Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Nov 2015

Organic Sector: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones. I welcome, from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, Mr. Paul Dillon, assistant secretary, Mr. Ronan O'Flaherty, principal officer, Ms Joan Furlong, assistant principal officer, and Mr. Frank Macken, agricultural inspector. I thank them for coming here to brief the committee on the organic farming scheme. I apologise for the unexpected delay. We had an issue in our private session and a suspension due to the minute's silence observed in the Dáil.

I remind witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members have already been reminded of their responsibilities regarding privilege.

Mr. Paul Dillon

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today on the subject of the new organic farming scheme under the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020, and on a number of matters relating to organic farming in Ireland. I note in particular the issues raised at a recent session of this committee, on 8 October, which heard from members of the Organic Farmers Representative Body, and I hope that in the course of our discussion here today we can clarify many of these issues for the committee members. At the outset, it should probably be said that the Organic Farmers Representative Body is not an umbrella organisation representing all or even most organic farmers. It represents a number of small livestock farmers and does so most effectively and efficiently. The usual forum for discussion between the Department and the organic farming sector is the Organic Focus Group, which meets quarterly under an independent chair and which is representative of the entire sector. The Organic Farmers Representative Body attends these meetings and the Department has also met independently with the body on several occasions to hear its views and to respond to its various proposals.

Having studied the transcripts of the discussion at this committee on 8 October, I found that four main issues were raised: the framework of support established under the new organic farming scheme which was introduced as part of the RDP; the question of double-funding under GLAS and the new organic scheme; the problem of delays in making payments to organic farmers; and the cost of membership and inspections applied by the organic control bodies.

The new organic farming scheme was introduced following a wide round of consultation which extended over almost two years as part of the process of drafting the new rural development programme. It also takes account of a detailed value-for-money review which was completed last year and which quite deliberately links across to both GLAS and to the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, in creating a comprehensive framework of supports for the sector.

The new organic farming scheme was launched in April 2015 with a budget of €56 million over the lifetime of the RDP. It provides for significantly increased rates of payment to all organic farmers, irrespective of sector. For example, the standard rate payment, which applies to most farmers including livestock farmers, was €106 per hectare under the old scheme, but under the new scheme this has been increased to €170 per hectare, which is a 60% increase. In addition, the area on which full payment can be made has been increased from 55 hectares to 60 hectares. The new scheme also specifically targets tillage farmers for the first time, as this is an area that was identified as being in deficit and is of key importance both in its own right and as a source of home-grown organic feed for the livestock sector. For the same reason, the new scheme also encourages the cultivation of red clover as a high-protein dry-matter fodder crop for the purpose of building supplies of organic feedstuffs.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is very pleased that the new scheme has been hugely successful since its launch, attracting 870 applications in its first tranche. To put this in context, the highest number of applications ever received previously was 380 applications in 2010. In addition, over 500 of the 870 applicants are new entrants to organic farming. The highest number of new entrants to organic farming heretofore was 158, in 2009. By any standards the new scheme is a major success, and we have already met most if not all of our targets for the entire RDP period in this first intake of applications.

There are also 720 existing participants from the previous organic farming scheme, which means that when all applications into the new scheme have been processed and approved, we should have some 1,600 organic farmers in the system. This is a major step forward. Together, these farmers manage about 60,000 hectares of land, and because of the structures we are putting in place, we hope to secure this land under organic contract for at least the next five years. For the first time, this allows us to plan ahead with confidence in terms of an organic food market.

Participants under the new organic farming scheme receive significantly higher payment rates than under the previous scheme. Following extensive negotiations with the European Commission, it has been agreed that the benefit of these higher payment rates can be extended to current scheme participants who are under the previous organic farming scheme. This ensures that all organic farmers in the country are now operating off the same footing. Furthermore, the Commission has very recently agreed that we can extend the contracts of people operating under the old scheme so that all participants can now be confident of a secure system of supports right up to the end of the RDP period.

Part of the success of the new scheme is due to the synergies we have put in place with both GLAS and TAMS. Under GLAS, an organic farmer receives guaranteed priority access to the scheme under tier 1. Under TAMS II, a dedicated capital investment scheme has been put in place specifically for the benefit of organic farmers, providing support for the widest range of equipment and structures of any TAMS scheme. The TAMS organic capital development scheme has a budget of €8 million over the lifetime of the RDP. In addition, the Department has put in place a wholly Exchequer-funded scheme of financial assistance directed towards processors to facilitate the development of the organic sector, with a budget of €1.2 million in 2015 and similar for succeeding years. The package of measures available now for the organic sector exceeds anything which was in place previously. More important, however, it demonstrates clear, joined-up thinking between the different strands of support that could be utilised.

I will now turn to the question of double funding between GLAS and the organic farming scheme. I wish to clarify that all organic farmers can access the full range of GLAS measures and in many cases this presents a unique opportunity to top up their organic farming payment with up to €5,000 or more a year under GLAS. The only proviso is when similar actions are in place under both schemes - in such cases it is a clear stipulation of the European legislation that a risk of double-funding exists - that this must be explicitly addressed. It is not possible to be paid twice for the same action, particularly when in most cases the basis will be compensation for income foregone which is already being paid under one or other action. We are happy to discuss this with members and we will do our best to explain the issue as clearly as possible.

With regard to delays in making payments to organic farmers, this was indeed an issue last year due to an industrial dispute at local office level. The impact on organic farmers is deeply regretted and we are doing everything to ensure that the first instalment of this year’s payments will go out to all eligible farmers before Christmas. Reference was made to charges levied by the various organic control bodies. These are independent bodies which operate on the basis of commercial contracts with their farmer clients. There are five separate organic control bodies operating in Ireland and it is open to any farmer to choose to which one he or she wants to sign up. Members will appreciate that it is difficult to comment on the rates being charged in such circumstances. Each of these bodies is approved by the Department to carry out the necessary controls and checks to ensure that Irish organic farmers are operating to at least the standards laid down across the EU. In accordance with the governing EU regulations, specifically Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) 834 of 2007, this certification process can be delegated to approved control bodies. This is the approach we have taken in Ireland and which is common across many member states of the European Union. The flexibility to delegate this work to anybody other than an approved control body is not provided for within the governing legislation.

The Department contributes directly towards the cost of inspections by these bodies to the tune of €150 a visit, a contribution which we increased recently from a previous rate of €121. The organic control bodies play a critical role in ensuring that the standard of Irish organic farming and produce is respected and relied upon worldwide, which, in turn, is key to unlocking the extensive framework of supports we have put in place through the EU regulations. It is also key to the development of a vibrant and growing organic market. That is all I have to say at present but my colleagues and I are available to take whatever questions members may wish to pose. I thank the Chairman.

I thank Mr. Dillon for his very informative presentation. I appreciate the fact that he took the time to read the transcripts, to highlight the issues and to address them directly and individually, which is helpful. I have several Senators and Deputies who want to contribute or ask questions, which is good.

I thank Mr. Dillon for his presentation. He said there are 870 new applicants and that 500 of those are brand new. Can it be presumed that the other 370 are people who were in the scheme but went out of it and came back in again at some point? The Department is looking at 1,600 altogether so that means there are 720 existing participants. Can Mr. Dillon clarify how long it will be before the existing farmers who will enter the scheme this year are fully converted to organic production? From what they are saying, I understand that many of the smaller farmers are not comfortable remaining in the scheme. I have discussed the issue with Mr. Dillon and with Ms Furlong previously.

If many of them are lost to the scheme, is there a risk of a trough over the two-year period starting now until it goes fully organic in two years? While the scheme has higher rates per hectare, double funding was possible under REPS at one time, something Mr. Dillon will address. Under new EU rules that is not allowed at the moment. Smaller farmers who farmed ten, 15 or 18 ha had problems.

As well as farmers, does the Department fund the independent groups on which the witnesses said they would not comment? They are Department-approved, but there seem to be problems in terms of what they are charging. Does the Department contribute towards them and, if so, how much does it give?

We know there are 760 farmers under the old scheme, with a manual payment system. I understand the 870 new farmers coming into the scheme will be on a database or a new modified system whereby a button can be pressed and payments sent to them. Will those on the manual system remain there? The witnesses alluded to the fact that there were major problems last year. Can anyone guarantee that the farmers concerned will be paid by Christmas? There is a lot of fear about the scheme.

The organic groups to which I have spoken raised issues with me. This may not be the place to discuss them, but Senator O'Brien also spoke about the issue. We discussed areas such as Connemara, the hills in Mayo, Wicklow, places where there are mountain lamb and areas which would not be fertilised. Can we get clearance from the EU to classify such areas as organic? One would not spread fertiliser on the top of a mountain. Such a scheme would probably involve sheep rather than cattle. Areas such as Donegal and Kerry could be included. Many areas in Ireland are left to themselves, fertilisers are not being pumped into them and they are not being tampered with. The issue arose during a previous meeting and it is worth discussing.

I thank the officials. Deputy Fitzmaurice has dealt with all of the issues they raised. In their submission to the committee they stated that the Organic Farmers Representative Body is an umbrella organisation. They have dealt with the four issues it raised that were of concern to it. I would not dismiss its concerns and the issues it raised. The officials have dealt with the new organic scheme, increased payments and double funding.

The most prominent issue is the delay in payments. I note in the submission it was stated that an industrial dispute in the office last year held up payments. I hope that has now been settled and that people are paid before Christmas to this year. Bodies that rate organic farmers are independent and the Department cannot interfere with them.

Could I have a breakdown on the 1,600 farmers the officials have said will be in organic schemes within the next year? What is the breakdown between livestock - including sheep, beef and dairy - poultry, tillage and vegetable production, in terms of the farms that will participate? Are many farms mixed or specialised?

I thank the Department for its presentation, which contained very useful information. I agree with Deputy Fitzmaurice that in the west of Ireland, particularly along the western coast, a lot of mountain and hill land is not fertilised. I have always said that a lot of lamb and other produce coming from such areas would be organic. Some farmers may give one or two doses to a lamb and would feed and fatten them up.

I welcome the move regarding the tillage sector, because getting organically grown grain was a problem. The news is very welcome for organic farmers.

A number of members have referred to delays in payments, which was a major problem. We received representations from farmers in the organic sector whose payments were delayed, something which annoyed them greatly. It is good to see that the problem has been sorted out.

I missed the discussion on whether farmers can still join the scheme. It is important that we get the numbers up. Things look very positive for those people. The combination of GLAS and the organic payment will be attractive for farmers.

I thank the officials for coming before the committee and addressing our concerns and comments about the previous visit we had from organic farmers. I listened carefully to what they said and understand that under EU law the Government is allowed to tender for certain things, but I fail to see why five bodies certify the organic sector.

I examined what Austria is doing. Let us remember it is 2015 and we talk about climate change every day. Agriculture is the one area that adds to the problems of climate change. Organic farming saves 60% of the CO2 that is produced by conventional farming. I want to open a conversation in this country about what Austria is doing that we are not. Some 14% to 16% of Austria's farmers are organic and it has become a centre for all things organic, even tourism.

I listened to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, who is so articulate. We are the green island and there are bodies such as Origin Green and Bord Bia, but a very small minority of farms are organic. The group which came before us at a previous meeting is not powerful. I am not coming up with any light bulb ideas. The officials have given us great answers, but I still feel rather lost in terms of the organic movement and I do not feel we will sit here in ten years' time and say we have passed out Austria. It would be good if we could do so.

Small-scale farmers are important. We do not ever want to become a country of giant farms. A satellite view of Ireland shows that we are suited to small farms, and this is exactly what suits small-scale farmers.

I again thank the officials for the very relevant answers they gave us today, but I am still anxious and slightly concerned for the future. I hope they will join me in thinking that we must brainstorm on how we can assist farmers. I heard what they said about payments and all of that, but we are not the same as all other EU countries. How can we assist farmers and the thinking and vision of our young people in planning to go into the sector in the future?

The average household income in Austria compared with Ireland explains why the rate is 14% to 16%.

A number of questions have been asked. On the double payment, I recall the organic representative body identifying that the way the different measures are grouped seemed to restrict farmers who were unable to do something else in a group where there was overlap. I cannot recall the individual measures but the group said farmers might have been able to do things that were complementary. I would like clarification on whether such a rule amounted to double payment. I understand fencing and hedging was one such category.

Mr. Paul Dillon

I will start with the last point first. We have an open mind when it comes to what can be done, in terms of what we need to be doing that we are not doing. We always have an open mind because we identified this as an area which needs attention. We are putting extra resources into innovative schemes.

If that does not work, we will have to look again to see what needs to be done.

To turn to Deputy Fitzmaurice's queries, the idea with the existing scheme participants and the new scheme participants is that they will all start now from a new five-year contract. We will lock them all in for five years from now. We thought we could get approval from the European Commission to transform existing old organic scheme participants into new ones, but it said it had a difficulty with that because of the regulations. In fact, that is what we were going to do. We are allowed to leave current scheme participants where they are but we must pay them the higher rate. They are going to get new contracts starting from now which will mean that we will have all of them locked in for five years from now.

To get clarification because that is an important point, if they opt out at the moment, are we going to have a two-year lull due to having all new ones in? It looks like we will going by that.

Mr. Paul Dillon

We suspect that we will not. To take sheep for example, we suspect the output of sheepmeat is going to go up significantly. We look at it sector by sector but we do not expect that there will be a trough in production, which is what the Deputy is concerned about.

I am talking about the changeover from zero for the two years.

Mr. Paul Dillon

Yes, I know, because we are taking on so many new people. However, we do not expect that there will be that much churning, for want of a better word, or that there will be that many people walking away from the scheme. We have put in place a measure which allows people who are in the existing scheme to get the higher rate of payment and to get contracts.

The point is taken. I agree with Mr. Dillon that a measure has been put in place. The only thing is that if one is a smaller farmer, one is walking away from it because if one goes into GLAS, one can get €5,000. I know Mr. Dillon spoke about the measures and I understand the point, but if one gets the €180 per hectare on a 15 hectare farm, one will not get to €5,000. We have done the figures and Mr. Dillon is probably aware of that. One is better off to go into GLAS and not have the hassle of organic, going by the system. For the smaller fellow under 20 hectares, is that a fair point?

Mr. Paul Dillon

No doubt, there will be some people in that situation. Of the 870 new people who are coming in, 160 of them have fewer than 20 hectares and 160 are greater than 55 hectares.

Where is the 310 starting off?

Mr. Paul Dillon

Yes, if one works it out. There are a number of small ones who are coming in and a number of large ones. We do not anticipate that there will be a large fall-off in production.

I might ask some of my colleagues to answer some of the questions as we go through them. On the issue of double funding with REPS, the big change was that under the new CAP when it was negotiated, the direct payments regulation and the rural development regulation were changed to state explicitly that one is not allowed to be funded twice for the same action. This was previously identified by the European Commission as a risk to funds. What one must look at is what income is being forgone by the farmer for a particular scheme and then ask if the same action is involved for two different schemes. If that is deemed to be so, one cannot be paid under both schemes. That was identified as a serious risk to funds and it was explicitly stated that double funding had to be avoided. That is why payments in the organic scheme are made on the basis of income forgone and costs incurred. For GLAS, payments are made on the basis of income forgone and costs incurred. Low-input permanent pasture is an example that is often quoted. The action involved - the income forgone by the farmer in GLAS - is almost identical to the income forgone by the organic farmer. Therefore, one cannot pay organic payment and low-input permanent pasture payment on the same land. That is the logic and one can understand it. It was not an issue in REPS because the regulation was changed since REPS. That is the point there.

I was asked whether the Department funds the organic control bodies. We make a payment of €150 per visit per annum. For each member that is attributed to the particular control body, there is an entitlement to a refund from us of €150 per annual visit. That is the way we fund them and that sum was increased.

I was asked about a manual versus an automated system. Our original plan was that we would be able to transfer all of the existing scheme participants into the new scheme and that would all be automated via an online system. However, the Commission told us clearly that it would not allow us to do that. As such, we had to come up with a hybrid system. That is why we are stuck with some of the manual payments.

They are going to be new now. Are they in the new system?

Please, Deputy. The Deputy is taking liberties all afternoon and we are getting near the end of it. My patience is going.

Mr. Paul Dillon

What we finished up with is a hybrid system. As far as the farmer is concerned, if we are able to make the payments on time, it will make no difference. Some of it is being done manually and some of it is being automated. It is kind of a hybrid system. We were forced to do that but they will all be brought in. In due course, they will all come in. It was forced upon us because the Commission would not allow us to transfer the existing guys into the new scheme.

On the delay in payment, we admit fully that we were late with payments last year. We have given a commitment that it will not happen again this year. That is what we are working on now. We have given that commitment and will stand by it.

On marginal mountain land, I was asked if it can be identified as an organic area. There is provision on that and my colleague, Mr. Frank Macken, will probably enlighten the committee in that regard.

Mr. Frank Macken

The question asked by at least two members was on the opportunity to include marginal land in organics. There is a provision within the regulation which speaks about the grazing of common land by organic animals alongside non-organic animals. There are very specific conditions to do that. In short, the answer is yes, there is provision to do this. However the implied question is whether there is a generic approach to all the mountains and hill lands of Ireland. It does not work like that. The rules are specific and confined within the organic regulations so that one cannot break out of that. To avail of this, one must be an organic farmer. The answer is yes, there is provision to graze animals on commonage, but one must be an organic farmer to avail of that opportunity. While the simple answer is yes, in terms of seeking a relaxation from the Commission as a general overall rule for Ireland, that will not happen. Organics is a specific form of food production and within that there are measures and opportunities for farmers. That includes one of them. If the Chairman wishes me to go into the detail, I will, but that is the principle involved.

That is okay. One has to be an organic farmer to avail of it. The land can be deemed to be organic. That is the point. That is the nub of the question.

Mr. Paul Dillon

I will continue if the Chairman likes.

Mr. Paul Dillon

Turning to the queries raised by Senator O'Neill, we accept the point about the concerns of the organisation expressed at the previous session. That is why we have gone through it in some detail to see if we are addressing those properly. We have met them quite regularly. They are also members of the organic focus group. As such, we have a good bit of contact with them. The biggest issue they expressed was the delay in payments and we have dealt with that.

I was asked about the cost of membership of the organic control bodies. We have looked across a number of other member states of the EU to see how they operate and there is a mix. Some countries operate the same system as we do and some operate it from the agencies themselves. Somebody mentioned Austria, which has eight private sector organic control bodies. That is not dissimilar to how we operate it ourselves. There is competition between the control bodies. That is the way they operate.

I was asked about the breakdown between the different sectors. Ms Joan Furlong will give the committee some of the breakdown.

Ms Joan Furlong

At the end of 2014, having regard to the old scheme, we already had 125 cereal producers covering an area of 1,375 ha. Under the new scheme, 500 new people are converting to organics for the first time and that accounts for 100 new cereal producers with an area in excess of 730 ha. From a horticultural perspective, we have 202 producers under the existing scheme covering an area of 301 ha. Under the new scheme - and I am speaking in relation to the 500 people who are converting to organic for the first time - we have 97 new horticultural producers covering an area of 78 ha.

With regard to beef, there were 294 herds at the end of 2014. The new entrants to the scheme will bring in a further 145 herds. To put that in context, at the end of 2014, the 294 organic-registered herds accounted for 4,425 cattle. The 145 herds that are currently being converted to organic herds for the first time will account for 3,040 cattle.

The average herd size is approximately 25.

Ms Joan Furlong

Yes.

Mr. Paul Dillon

We agree with Senator Comiskey that lamb represents an area of great potential. We regard it as one of the big growth areas given the amount of marginal land available and the low intensity at which lamb is reared in many of these areas.

We have spoken about delays in payment already.

On the question as to whether the door is still open to people who want to join, we are examining that at present and will be making a decision on it shortly.

With regard to the combination involving GLAS and the organics scheme, there was a deliberate move on our part to regard organic farmers as having priority access under the GLAS because we recognised organic farming as a practice to be encouraged. Bearing in mind the demand for access to the GLAS, it is an advantage to be organic or in the process of converting to organic farming. We are well aware of that.

On Senator O'Brien's points, should we examine further the Austrian model? Is there something the Austrians are doing that we do not do? A larger proportion of Austrian farmers are organic. They have a smaller farm size and a small enough herd size. They operate on the basis of eight certifying bodies, which are private sector controlled. We have five and they have eight so there is a lot of competition there. The Austrians have one representative group, which comprises almost two thirds of all their organic farmers. That seems to be a difference; there seems to be strong representation. Perhaps that is a factor. Perhaps it is just the type of farming they do on the type of land they have, or the fact that they have alpine pastures that are covered in snow for much of the year. Perhaps it is all those factors together. However, we have examined and will continue to examine the Austrian model.

We are open to constructive suggestions. If there are arrangements we need to change, we will consider them. We believe the combination of GLAS, TAMS and the organic farming scheme, particularly considering the capital investment opportunities for organic farmers that are not available for other farmers and the ring-fenced processing money that is not available for other areas, should in itself stimulate interest. If after the mid-term review of the rural development programme we find an insufficient uptake, we will need to determine what we need to change. However, we have an open mind.

Reference was made to "livestock". Is that bovine livestock? The sheep flocks look very small.

Ms Joan Furlong

That excludes sheep.

I am sorry; I missed that.

I thank Mr. Dillon. The comment on grazing in the mountains and hills was fascinating. I wonder whether Senators, Deputies and the farming community as a whole are aware that organic animals can graze alongside non-organic animals up on the hills. I was not aware of it. There is a hell of a difference between the price of organic lamb and non-organic or regular lamb.

For what is the OFS2 form needed? I realise that when one gets 75% of one's payments, one has to send in the form. What is the reason for it? Does the Department subsidise the organic bodies? I asked that earlier but the delegates may have omitted to answer.

As with a farmer who draws down the single farm payment, for example, why can this not be looked after by the Department? Is it true that if one is coming to the end of one’s organic farming arrangement, one gets priority in applying for GLAS? If organic farmers get into GLAS now, will they be kicked out of it if they decide to get out of organic farming when their schemes end in January or February, for example?

Dr. Ronan O'Flaherty

On the last point, we have identified organics and organic status as guaranteeing the farmer access to tier 1 of GLAS. As with every other priority or environmental asset one might have, such as a bird action or a Natura action, if that action gets one in ahead of anybody else there is a requirement to keep it for the duration of the contract. Similarly, if one has used organics to get into tier 1 of the system, one is expected to honour that over the period, to be fair to the farmers who were not allowed in.

What about the OFS2 form?

Mr. Paul Dillon

It is the end-of-year declaration to draw down the payments.

It is the same as the declaration one used to sign in REPS.

Mr. Paul Dillon

It is a declaration to state one has complied and is eligible for payment.

The subvention was €150 per visit.

Mr. Paul Dillon

Yes.

On Deputy Fitzmaurice’s point, the Department is paying the contribution. Since there are five control bodies, there is some level of competition. There is a refund of €150 per visit. That is in the written presentation and has been confirmed by Mr. Dillon.

All the questions have been answered. I thank Mr. Dillon and his colleagues for attending. I apologise to them sincerely for the delay and I realise they are very busy people. We will endeavour to ensure this does not happen again. There was a couple of unforeseen items on our schedule today, unfortunately. I appreciate the manner in which the delegation has addressed the committee. If every meeting could be held within 45 minutes and with such productive engagement, it would be desirable. The presentation outlined what had happened, and it reflected on and dealt with every issue raised by the Irish Organic Farmers & Growers Organisation. The questions by members were primarily to seek more clarification and qualification on those points. Everybody was well informed during the discussion. The joint committee is to sit again tomorrow at 11.30 a.m., when it is to discuss the horse and greyhound fund.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 November 2015.
Barr
Roinn