Vol. 678 No. 2
49 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures that have been adopted to alleviate the difficulties facing the north-west cod fishery in implementing new conservation measures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11939/09]
The reply is the same as that to Question No. 48.
Is there a supplementary question?
We were talking about scientific evidence and the surveys that have been done. I do not know if the Minister of State is aware that an 11-day survey was commissioned but it ended up being a two-day survey.
The question is slightly cryptic in that it asks whether I am aware of a study that was just two days long.
An 11-day survey that was commissioned ended up being a two-day survey.
Will the Deputy furnish me with more detail? I wish to follow up this because we will need all the evidence and agreement we can possibly bring to the Commission as we will be asking it for exemptions, for flexibility and to take on board the real situation with which the Deputy and I are familiar.
50 Deputy Michael D’Arcy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the fact that the applications received under the bioenergy scheme 2009 have been largely for miscanthus grants rather than willow, he will re-allocate unspent funds originally set aside for willow for the take up of additional miscanthus applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11920/09]
Perhaps the Minister of State will read out the reply this time.
My Department is implementing a number of measures set out in the National Bioenergy Action Plan to increase the share of bioenergy derived from the agriculture and forestry sectors. The measures include a bioenergy scheme to stimulate production of miscanthus and willow feedstock for use in the bioenergy market. The cultivation of willow and miscanthus has been relatively undeveloped in Ireland primarily due to high establishment costs estimated at €2,900 per hectare. The bioenergy scheme aims to kick start production of these crops by grant aiding the costs of establishment. Under the scheme, farmers can qualify for an establishment grant equal to 50% of the costs of planting willow and miscanthus. The maximum payment rate is €1,450 per hectare up to a ceiling of 30 hectares per applicant.
The scheme is being operated on a pilot basis up to end 2009. Since its launch in February 2007 it has generated much interest from farmers. During the first two phases, the Department provided for the planting of 3,000 hectares. The actual area planted came to 1,800 hectares. The third phase was launched in December 2008 providing for planting in 2009 of 900 hectares of miscanthus and 900 hectares of willow. As in previous years, the allocation was split evenly between both crops. Overall, 271 applications were received to plant 1,850 hectares of miscanthus and 360 hectares of willow. Pre-planting approvals have been issued in respect of the 900 hectares of miscanthus. In view of the shortfall in willow applications, my Department has reviewed the ceiling for miscanthus and agreed to issue additional approvals subject to respecting the overall 1,800-hectare ceiling for the bioenergy scheme 2009. These approvals will issue shortly.
My Department and Teagasc continue to work with stakeholders to maximise the potential to grow willow and miscanthus in Ireland. In 2008, Teagasc published a farm diversification manual providing detailed technical advice to farmers on growing willow and miscanthus. Together with Teagasc and Sustainable Energy Ireland, my Department co-funded an educational DVD Willow and Miscanthus — from Field to Furnace. The Department has also made available best practice guidelines for growing willow and miscanthus under the bioenergy scheme.
Additional Information not provided on the floor of the House.
The guide provides advice to growers on planting and harvesting operations to maximise crop yield and improve the economic viability of the crop.
The bioenergy scheme has ignited considerable interest among farmers in growing miscanthus and willow. It has helped bring some scale to the sector and raised awareness of the potential to grow these crops under Irish conditions. Overall, the area planted should exceed 3,500 ha by end 2009. I believe there is significant potential to develop miscanthus and willow planting in Ireland. My Department will carry out a comprehensive review of the bioenergy scheme in mid-2009 to include an assessment of the need for a further scheme.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and welcome the Department's decision, albeit somewhat belatedly, to reallocate the proportion of the 900 hectares not taken up in respect of willow planting. I wish to ask two supplementary questions of the Minister of State.
Has the Department conducted an analysis of the reason take-up in respect of willow planting is not similar to that in respect of miscanthus planting? It may be that willow planting is less attractive owing to cost and the lead-in time in terms of harvesting, which is longer. In this regard, if we move from a pilot phase to an established grant aid scheme for these green energy crops, will the Minister of State consider increasing the incentive for willow, which has great potential as a green energy crop? Will the Minister of State consider moving the scheme from a pilot phase to the introduction of a broadly available grant scheme? Also, has he considered the reason willow has not been availed of to the same extent as miscanthus?
I appreciate the Deputy's welcome for the flexibility that has come to bear on this issue. On willow, there is no doubt but that the lead-in period is a disincentive for people seeking a quick return, which miscanthus can represent. Given the three year cycle willow planting represents a difficulty arises for farmers in terms of pay-back. An issue that may perhaps need to be further promoted is that with willow comes other possible farmgate income, which working with local authorities, has shown to provide additional income for farmers. There may be a need to tweak the scheme to provide an extra incentive in respect of willow and a need to further communicate other income streams that willow may bring with it. In essence, the feedback we are receiving suggests the lead-in period is the reason more people are not taking up willow.
In terms of the market for both products and the derivation of by-products from willow and miscanthus, has the Department undertaken a study in regard to market viability? Also, does the Minister of State envisage this scheme to be a long term sustainable scheme, sustainable in the sense of it being maintained as a scheme?
The sustainability of a scheme is primarily based on its ability to continue without grant assistance. That is the essence of sustainability of any scheme. That being said, it is hoped we will be able to continue to support what is necessary to grow the bioenergy sector in Ireland. Teagasc is currently undertaking studies in this area and is prepared to give a time of business adviser to farmers to plan what might be a new venture. Most of the farmers showing an interest come from a cereal farming background from which similar equipment, disciplines and growing techniques can be brought to bear. Teagasc, rather than re-inventing the wheel, is also taking note of UK studies in this area, which show that with improved varieties and better farming techniques yield in the bioenergy sector can be increased up to 30%.
I call Deputy Andrew Doyle on a brief supplementary.
It is hoped this can be followed through in practise.
Will the Minister of State accept, on foot of what Deputy Sherlock said, that in isolation miscanthus or willow will not survive? There currently exists a Cabinet working group on climate change and energy security. There is a need for us to tie all of this into one package. Bord na Móna and the ESB are examining this issue. Private landowners must be part of a critical mass that will allow this to be sustainable as part of an overall renewable energy policy for the country otherwise this is but a holding exercise which will not be sustainable long term.
I call Deputy P.J. Sheehan on a brief supplementary.
I cannot understand the reason emphasis is being placed on willow-miscanthus planting rather than willow-coppice planting. Some 12 months ago, the main issue, as far as forestry was concerned, was willow coppice planting, which is an ideal tree in terms of green energy production. I do not understand the reason for the fall-off in respect of willow-coppice planting. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain the reason this is happening.
I will attempt to answer the questions asked by Deputies Doyle and Sheehan. I agree with Deputy Doyle that this issue must be addressed in the round. That is the reason there is interdepartmental co-operation on the matter. It was predicted, in terms of my briefing here today, that we might end up speaking about greener home schemes, heating programmes and so on. There is a list we could cover in terms of variable overlapping and interdepartmental responses to the challenges of energy security and climate change, of which this issue is a small part. However, the Government is determined to grow this sector given our very low base in terms of bioenergy in this country.
The €6 million allocation in grant assistance has gone to 13 projects under the stimulus programme for this area. This, it is hoped, will give rise to further opportunities in co-operation with Teagasc in regard to the production of biomass at the Oak Park crops research centre. Along with supporting existing practise, research is being undertaken as we need to, as Deputy Sheehan stated, broaden our work in this area. We are speaking in this regard of coppicing for which willow, along with other tree species, is suitable. While we are talking about coppicing, we are also looking at other areas. Research is being done in the case of bamboo, for example. That has not been covered yet, but it may well come on stream if it is shown to produce a good return. We all know that Ireland is good at growing trees. We need to explore this area further.
51 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the level of payment for the remaining years in view of his recent guarantee that the €250 million suckler cow welfare scheme will be maintained. [12004/09]
I am not in a position to confirm that payments will continue to be made under the suckler cow welfare scheme. The Government has decided, having regard to the urgent need to address the public finances, to introduce a supplementary budget in the Dáil on 7 April next. Over 53,000 farmers applied for the suckler cow welfare scheme in 2008. The estimated cost of the scheme for that year, at a rate of €80 per cow, is approximately €77 million. As approximately €33 million had been spent by the end of 2008, a further €44 million has been provided in my Department's 2009 Estimate to pay for the remaining calves that were born in 2008. Of the €44 million mentioned, over €14.5 million has already been paid to farmers in 2009. Payments are continuing on a weekly basis as additional animals become eligible and certain application details are clarified with individual applicants. It must be borne in mind that the money being paid to farmers under this scheme is an additional income stream — it was not there before last year. All the funding in question is coming from the Exchequer.
I am concerned that the suckler cow welfare scheme may be abolished or further eroded. That was the basis of my decision to table this question. Over 32,000 beef farmers have participated in the Teagasc training sessions that are required under the scheme. It is vitally important that the scheme be maintained in the first instance. The answer given by the Minister will not reassure the House. Will the scheme be maintained? If so, farmers are entitled to know the level at which it will be maintained. I appreciate that the Minister cannot make a statement on the budgetary position ahead of 7 April next. However, farmers are entitled to know whether the scheme will be maintained.
I share Deputy Sherlock's view that this is a good scheme. It has proven beneficial during the year in which it has been in existence. As I said in response to a question asked on a previous occasion by Deputy Sherlock or Deputy Creed, it is intended to honour the commitment — to provide €250 million over five years — that was made when the suckler cow welfare scheme was introduced. I reiterate that the scheme, which is designed to help farmers to adapt to market requirements, provides particular value. I would like to be able to make a decision as soon as possible. It will not be possible to make any decisions on the 2009 scheme in advance of the publication of the revised Book of Estimates for the Department, which will happen after the decisions that are made before 7 April are announced in this House on that date. I remind the House that €31.75 million was paid out in respect of last year's scheme up to the end of 2008. I can confirm, in response to a question I was asked earlier, that the amount paid so far in 2009 is in excess of €14.6 million. Therefore, the total amount paid to date under the 2008 scheme is almost €48 million.
I appreciate that the Government and the Department are having to operate under difficult financial constraints. The Minister will accept that beef production is a marginal enterprise. It is a part-time enterprise for many people. Will the Minister consider revising the terms of the suckler cow welfare scheme so that an €80 level of payment can be guaranteed to all farmers for their first 20, 25 or 30 suckler cows? That would ensure that the maximum benefit would accrue to smaller producers, in particular. The level of payment under the scheme could be tapered downwards for applications that are made in respect of greater numbers of animals. The needs of smaller producers should be prioritised because their capacity to retain an income from farming depends on whether they can draw the maximum amount from this scheme.
I can accept the valuable point that has been made by Deputy Creed about the need to modulate limited resources in a targeted manner.
The Minister can accept it, but will he implement it?
Members of this House have also proposed a reduction in the number of years of participation in the scheme. Although the suckler cow welfare scheme is entirely funded from the Exchequer, the Government had to get state aid approval from the EU before it could be introduced. Further approval would be needed from the Union if a major variation in the conditions of the scheme were to be made. Any worthwhile proposals on the continuation of various aspects of the scheme will be considered. For example, the amount of money paid to an applicant might vary depending on the number of eligible animals he or she has.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
