Denis Naughten
Ceist:42 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to secure a derogation for Irish farmers from the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14246/05]
Priority Questions.
EU Directives.
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In October last Ireland submitted an action programme to the European Commission for further implementation of the nitrates directive. In December the Commission conveyed its view that the action programme was not complete and did not comply with the requirements of the directive or the judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland delivered in March 2004.
Subsequently my Department worked closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the preparation of an initial response to the Commission. This response was sent on 20 April and I understand a revised action programme, on which my Department has been consulted, will be sent to the Commission shortly.
Ireland submitted proposals for a derogation in November 2004 in parallel with the action programme. The proposals are designed to allow farmers to operate, under appropriate conditions and controls, up to a level of 250 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare. Developed by my Department and Teagasc in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the proposals set out a scientific justification for the higher operating levels based on the specific characteristics of Irish agriculture. While the Commission has stated it will not consider the application for a derogation until the action programme is agreed and in place, I am hopeful for a favourable outcome. My objective is and has been to minimise the burden of compliance which must be placed on farmers in implementing the nitrates directive and safeguard the future of commercial farming.
With regard to the proposals submitted to Brussels, the nitrates directive is to be implemented as and from 1 January next. Is the Minister confident a derogation will be in place by 1 January? What will be the implications if a derogation is not in place by that date? Is she aware it could take 12 months to introduce a derogation given the procedures involved? What steps have she and her colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, taken to ensure all the scientific evidence required will be made available?
What steps have been taken to comply with the water framework directive given that the derogation will be framed as part of this directive rather than the nitrates directive? Has a complete and accurate assessment been done on the quality of our ground water given that the review of the derogation in four years will be based on improvements achieved in our ground water?
As it is not within my competence to carry out an assessment of ground water, I suggest the Deputy table a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the matter.
Farmers will carry the can.
I agree. We are cognisant of the water framework directive as is reflected in our work on the nitrates directive which takes into consideration the implications of the framework directive. It would be preferable to deal with both directives simultaneously rather than revisiting them at a later date.
With regard to the derogation I am confident and hopeful that we will achieve a favourable outcome. As the Deputy is aware, however, the Commission has decided it will not negotiate on the issue until the nitrates action plan has been progressed. I hope we will be able to address that issue quickly. The Deputy is correct it is an important issue which has major implications for intensive farming enterprises. I am anxious that we pursue the matter vigorously. We must also be cognisant of the implications of the nitrates action plan. The evidence has been compiled by Teagasc and the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food, in consultation with the county councils, on the scientific basis for requesting a derogation of 250 kilogrammes.
The derogation will involve a complex nutrient management system for those farmers who will have to put it in place. Would it not have been easier to seek a derogation had we started to implement the nitrates action plan already? What are the implications of the 1 January implementation date if we do not have a derogation in place from 1 January 2006?
We must be positive on the basis that a derogation is tremendously important to the farming community and there will be serious issues if we are not in a position to secure it. The Commission is not happy with the way things have been done and it wants a nitrates action plan agreed that should be rolled out as quickly as possible. I cannot pre-empt the view of the Commission on the derogation but it is acutely aware, as is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, of its huge importance.
I am confident we will be able to work within the timeframe that has been set down in legislation. The nitrates action plan will not be in place instantly on 1 January next year because we require a lead-in period to deal with the issues that are part of the plan. On the basis of the work that has been done in the Department, we are aware of the implications and have prepared a substantial scientific proposal on the derogation. We will be working vigorously on that once the discussions with the Commission on the nitrates action plan have been completed.
Food Industry.
Mary Upton
Ceist:43 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to reports that the national task force on obesity will call on her Department to practice positive discrimination towards local producers of fresh food and that there should be a national, regularly reviewed code of conduct for the food industry; if she has received either a final report or a draft; her views on the calls made; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14244/05]
The national task force on obesity has not produced a report either in final or draft form. The World Health Organisation has described obesity as a worldwide epidemic, and estimates that up to 250 million people, about 7% of the adult population, may have an obesity problem. In Ireland figures point to a two thirds increase in the prevalence of obesity among adults. Particularly worrying is the emergence of obesity in children.
The main cause of obesity appears to be an imbalance between energy intake and physical activity. As with other public health problems, societal and lifestyle changes are contributory factors. Sedentary lifestyles, longer commuting times and time pressures are some factors in reducing the average level of physical activity. Food and eating occasions are readily available and convenience has favoured the regular consumption of fast food and prepared foods. There is, however, some demand for a range of healthy convenience options and the orientation of the Common Agricultural Policy away from production subsidies will make the agrifood sector more responsive to market changes and opportunities.
My Department, while not directly represented on the task force, made a comprehensive submission. The submission set out in detail the Department's mission and the role and responsibilities that it undertakes to lead the sustainable development of a competitive, consumer focused agrifood sector and to contribute to a vibrant rural economy and society. Key among our priorities are food safety and quality, market development and ensuring compliance with the EU and national requirements in this area. The national development plan provides for research grants to companies and for public good research into food safety, new and innovative products, advanced technologies and consumer foods.
The task force subsequently asked for comments on three draft recommendations that it was considering. One raised issues to do with transport and planning, which fall outside the remit of my Department. The second proposed that my Department support and encourage farmers to sell their healthy produce to local disadvantaged communities at affordable prices. This implies a de facto price subsidy that is not permissible under EU state aid rules.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The third draft recommendation was that my Department should support the implementation of evidence-based healthy eating interventions. I support this approach. My Department has been to the forefront in research and the public good food institutional research measure has financed a number of dietary and nutritional surveys, including the second SLÁN survey, which previewed the national task force on obesity.
I am not aware that the task force intends to recommend that my Department discriminate in favour of local producers but any such recommendation would have to be considered very carefully in light of state aid rules. Any code of conduct for the food industry that goes beyond the regulatory requirements would be a matter for the industry itself.
Bord Bia has been effective in promoting the nutritional benefits of a balanced diet and of increased consumption of horticultural products. Its market information, advice and promotion services for the food industry draw on analyses of changing consumer demand and lifestyle trends in different population segments. Bord Bia has a proposal under consideration for EU and national funding for an extended pilot "Food Dudes" programme targeted at primary school children over the next three years. The programme encourages children aged four to 11 to taste a variety of fruit and vegetables. Research has shown that this programme is very effective in encouraging children to form a lifelong habit of eating fruit and vegetables. Development of good eating habits is one means of combating obesity.
I await with great interest the outcome of the work of the task force on obesity.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. When the obesity task force was established, I was disappointed the Department of Agriculture and Food was not formally represented on it. It is a grave omission because the Department's input would have been highly significant in the promotion of healthy, good quality and home-produced foods. Will the Minister of State agree it is important for the Department to be represented on the task force rather than making submissions to it?
We tend to equate fast and convenience foods with being non-nutritious and unhealthy. It may be true to a certain extent as many of them have high fat and salt content. Why is no serious effort made to ensure fast and convenience foods can be nutritious and healthy? These two terms should not be incompatible. What are the Minister of State's views on the promotion of such foods?
Scientists have replaced the saturated fat, salt and sugar components in convenience foods as consumption of natural healthy food ingredients continues to increase, resulting in healthier products. Under the food institutional research programme, considerable work has been undertaken at Teagasc's National Food Centre and University College Cork in developing those types of foods as referred to by Deputy Upton. Within the umbrella of the Irish Universities Nutritional Alliance, a major survey was conducted on adult eating patterns. This work is important in ensuring further research can be carried out to develop the products to which the Deputy referred. The research of food products suitable for coeliacs was a result of the ongoing work of University College Cork and Teagasc's National Food Centre.
The Department made detailed submissions to the task force, whose work is well under way. The different agencies working for the Department of Agriculture and Food, such as Bord Bia, are involved in advanced research, particularly in changes to food consumption trends. Over several years, the food dude programme was particularly successful. Although it was a British initiative, it was piloted in Ireland. We have applied to the EU for permission to establish another food dude programme. The results of the first programme were encouraging. One year after it, children's eating habits were surveyed. Those who had been on the programme had a significantly higher intake of fruit and vegetables than those who did not partake. There are merits in continuing the food dude programme. Bord Bia, working with the Department, is anxious to advance this as quickly as possible.
The annual cost of obesity here is estimated at €370 million, a huge cost in ill health, cardiovascular diseases and so forth. Will Bord Bia increase its promotion of fruit and vegetables considering it was amalgamated with An Bord Glas last year?
Yes, and that work is ongoing. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has been anxious to make the public aware at every available forum that we will drive this agenda. The labelling issue comes into this too. We are making considerable progress on this issue.
Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
James Breen
Ceist:44 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the fact that 102,000 farmers are receiving disadvantage payments, no change will take place and the status quo will apply; if she will defend all areas designated; if funding for disadvantaged areas will be increased in line with inflation; if pockets of areas which meet natural handicap criteria but were excluded due to not being adjacent to existing areas will now be included under natural handicap criteria; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14245/05]
The EU Commission's proposal for the post-2006 rural development framework provides for the reclassification of disadvantaged areas. It responds to the European Court of Auditors criticism, endorsed by the European Parliament, concerning the system. The suggested new methodology will be based on natural conditions, notably soil and climatic factors. The socio-economic criteria, taken into account to designate eligible areas, will no longer apply.
At meetings of the Council of Ministers, I have stressed that reclassification is an extremely important and sensitive issue. Other member states have adopted a similar position. I will continue to seek a solution that is equitable and in Ireland's interests. I cannot yet be definite regarding the shape of that solution, since negotiations are still in progress. However, the negotiations to date give me grounds for cautious optimism. Regarding the issue of funding, that too is covered by the EU Commission proposal for the post-2006 rural development framework. Negotiations on that have not yet begun in earnest but I assure the Deputy I will be seeking a solution which is fair and in the best interests of our disadvantaged areas.
Since the Minister hails from Donegal, where there are small farmers such as in County Clare, I do not need to tell her of the hardship which will befall them if the disadvantaged area is declassified. It will reduce their incomes considerably. The introduction of the nitrates directive will further reduce their incomes and stocking rates, while the beef premium overshoot of €18 million will also cause hardship for farmers. I ask the Minister to do her best to ensure there is no reclassification of disadvantaged areas in this country.
Can the Minister veto the declassification? Over what timescale does the Minister expect it to take place? If the current situation is maintained, will the Minister guarantee index linking, so payments will rise with the rate of inflation? This is important for farmers. The Minister and the two Ministers of State in the Department are aware that we cannot afford to allow declassification to take place.
The Minister is fighting to maintain live exports of cattle. If they are not maintained, small farmers will be put out of business. The Minister sees the importance of this. I remind Deputy Naughten that I am the biggest small farmer in County Clare, by size only.
I agree with the Deputy that this is an important area. I expected Deputy Crawford to jump up and thank the Minister and the Minister of State for including Monaghan.
I was telling him to keep quiet.
It is terrible to be successful on occasion on this side of the House. I know the Ceann Comhairle is above politics but he would welcome that.
Deputy Breen is correct. A considerable portion of his constituency in County Clare lies in a disadvantaged area. This is a politically sensitive issue. We are currently in quite difficult negotiations on the issue. A number of my colleagues will suffer huge losses as a consequence of the re-evaluation taking place, and as the Deputy will appreciate, that is politically unacceptable to them. We are back into the melting pot. The Deputy is correct in saying that any degressivity of removal of the disadvantaged payments will have major implications. All of this depends on the financial perspectives which are to be negotiated and finalised in June. We expect this matter to be concluded by the end of June, during the negotiations at the Council of Ministers.
I agree that the issue is of major importance, and we will make every effort to ensure the outcome will not be disadvantageous to Irish farmers.
Farm Waste Management.
Seymour Crawford
Ceist:45 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when she will announce increased grant aid for the provision of increased slurry capacity based on the number of weeks farmers will have to provide for under the new nitrates directive; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that time is of the essence, if farmers are to have slurry accommodation available for October 2005 and that they need approval immediately; if she has made any provision for grant aid to those with under 20 livestock units; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14267/05]
The Deputy is aware of the consultations in progress with the EU Commission regarding the implementation in Ireland of the nitrates directive. He is also aware of the substantial increases in grants for farm waste management introduced last year. Sustaining Progress allowed for improvements to be made to the grants available under the farm waste management scheme and this commitment was achieved by the introduction of a revised farm waste management scheme in January 2004. Consideration of further amendments to the scheme must await resolution of the nitrates programme discussions with the EU. As for applying the grant aid to those with under 20 income units, this has been traditionally opposed by the Commission when sought on previous occasions, but I intend raising the matter again in these new circumstances.
Will the Minister advise when the nitrates directive will be agreed? This situation is causing major distress for farmers who do not know what they must do. The Government has proposed to Brussels that counties Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan have a 22-week storage period. Will farmers in those counties get the extra grant that is required? This is justified given that in counties such as Cork there is only a 16-week storage period. This is a major issue. These people must plan for this. They wish to co-operate but they need an indication that grants will be at a realistic level to ensure they can afford to remain in business.
Is it correct that the under-20 stock unit can be decided by the member state? If the under-20 units cannot get grant aid, it will be the end of many small farmers in western areas.
I agree the four counties with the 22-week requirement have a problem. In counties Monaghan and Cavan there are the additional issues of pigs and poultry. I have had an opportunity, with the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, to meet the Border regional authority, the producers and the national representatives. I have a major concern about this. I agree there is a special case to be made for those four counties. The capacity problem is causing great concern but we should be able to deal with it. My concern is that for some poultry producers the problem is not capacity, given that many of them have the 26 weeks, but access to spread lands. That is a major concern and we are examining innovative ways of dealing with this organic waste. There is a strong case to be made for the producers in those four counties.
I can only offer a guess on when finality will be brought to this issue but I believe it will be this month. From a practical point of view, if we are to implement something, we must have the time to do so, no matter what happens. If capacity must be increased, planning permission will be required and funding and building arrangements will have to be made. There are many things to be done and that takes time. Although people are anxious and some are overly anxious, we must keep steady heads. We will certainly look more favourably at the farmers with the 22-week requirement although we will not neglect other producers who also have a difficulty.
The 20 livestock units issue is a European matter. It is unfortunate. There is a view that such holdings are not viable farming enterprises. The directive has nothing to do with that; it is about water quality. It does not matter if one has two cows or 200, this is a water quality issue. I will put forward the view to the Commission that we must address the water quality issues, not the income viability of farming enterprises.
I welcome the Minister's commitment on the under 20 units issue and I will be glad to support her in dealing with it. However, I seek clearer information on extra grant aid for the four counties concerned because they must provide a higher level of storage. Farmers must have some indication. A total of 75 dairy farmers in County Monaghan have left the business this year before the introduction of this directive. That indicates the desperation among farmers.
I cannot give an indication at present about grant aid. This is a matter of negotiation between me, the Department of Finance and the social partners. There is a particularly special case to be made for those who have a 22-week requirement. Equally, there is a case to be made for intensive commercial producers, particularly dairy producers in the south, who also have a problem, although not to the same extent as producers in the four counties mentioned.
The Deputy can rest assured that in a re-evaluation of grant aid and support, the four counties will be uppermost in our minds. The IFA has fired its first shot, seeking aid of 100%. That is unrealistic.
I only want 90%.
We will examine a practical way of dealing with this issue and we will also examine alternative methodologies as well as the normal ones under the farm waste management scheme.
Organic Farming.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:46 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will report on the implementation of recommendations in the organic development report; the acreage of organically farmed land in 1989, 1994, 1999 and 2004 in each EU member state; the action she is taking to remove the impediments to organic conversion for farmers; and the locations at which farmers can benefit from training to farm organically. [14479/05]
Substantial progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations in the organic development committee report. All three additional structures recommended have been established. A national steering group was set up to act as a driving force for the development of the organic sector and as a basis for advancing partnership between the organic sector and the other principal essential interests. It has met nine times. The steering group is supported by two sub-groups, the partnership expert working group and the organic market development group. The partnership expert working group is responsible for training, education, advice and research. The organic market development group has overall responsibility for developing a national marketing strategy for organic food.
The main incentive to organic conversion for farmers is the rural environment protection scheme under which they get substantial payments. Almost €4 million was paid under the scheme directly to organic farmers in 2004. Since REPS began in 1994, it has delivered €31 million to the sector. Under the current scheme, an organic farmer with 55 hectares is eligible for an annual payment in REPS 3 of €18,505 a year for the first two years, and €13,555 each year for the rest of his or her time in the scheme. As a further incentive to encourage conventional farmers to venture into organic production, REPS now allows them to convert part of the farm instead of the entire holding as previously.
Teagasc offers five training modules in organic farming. Courses are planned at Kildalton, Athy, Bandon and Athenry. Courses will be provided at other centres when there is a demand. Other organisations are also making a notable contribution with financial support from my Department. The demonstration farm project was highly successful in 2004 and the number of farms has risen to 12 in 2005.
The following table outlines the land area under organic production in all EU member states from 1989 to 2003.
|
Member State |
1989 (hectares) |
1994 (hectares) |
1999 (hectares) |
2003 (hectares) |
|
Austria |
2,100 |
192,337 |
272,635 |
328,803 |
|
Belgium |
1,200 |
2,683 |
18,515 |
24,000 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
30 |
170 |
|
Czech Republic |
260 |
15,818 |
110,756 |
254,995 |
|
Denmark |
8,283 |
20,688 |
136,629 |
165,146 |
|
Estonia |
0 |
1,600 |
4,000 |
40,890 |
|
Finland |
2,300 |
25,822 |
136,622 |
159,987 |
|
France |
65,000 |
94,806 |
315,771 |
550,000 |
|
Germany |
54,295 |
272,139 |
452,327 |
734,027 |
|
Greece |
100 |
1,188 |
21,451 |
244,455 |
|
Hungary |
0 |
8,630 |
32,609 |
113,816 |
|
Ireland |
3,700 |
5,390 |
29,360 |
28,514 |
|
Italy |
11,000 |
154,120 |
911,068 |
1,052,002 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
1,250 |
3,000 |
21,480 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
267 |
6,746 |
23,289 |
|
Luxembourg |
550 |
538 |
888 |
3,002 |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
6,544 |
11,340 |
26,350 |
41,865 |
|
Poland |
300 |
5,000 |
11,000 |
49,928 |
|
Portugal |
550 |
7,267 |
47,974 |
120,729 |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
14,762 |
46,386 |
50,000 |
|
Slovenia |
0 |
150 |
2,400 |
21,017 |
|
Spain |
3,300 |
17,208 |
352,164 |
725,254 |
|
Sweden |
23,600 |
48,039 |
155,463 |
225,776 |
|
United Kingdom |
18,500 |
32,476 |
390,868 |
695,619 |
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. It is now over five years since the agrifood 2010 committee recommended the setting up of the organic development committee so it is time to examine what progress has been made. The report predicted that by 2006 we would have at least 3% of agricultural land in organic production. Is it time to look again at the measures outlined by the Minister of State on the basis that the figures for other EU countries show considerable progress has been made elsewhere? For example, Austria has nearly 13% of land in organic production, it is over 7% in Finland, and over 6% in Denmark, Greece and Italy. This shows that something is being done in those countries which we are not doing. Can the Minister identify what they are doing that we are not doing, given the potential here which has not been fulfilled?
Will the Minister of State revise the reply he gave to me last October when he said it is up to producers and consumers to determine whether the target is achieved? Does he not agree that 70% of organic food eaten in this country is imported, that this indicates that it is not simply a matter of leaving it up to consumers and producers and that a much more proactive targets-based policy needs to be adopted, which is the case in Austria? It is clear that such a policy works as Austria has 13% of land in organic production. Is it not time to look again at the policy and give us the potential which we would be capable of reaching were the Government in support of it?
At present there are about 1,000 organic operators in Ireland and 30,000 hectares of land under organic production.
It is less than 1%.
That is around 1%. In 1994 it was 5,000 hectares. As I outlined in my reply, there is substantial grant aid for farmers to become actively involved in organic production but they have not availed of this. When I talk to organic farmers, they point out that they find it difficult to get consumers to pay the price they seek for the production of organic foods.
The organic committee that reported in 2003 recommended a number of structures, which have all been put in place. It also made a number of other recommendations, including a census of Irish organic production and work on a national label, which should be available shortly. The seven demonstration farms that were operation in 2004 are to be increased to 12. Teagasc has become nationally involved and has identified advisers at national level to work with farmers in the area of organic production.
As regards the issues raised by the Deputy, we are certainly pursuing them within the Department. Grant aid has been made available and we have made changes in the REPS. Where previously a farmer had to devote his or her entire farm to organic production, now it only needs to be part of the farm. A vocational certificate in agriculture, with an organic option, is offered at Mountbellew College. However, because of the lack of interest by students, we are not in a position to make this viable at the moment. Other organisations are involved in training such as the Organic Centre, Rossinver, County Leitrim, an tIonad Glas, County Limerick, and the centre at Falcarragh, County Donegal. In my county there is the County Wexford partnership which is actively promoting organic farming. Every effort is made within the Department.
The Department is always prepared to re-examine the situation. We are very much in favour of developing the organic sector and reaching the 3% target that the committee suggested should be achieved by 2006. I do not believe, however, that this is practicable.
Prior to a brief supplementary question, I would like to welcome the national label initiative, and I hope it comes about shortly as it is long overdue. Does the Minister of State accept that it is necessary to review constantly the reasons Ireland does not maintain the progress made in other countries that have less to boast about in terms of their agricultural traditions? Does he regard the genetic modification situation as an impediment or threat to the development of the organic sector? Does he regard Teagasc as being sufficiently on board to assist smaller producers who are more likely to see the advantages of conversion and to be in a position to move to organic? It needs to focus more on the potential of smaller producers. Organic producers say that Teagasc is much more focused on larger producers and apparently is not that interested in small organic units. Will the Minister of State say whether Teagasc has its mindset correctly adjusted to ensure that organic potential is reached?
Teagasc has identified advisers to work with farmers. It has also developed and delivered a number of organic courses for farmers and intends to expand in this area. In addition to the roll-out of organic education and advice, Teagasc is developing an organic beef research programme. It hopes to work closely with small producers and farmers who want to enter this area. Teagasc is very active in this area and I will encourage it to become even more active in the months ahead. It is important that we continue to debate this issue but, more importantly, that we encourage farmers to take up the substantial extra grant aid that exists under the REPS.