Éamon Ó Cuív
Ceist:148. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date with the roll-out of the rural development programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12954/15]
Priority Questions
Rural Development Plan
We have been waiting a long time for the rural development programme to be approved. Will the Minister confirm the rumours in a newspaper today that the programme has been approved? Will he tell us when that will become official and the legal standing of any letters of comfort that will be given?
The new rural development programme for 2014 to 2020 will be a key support in enhancing the competitiveness of the agrifood sector, achieving a more sustainable management of natural resources and ensuring a more balanced development of rural areas. The draft RDP was formally submitted to the European Commission on 3 July 2014, a number of weeks in advance of the regulatory deadline. The Commission's formal response to the draft RDP containing a total of 266 observations was received on 20 October 2014. Since that time, detailed and intensive negotiations have been ongoing between my Department and the Commission to secure agreement on the new RDP. These bilateral negotiations have recently concluded and Ireland's draft RDP has now been formally resubmitted to the European Commission where it has entered the Commission's final round of inter-services consultation.
While the formal approval process for the RDP has still to be completed, I am aware of the importance of the roll-out of RDP schemes. Accordingly, officials from my Department sought at an early stage to establish a very clear understanding with the European Commission as to the shape of the new GLAS, its priorities, the actions that should be applied and the rates of payment. Having reached this level of agreement, as an interim measure and to allow maximum time for farmers to prepare their GLAS plans, I launched GLAS on 23 February. Commissioner Hogan has recently announced that the Commission will issue letters of comfort to member states as RDPs complete the bilateral negotiation process, but formal adoption of the RDP will be delayed by amendments to the multi-annual financial framework. This letter of comfort will ensure that the launch of RDP schemes will not be held up by the formal approval process at EU level and will facilitate the earlier implementation of RDP schemes and supports.
When the Commission’s final round of inter-services consultation is complete and the letter of comfort has issued, the schemes and supports contained in Ireland’s RDP will be rolled out in line with the annual budgetary process. I expect to receive our letter of comfort within the next two weeks.
What is the legal standing of a letter of comfort? In other words, does it provide legal cover against eventualities? Based on the figures the Minister sent me last week, can he confirm that taking into account inflation, which is real for farmers in terms of the continued increase in prices, the RDP 2014-2020 is 20% less than the real value of the RDP 2007-2013?
First, the letter of comfort is a practical measure that will enable me to approach the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to have schemes opened and to commit to payment of moneys in that regard. It is not ideal but it is a solution that allows us to get schemes open, which is what farmers want. While I would rather that at this stage we had a full approval process for our RDP, the Commission, the Government and the Department are satisfied that a letter of comfort will provide the necessary level of financial and legal cover that we need to be able to get schemes open.
Second, the Deputy will be aware that payments under Pillar I and the budget for the CAP have been maintained at more or less the same level as previously but they are not index linked. In other words, they will not increase every year with inflation. From a lobbying point of view, during the process of agreement of the rural development programme and Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, farmers were clear that what they wanted was no less in actual terms than they got the last time. That is what was achieved.
Based on the figures the Minister sent to me last week, in actual cash terms this rural development programme is 10% less than the last one. No account is taken of inflation. Inflation is real yet farmers are being paid the same amount now as they were being paid seven years ago. This is the same as the Government proposing next that workers be paid 1950 wages and saying that they are being given the same amount of cash as they were given in 1950, which is quite farcical. Can the Minister confirm that the figures he provided to me last week are correct? Can he further confirm that he sought advice from the Attorney General as to the legal status of the letter of comfort, and when the genomics, TAMS, organic and knowledge transfer and animal welfare schemes will open?
With respect, the deal was done in the budget over 12 months ago.
Surely it is not just dawning on the Deputy now.
I have been saying it for a year. I keep reminding the Minister.
I assume the numbers given to the Deputy last week were correct because we try to give out correct numbers.
The Minister gave them.
I assume they were as we give out correct information all the time when we are asked parliamentary questions. The Deputy is trying to make a big issue of the budget now, 12 months after it was agreed. It is a bit late in the day for him to make that case, with all due respect.
I have made that case since. The Minister can check my documentation. I am just reminding the Minister.
I call Deputy Martin Ferris for the next question.
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I asked a simple question about when these genomic schemes would open. The Minister did not even try to address it.
I am sorry-----
I asked specifically him about the Attorney General and he did not even try to address it. He likes to waffle on-----
We are up against the clock on this one. The Minister-----
I will answer it. What was the question? Was it when the beef genomic scheme would open?
I also asked about TAMS, organic and knowledge transfer, and animal welfare schemes.
As soon as we get the letter of comfort, which we expect in the next two weeks, we will open these schemes in sequence. It is likely the schemes will open one after the other in May and June. We cannot open them all at the same time for good practical reasons. However, there will be a roll out of schemes one after the other, and TAMS and the genomics scheme will both be prioritised. However, there will also be support for the islands, which I hope the Deputy will welcome, and increases in the organic scheme. There are many other schemes to be rolled out over the summer.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Martin Ferris
Ceist:149. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if targets under Harvest 2020 and Agri Food 2025 are compatible with European Union targets for the reduction of carbon emissions; his estimation of the reduction of the dairy herd in the State to meet those environmental targets; the fines expected to be imposed by the European Union if our dairy herd does not reduce within the specified period; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13049/15]
Are the targets under Harvest 2020 and Agri Food 2025 compatible with European Union targets for the reduction of carbon emissions? What is the Minister's estimation of the reduction of the dairy herd in this State to meet those environmental targets? What fines are expected to be imposed by the European Union if the dairy herd does not reduce within the specified period? I ask the Minister to make a statement on it.
Irish agricultural production is independently and internationally recognised as one of the most climate and resource-efficient systems in the world. Irish dairy production, with Austria, has the lowest carbon-intensity in the EU as per the European Commission Joint Research Centre findings.
The extent of the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with our EU commitments is understood by Government, as reflected in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015. I am satisfied that Ireland is on course to comply with the annual mitigation targets under the 2009 EU Effort Sharing Decision in the first half of the 2013 to 2020 compliance period. However, there will be a significant compliance challenge in the years 2017 to 2020, which will have to be addressed in the national mitigation plan, currently being prepared.
The approach in the current Effort Sharing Decision, in terms of greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020, treats emissions from agriculture in essentially the same way as emissions from sectors such as transport and does not take into account the limited cost-effective mitigation options available in the sector.
While the 2020 targets remain binding, Ireland has engaged in intensive discussions with the European Commission to highlight the importance of ensuring a coherent approach to the twin challenges of food security and the greatly increased global demand for food with EU climate-change ambition. An important step forward in developing a coherent policy on food security and climate change was taken at the October 2014 European Council.
Officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and other Departments are continuing to work together to ensure a whole of Government approach to building upon this and working with the Commission to ensure that EU climate and food policies to 2030 and beyond recognise the reality of these global challenges.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure the Minister read the article in the farming section of today's Irish Independent. An Taisce claims that with a 20% target for reduction in emissions from 2005 to 2020, only 2% has been achieved so far, meaning that 18% is still outstanding. It quotes the Minister, as saying there will be a bigger burden on other sectors in order to meet that reduction target. I ask the Minister to enlighten us in that regard.
That is a very fair question. Applying a 20% reduction target does not mean that we apply 20% reduction across each sector.
Some sectors have more capacity than others to reduce emissions. It is true that other sectors will have to do more than 20%, because I believe agriculture does not have the capacity to achieve those numbers.
That said, agriculture will play its part, and I am determined that it will. It is already playing its part, but the targets I am setting for agriculture are related to the emissions intensity of what we do. If Ireland is producing milk at the lowest carbon footprint in the world relative to other countries, does it make sense, in terms of a global climate change challenge, for the country that is doing the best job in producing milk at a low emissions intensity to reduce its herd size and produce less to allow other countries, that are producing at a higher emissions intensity, to produce more? The markets are going to demand more anyway. The point we have been making at European level, both throughout the CAP process and since then, is that we must combine the joint challenges of a responsible approach towards climate change in terms of mitigation and adaptation to climate change challenges while at the same time responding to global food security issues.
I hope Ireland will set the global benchmark for how to produce food at a low emissions intensity. We will use science, innovation, breeding and grazing programmes, feed conversion efficiency management and all the other elements we are applying on Irish farms. In addition, we will audit and measure the performance on our farms. Every farming organisation in the country has signed up to all dairy farms in the country having a sustainability audit system on farms. Currently, we are measuring the greenhouse gas emissions from the herds on 48,000 beef farms. Ireland is the only country in the world doing this. Anyone who suggests that I, the Government and Ireland are not taking emissions from the agricultural sector seriously does not understand what we are doing. What I will not do is reduce herd size, when we have a good emissions record, to facilitate blunt targets that only apply to Ireland.
The Minister's reply is very informative and that message must be conveyed to the public. There are organisations that will try to run an agenda, through scaremongering tactics and otherwise, in respect of preventing the potential that can be realised as a result of the abolition of the quota. There is a similar question from Deputy Fitzmaurice but it relates to the beef sector.
Perhaps we should have statements and a debate on this issue, similar to what we held on the dairy sector recently. There is a need for a real debate on the sustainability story of Irish food production. We are exporting nearly 90% of everything we produce and we plan to grow that, so we must be able to prove to our critics, competitors and the clients to whom we sell that this is a story of growth that is also focusing on sustainability. We have a great story to tell in this regard, which is improving year on year.
I have much admiration for organisations such as An Taisce. They are right to raise issues about the climate change challenge we face, along with other environmental challenges relating to water management, protecting biodiversity, protecting special areas of conservation and so forth. However, the idea that one would reduce output to meet national targets when, in fact, one's output is a really good performer in international terms and in terms of the emissions intensity of one's production systems does not make sense. I will not restrict farmers from growing and expanding their businesses if they are doing a good job from a sustainability point of view, and we must win the argument at European level on that basis.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Michael Fitzmaurice
Ceist:150. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in view of an exclusive report in last week's Irish Farmers' Journal of a proposal in Europe to get rid of 33% of Ireland's beef herd and 5% of its dairy herd, and with proposals that Ireland will increase its dairy herd by approximately 50%, his views that our agri-sector must be left alone to help our country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12956/15]
Last week the Irish Farmers' Journal stated in an exclusive report, and the Irish Farmers' Journal claims to have seen the document, that it is proposed in Europe that 33% of Irish beef would have to go by the wayside, as well as 5% of our dairy sector, to comply with the 2020 targets.
I know the Minister has referred to the matter. The Minister is alleged to have said yesterday that we will be increasing our herd by 300,000 cattle. We welcome more exports and so on. However, if someone in Europe is doing this and if this is an exclusive report, we need to get it and sit down with people. Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I am pleased that we are having this discussion today because we can put some things on the record. Accusations have been made around the lack of priority for the sustainability story of Irish food production and that there is a sole focus on output, growth, expansion and so on. Those accusations do not recognise the extraordinary work that Ireland has undertaken in the past three or four years on the sustainability agenda, including auditing sustainability on farms, processing facilities and so on. The Origin Green programme is what makes the Irish food production system different from most of our competitors. By the end of next year we hope that all food and drink exported from Ireland will be from companies and farmers, who are responsible for the primary production of that food, that have signed up to the Origin Green programme - in other words, that have invited audits in respect of the sustainability of how they produce that food. That is the approach we are taking.
We are going to be setting up a dairy forum. Sustainability will be a big part of that discussion, as will the financial management of growth and the technology and innovation that can help us get better results in a more sustainable way than in the past.
Any old fool can reduce emissions by simply reducing production. There is no challenge in that. The challenge for the globe and for Ireland, in terms of giving leadership in this area, is finding a way to produce more food while reducing the overall emissions footprint of our production systems. It has to be all about the emissions intensity of a litre of milk or a kilo of beef. Ireland has to find ways of doing that and we are investing heavily in this area. This is why we have the new beef genomics scheme, for example. The idea is that we can breed better animals which grow faster and are slaughtered earlier. As a result, emissions during their lifetime are lower because they are killed at 20 or 22 months rather than 30 or 32 months. That is the approach that I have taken from a sustainability point of view. Essentially, An Taisce seems to be suggesting that the way in which agriculture must play its part in terms of the global climate change challenge is by simply reducing our herd size. That is not a sustainable approach towards a global problem.
Thank you. I will come back to the Minister.
Let us consider An Taisce and many of these bodies. Some people would rather see people sitting in their houses then actually out earning a living. We should know where we are coming from as a nation.
They have a problem with the houses as well.
The same An Taisce probably does not want us to have houses in rural Ireland either. Anyhow, I believe we need to focus on what we are good at as a nation, which is agriculture.
The Minister should check on the matter, but some of the larger countries in Europe have already put their hands up and said they will not achieve what they are supposed to achieve by 2020. If we are going to have that difficulty then let us be up front with it. Let us say it out. Let the different countries get together in Europe. There is no point in our trying to hide something. At the end of the day, we have come through a serious recession. We need people in jobs. If the dairy industry is going to produce what the Minister is saying, then it is great for jobs. It is going to help people in all parts of Ireland. I do not think anyone with a little common sense would try to prevent jobs by referring to these emissions.
Other countries have a good deal of industry, and this leaves the emissions from their agriculture sectors looking lower. We have a large agriculture sector. That is why our emissions look higher. Many mitigating factors are not taken into account in the agricultural sector, and this needs to be brought across. We need to go out to those in Europe and we need to go ahead and keep people in jobs regardless of what they say.
First, we estimate that in the next five years there could be an extra 10,000 people employed in the dairy sector in Ireland. Between 3,000 and 4,000 extra people could be actually milking cows, but there will also be more employment in processing, transport and refrigeration, export and packaging, food science and nutrition and all the other things that the dairy industry is now about.
That is a hugely positive thing for rural Ireland. If anyone drives out of Cork city and through Mallow, they will see an €80 million investment by Dairygold. If they drive across to Mitchelstown, there is a €40 million investment there. If they drive to Charleville, there is another €50 million investment, this time by the Kerry Group. If they drive across to Moorepark in Fermoy, there is another investment of approximately €30 million for research facilities. This is what the dairy industry is doing for Ireland, and that is just in rural Cork, so that picture can be replicated in other counties as well.
I am certainly not going to allow a situation where, because of the setting of blunt targets for agriculture or for Ireland as a whole, we are going to reduce herd size and reduce output to meet targets when we are producing milk at the lowest emissions intensity on the planet. We are making, and we will make, that argument at a European level in terms of the setting of targets for 2030. However, that is not to say that Ireland does not need to do radical and dramatic things to meet our targets in terms of our responsibilities regarding climate change. We need to look at what we can do in other sectors. While the emissions from agriculture have come down considerably over the past ten years, there is a lot we can do in regard to energy and transport in particular, and we need to be very ambitious in those areas.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he is not going to allow our dairy sector - I would have like him to have included our beef sector also-----
I was just giving an example.
If a sector is going well, we need to make sure there is a focus on jobs. Whatever Europe says, if we can show that we are doing something in the most efficient way in Europe, whoever has to take the hit in other parts of Europe or the world, they should take it, provided we are the ringleader in all of this. I believe we can produce milk and beef more efficiently than anywhere else.
I agree up to a point. However, that does not mean agriculture does not need to pull its weight. We need to get better, year on year, every year, in terms of the emissions intensity of our production systems. That is why we are measuring and auditing, and we will be widening those audits to include water, more efficient feeding systems, better grazing programmes, better breeding programmes and so on. The more sustainable we are generally in terms of the emissions intensity of our production systems, the more profitable we are too, and there is a direct correlation between efficiency and profitability on beef farms, dairy farms, poultry units, pig units, sheep farms and so on.
We are moving agriculture into a space that is prioritising sustainability. However, we cannot allow people to make the case that there is an easy answer to all of this, which is to simply reduce our herd size. The detrimental impact that would have on rural society is something I will not tolerate. Instead, we will solve this problem through innovation and through better ways of doing things, which is what I believe we have a responsibility to give leadership on.
Rural Development Plan
Éamon Ó Cuív
Ceist:151. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the arrangements in place to ensure that all farmers under 40 years of age benefit from the provisions in respect of young farmers under the rural development plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12955/15]
When the Minister was president of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, for some extraordinary reason he agreed to a mandatory scheme for young farmers that discriminated and excluded many farmers under 40 years of age from the benefits of the scheme. Apparently, the way he agreed to the scheme being written did not allow country discretion to allow these farmers to benefit from the schemes. In other words, the Minister did not allow himself the discretion to deal with the so-called "old young farmers" who have been so badly discriminated against by him. Is he going to take steps to deal with this matter?
We have already taken steps to deal with that matter. To explain how things happened as they did, Ireland was one of the leading countries, if not the leading country, looking to insist that every country would be required to prioritise young farmers, and we got our way on that in the end. However, the Commission insisted, and agreed with us, that as part of that, if a country has a mandatory measure, then it has to define what a young farmer is in the regulation, which is what happened. Therefore, a young farmer was defined as a person under the age of 40 who has come into farming in the last five years, because the whole point of positively discriminating in favour of these people is to give them a bit of extra cash and financial support to get them started in agriculture as young farmers who have come into farming in recent times.
That was its purpose. This group of people is now getting priority treatment in Pillar 1. Their payments are being topped by the national reserve up to the national average, and then they are getting another top-up on top of that of 25%. They are also getting preferential treatment in Pillar 2. When we open the TAMS scheme in a few weeks' time, they will have the option to get a 60% grant rather the 40% grant everyone else receives. That is a strong package for those farmers. There are some farmers who feel they have been locked out of that system because they missed out on installation aid or started farming six or seven years ago and, therefore, are not defined as young farmers in the regulation.
We went back to the Commission and advised it of the farmers who came into farming just after the installation aid scheme was closed by the previous Government and who cannot now qualify to be young farmers. We said we thought they were a disadvantaged group and wanted to help them. The Commission has accepted that and, as of today, such farmers can apply to the national reserve to get a top-up of their single farm payment up to the national average, which is a significant boost for that category of farmer.
I do not know why the Minister sold our farmers out. Apparently he had some desire to force a young farmers' scheme on countries which perhaps wanted one. That is what he did. Will the Minister clarify that a young farmer, as defined in the regulation, gets three advantages, as he said, namely, access to the national reserve, a top-up in the BPS and greening and a 60% grant under TAMS?
Is the Deputy against that?
Will he confirm that he has done something for the very small cohort of farmers who entered the sector in 2008 and 2009 in respect of access to the national reserve? Will he confirm that the top-up he is giving those farmers is in no way equivalent to the top-up that is being given to qualifying young farmers who are excluded from the top-up from TAMS? Does the Minister intend to re-examine the situation and ensure farmers from 2008 and 2009 and those who received installation aid, which was a finite sum of money, have access to the national reserve, the BPS greening and the TAMS top-up on the same terms as everyone else?
For the record and with respect, only one party sold young farmers out, and that was the Deputy's party when it decided to abolish installation aid. We are now trying to fix that problem and re-prioritise that category of farmers. We have worked with Macra na Feirme and all the farming organisations to try to do that. They were celebrating when the CAP deal was done in terms of the package for young farmers. Perhaps the Deputy should check the views of young farmers on that.
On the issue of trying to sort out this cohort of people, whom many thought it was impossible to help given the tight definition of "young farmer" in the regulation, we have found and worked out a way with the Commission to categorise them as a disadvantaged group and, therefore, a group of people to whom we can give assistance through the national reserve. We have done that to the fullest extent we can. People who just missed out on installation aid but who started farming more than five years ago can apply to the national reserve under phase 2 of the application process to get a top-up of their single farm payment up to the national average. For many young farmers who have low payments, that is a very substantial top-up.
Will the Minister confirm that he will not do anything for farmers who entered the sector before 2008 and that he will do nothing more for the farmers to whom he is giving the top-up from the national reserve? There have been long delays in issuing herd numbers and difficulties for farmers in tying up leases, land and so on. Does the Minister intend to extend the closing date for applications from young farmers? I understand it is today.
I am not aware that there is any significant request for us to extend that date, so we have not done so. My understanding is that the farmers who qualify as young farmers have not had a major issue with the application dates. If I am incorrect, I will happily listen to those arguments, but my understanding is that there is not a big issue.
With regard to Pillar 2 payments and the rural development programme, we do not have a national reserve to use. We have that under Pillar 1, and that is how the rules work. We are using what we have in Pillar 1 to try to help this group of people. The Deputy should not forget that these farmers will have the option to get all the other supports we are rolling out anyway through the rural development programme; we should not take that for granted. These are very attractive schemes with very good support measures. The people in question are not defined as young farmers in the same way as those who are defined under the regulation and therefore they will not be getting the kind of top-ups under Pillar 2 payments because we do not have a mechanism to do that. They will be getting favourable treatment through the national reserve under Pillar 1.
Agri-Environment Options Scheme Payments
Michael Fitzmaurice
Ceist:152. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will assure farmers in counties Roscommon, Leitrim and Longford and in east Galway, whose payments under the agri-environment options scheme have been held up due to an investigation being carried out; his views that these farmers are suffering financial problems, as this has dragged on for a long time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12957/15]
Will the Minister reassure farmers in counties Roscommon, Leitrim, Longford and east Galway whose payments under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, have been held up due to a Department investigation? What are his views on this? The farmers in the area are suffering severe financial problems so will the Minister make a statement?
I am glad the Deputy has given me the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, payments to participants fall into two categories of either area-based actions or and non-productive capital investment actions. Participants can receive payments for both actions, which are combined to give an annual payment to the participant. Non-productive capital investments would generally be the purchase and planting of trees and hedgerows.
Under the AEOS, participants must submit a claim for payment for non-productive capital investment actions, supported by appropriate proof of purchase, such as receipts and invoices for trees and hedgerow plants. A review of a sample of claims submitted was undertaken in 2014. This review identified serious irregularities with some of the claims submitted. The Department then instigated a full investigation into the matter. Under the circumstances, all AEOS payments to participants which are the subject of the investigation were put on hold. My Department wrote to each of the participants concerned on 28 January 2015, explaining the situation. The matter has now been referred to An Garda Síochána for its consideration and decisions on individual cases will not be made until the investigation has progressed further. I will brief the Deputy later in more detail if he wishes.
I have met a good few farmers who may have bought some trees. They had inspections in 2011 or 2012 and everything was in order. These people have had their payments held up as well. There are many very good farmers out there and many of them expected this money before Christmas. They are under serious financial pressure. They have gone to different public representatives, expressing how banks are putting pressure on some of these farmers. The money has not come. Will the Minister provide a date that could ensure some light at the end of this tunnel? For some of these farmers, they are getting to a desperate stage.
I am slow to put on the record the detail of what is being investigated as the Garda is involved.
I will brief the Deputy afterwards if he so wishes. We will try to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible and work with gardaí to do so. This is public money being spent and it is co-financed by European budgets.
We must ensure invoices are real and that the numbers of trees and hedgerow plants supposedly purchased are planted, so we are paying for work that is done. There is a concern about those issues in these cases. Some farmers may have got caught up in this although they have done nothing wrong. We need to get to the bottom of it as quickly as we can by helping the Garda to do this, and as soon as this happens, we will make good on the payments due. I have an obligation to ensure that if there is any fraud, it is exposed.
I understand where the Minister is coming from. During the past 90 to 120 days there should have been no reason that inspectors could not have inspected the 300 to 400 farms to check whether the numbers were in the ground and whether farmers were compliant. The Department should have pushed this side of it.
In essence, that has happened. We conducted an investigation and, as a result, we were satisfied that the file needed to be handed over to the Garda for investigation. Hopefully, this case can be fully investigated quickly and we can get to the bottom of it and sort out the payments of any farmers who may have got caught up in it in an unfair way or inadvertently. If people are drawing down money on false pretences, we must expose and deal with it.