Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 4 May 2017
12. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to support a ban on the use of herbicides and pesticides in ecological focus areas (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20867/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraI find I am in agreement with the Minister there. There is no point in incentivising overproduction.
The definition of sustainable is "able to be maintained at a particular level without causing damage to the environment". In 2013 the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine made efforts to block a ban on pesticides within the EU, linked to the collapse in the bee population in Europe. After a meeting with a delegation from Monsanto was arranged in September 2016 at Monsanto's request, the Minister also reversed his Department's July 2016 decision that Ireland would prohibit all pre-harvest use of glyphosate on food crops and allow it only for weed control in non-food crops. Has the Department carried out any environmental impact assessments to support these decisions?
A delegated Act has been recently adopted by the EU Commission which proposes 14 changes pertaining to the basic payment and greening schemes. This Act is currently with the European Parliament for review. This legislative process was commenced to try to reduce the complexity of regulations for farmers and to make schemes less bureaucratic and more streamlined to administer.
As part of this Act the Commission has introduced a proposal to ban the use of plant-protection products on ecological focus areas. In Ireland this proposed ban would relate to land lying fallow, catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops. This ban has been opposed by Ireland along with 18 other member states.
For my Department, the main concern relates to nitrogen-fixing crops and specifically beans, a substantial number of which are grown in the Deputy's constituency. In effect, the proposed ban would make it more difficult for growers to produce an economically viable crop of beans. In addition, farmers growing beans but not using beans as part of their ecological focus area would not be subject to this proposed ban. Potentially we could therefore have two standards for growing the crop within the State with attendant issues relating to scheme controls.
Fundamentally, the simplification process was not intended to place an increased burden on farmers and administrators. My Department's view is that this proposal would lead to such an increased burden.
It is important to clarify that the current cross-compliance rules that relate to the use of plant-protection products ensure that such products are used correctly on all crops. My Department ensures compliance with these regulations by means of regular notifications to farmers, such as the recently published cross-compliance booklet, and by means of on-farm inspection.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He is making Monsanto's argument there. He can do it any way he likes, but we are reneging on our environmental responsibilities.
The scale and intensity of fertiliser, herbicide and pesticide use in the EU's arable farming sector has resulted in extensive biodiversity loss, water pollution and soil degradation in many parts of Europe. Under the ecological focus area scheme, Europe's farmers were obliged to dedicate a minimum of 5% of their arable space to EFAs. The Minister is now arguing nonsensically that these areas may be sprayed with pesticides and herbicides even though the whole point of the EFA scheme was to ensure that at least some area of land was free of these intensive farming practices and chemicals.
I do not know how the Minister can make that argument. Why did they come up with the 5% scheme in the first place, if we are going to ignore it? We are not putting by 5% of land that is free of these chemicals. At the behest of Monsanto, we are saying, "Ah, we'll ignore it and keep going. As long as Monsanto keeps making money, sure it'll be all grand."
We are trying to avoid having different rules apply to the same crop. The Deputy should bear this in mind given what he said about sustainability.
We are a net importer of protein crops and beans are one of the areas in which we can cultivate a protein crop as an import substitute. Bear in mind that we import very substantial amounts because we are a net importer, particularly for the ruminant feed business. What this proposal would result in is an undermining of the commercial viability of our own protein crops and a situation whereby two sets of regulations would apply, one for ecologically-focused areas and a different set for the non-ecologically-focused area. It is nonsensical. For that reason, it has been opposed by not just Ireland but by 18 other member states. There is a certain logic to it.
The logic is Monsanto's. The Minister is moving the goalposts and defining the rules drawn up by the EU. Putting aside protecting even 5% of our land, is it a fact that according to the 2016 assessment of the EPA, agriculture was responsible for 53% of river pollution. That is mostly due to chemicals and fertilisers. We can ignore this and ignore what is coming down the tracks. We can ask what is economically viable and what is good for us economically, see where the money is, all get richer and all be grand. However, there is another day and a future ahead of us which we are ignoring. I do not describe myself as a mad green. I am at least as interested in farming as the Minister. I believe we should make sure that farming will be a powerful industry in this country in the years ahead. I want to enhance it and strengthen it in a way that will not damage the environment at the same time. That is all.
We share that objective, but we must do so in a practical way that works. We must have an industry that is commercially viable. Bearing in mind that we have a small indigenous population, if we are to sustain the industry economically, it is export-oriented-----
And break the environmental rules doing it.
No. We are not. I have dealt with that issue. It is illogical to go about the objective they seek to pursue here in the manner they are pursuing it. What it would mean is that our protein crops would be made so unmanageable that we would effectively have to get out of that area. We would be then more dependent on imported proteins with a far higher carbon footprint.
I do not agree.
We will move on to what will be our last question, Question No. 13 in the name of Deputy Thomas Pringle.
