Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 13 July 2023
7. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason all farmers in the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, must also be in the Bord Bia scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34529/23]
View answerWhy do all farmers in the SCEP scheme also have to be in the Bord Bia scheme, which is quite bureaucratic? What is the logic behind this? I think it has a knock-on effect on participation in the SCEP scheme.
The Deputy is on the button with this question, which is being asked throughout the country, regarding the new suckler carbon efficiency programme, which replaces the suckler welfare scheme. This decision was made in the strategic interest of improving our suckler and beef herd and especially the value of the animals we sell and market abroad. Origin Green, the Bord Bia quality assurance programme, was initiated in 2011. It was way ahead of its time and came long before the sustainability discussion became so mainstream. It has put us in a strong position internationally in terms of the offering we have. We can now go abroad and, if a product has been Origin Green approved, we are able to get ahead, not just because of the quality of our product but also because of the assurances we can give as to how it has been produced. We can get onto the shelves ahead of competing countries because of what we have there, and we need to continue to build on that.
The decision to bring significant additional national funds to this scheme means the payments under the new suckler cow scheme will be €150 per cow for the first 22 cows, compared with €90 for the first ten in the previous scheme. In bringing those additional national funds to the table, we made the strategic decision we would make it a requirement of participating in the scheme to be Bord Bia quality assured.
Overall, it will also enhance the value of the suckler product whenever it is sold abroad and whenever we bring it onto the shelves. It will also deepen the amount of quality assured farms we have in the country. At the moment, if it is on a quality assured farm for the last 90 days, it qualifies as quality assured. We must broaden the scheme as we go forward to make sure we stay ahead of other competing nations and to make sure our produce stays on the shelves ahead of that of other countries. This means it needs to be more than the final 90 days. We need to try to ensure more suckler farmers are quality assured as well. This is why the decision was taken.
If the actual effect of the scheme is that a huge number of small farmers do not participate in it and therefore are not quality assured, then is it defeating itself with a surfeit of bureaucracy? Obviously, every scheme must have terms and conditions, but it is my understanding the Bord Bia bureaucracy is the one causing the problem and not the bureaucracy of the scheme itself that aims to improve the suckler cow herd and suckler cow production. Therefore, could a derogation be given for the smaller herds? Will the Minister outline to me what premium farmers get in the factory if they have Bord Bia certification? Are they getting a significant premium?
There are two parts to my question. The first part, as pointed out by the Minister, is that it is only the last 90 days that counts at the moment, and we have brought this in from birth. This is literally turning the vast majority of farmers from taking part in the scheme at all, a point on which I will also come to in Question No. 9.
It has been a challenge to get more participation in quality assurance. It has come a long way but we need to try to have more farmers in it. That is difficult to achieve. It enhances our overall product. The Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, and I are doing trade missions abroad all the time, and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, is also looking at it from an organic point of view. It is a massive calling card. It is what the customers we are selling to want to hear about. The Origin Green branding and the quality assurance gives us an additional competitive advantage among the customers we have, and it is increasingly going to give us that competitive advantage. It is important to have as much of our sector as possible in the scheme. It strengthens the sector overall.
I accept the Deputy's point that it is harder because the payment of the quality assurance bonus is made at the end whenever the animal is slaughtered. It is harder to see that when a person is selling stores or weanlings because it is not as tangible. As Minister, I have been able to see how tangible it is as a product when it is being sold abroad. The more value we can put on that, the more value there can be in the chain, from calf to the factory. I am certainly open to seeing how we can make that more tangible at different levels in the supply chain, for weanlings and stores.
The Minister is way over time.
There is no doubt that a move like this will strengthen the sector-----
The Minister is over time.
-----but I accept it is a rationale that at times is challenging to communicate.
If a huge number of farmers are not participating because they are put off by the conditions of the scheme and the bureaucracy involved, and especially those farmers with small herds on poorer land who sell the cattle younger and who are not participating because of the Bord Bia condition, are we not losing and throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Could they not have a modified scheme and then allow the bigger herd owners to meet the Bord Bia condition because they are more likely to be finishing the cattle?
I do not believe it is possible to have a halfway house for quality assurance. We have one national quality assurance scheme and one national brand. It is important this is as strong as possible. Lots of farmers are concerned about taking on the additional administration involved in quality assurance. The experience has been, from those who have made that move and made that jump, that it is not as onerous and there is nothing to fear, given the trepidation they might have had in advance. The feedback I have had from many farmers is that it is actually a good way to make sure they are in good shape for a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspection, for example. If a farm is picked randomly for a Department inspection, is inspected from an agriculture point of view and something is amiss, the farmer potentially is in line for a penalty. If the farmer is working with the Bord Bia quality assurance officer, however, the farmer will get advice to make sure the farmer is fully compliant and the officer will work with the farmer to make sure that is the case. When the farm is quality assured, the farmer is assured he or she has everything the way it needs to be. It can be useful in that regard.
I understand the Deputy's point. I have heard it throughout the country over the past while, but I have outlined to Deputy Ó Cuív the rationale for the decision and the approach.
