, connects to the consumer and delivers the greatest possible return. It will not be a silver bullet but hopefully it can be a significant help. We need to leverage it to make sure it delivers in the best way possible for the beef sector. I am not sure from the Deputy's response whether he thinks a PGI is a good idea, as such.
A PGI is not simply something that empowers-----
It has tremendous merit. It is important that we work with everybody, especially farmer representatives, to ensure it is something everybody can get behind.
The quality assurance scheme, in theory, is a good idea.
Deputy McNamara has another minute.
I did not realise that. I would not have interrupted so rudely if I had known I had another minute. I think PGIs are an excellent idea but they are about producer groups, not a nationwide development that will be held hostage by processors who completely control the Irish beef industry. I know there have been complaints to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, and the only people who were not investigated were in the beef industry. Farmers were investigated and farmers' groups were investigated, but the processors themselves, bizarrely, were not. I do not know what sort of hold beef processors have on this country but it is substantial and it covers officialdom. PGIs are an excellent idea, as is the quality assurance scheme but all the latter does is empower processors to pay farmers less. It is never about farmers being able to say that they produce a high quality product and should get more money for it, but about processors saying that the bullock, heifer or sheep is a day over a particular age or has too much or too little fat.
I assure the Deputy that the objective of this PGI is to try to improve the lot of farmers and to ensure that we market, develop and make the most of the tremendous product we have, and that we can help to sell that message to consumers through the PGI. We aim not only to increase the volume that we sell but also the value of what we sell. We should ensure that it is followed through on with marketing afterwards. The key objective of the national food ombudsman, which contributes to the point the Deputy has made, is to bring transparency to the food supply chain, and especially to ensure there is always an eye on what is available on the international markets. The international markets determine the price that is available and we sell into those markets. We need to ensure our farmers get a price domestically that reflects the markets that processors are selling into. The intention would be that, through the national food ombudsman, we can ensure there is transparency and a fair deal for farmers.
