Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for giving me the opportunity to address them. As outlined in the submission from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, Ireland's beef sector is a critical component of its overall economy and a major asset in sustaining and developing rural economies. With this in mind, we believe any plan for the future of the beef sector should also take into account the positive impacts beef and, in particular, suckler cow farmers have in delivering for rural towns and villages.

We are repeatedly informed of the cost of carrying a suckler cow. Based on recent figures in theIrish Farmers Journal, that cost is €782 per year. While many have used that figure to emphasise the unprofitability of the sector, we believe there is another way to view it. This cost represents the money spent throughout rural Ireland, in the many areas where economic activity outside livestock farming, in particular, cattle and sheep, is low or non-existent. In the delivery of a €2.5 billion export industry suckler cow farmers spend almost €750 million each year in maintaining their herds. Crucially, this money is spread across 66,000 families who are creating a much wider impact as the figure of €750 million does not take into account the money spent by farmers and their families which continues to support the rural economy and associated services.

In reassessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, SWOT, analysis, there are a number of points specific to our beef sector that need to be addressed. With regard to our strengths, we believe reference needs to be made to the top quality beef product produced from the suckler herd. A further strength is our farmers, especially our suckler farmers who know and understand breeding and what their land can deliver. While cattle are often seen as a negative for the environment and climate change, we believe there is an opportunity where cattle and, specifically, suckler cows can be marketed as a positive in delivering improved biodiversity on our hills and in high nature value farmland. We remind anyone who doubts this of what happened in the Burren where conservation measures had to be reassessed, resulting in cattle being reintroduced to help manage the area. While some might say the Burren was unique, we disagree. On our hills, cattle have a role in improving biodiversity and managing higher vegetation. Cattle can help to deliver on improved biodiversity through extensive grazing on much of our high nature value farmland, which other options may not deliver.

In promoting this, we have an opportunity to market this high quality beef from a biodiversity and low carbon or indeed carbon neutral option. By branding this type of beef, we can move it up the quality chain and deliver a premium price. We as an organisation are developing this model for a light lamb market, which I am sure Mr. Brendan Royce will discuss more later, and we see similar opportunities with our extensive suckler and beef systems. However, to ensure that there is a product, we need to support the farmers who will deliver this. While the next CAP will give us the opportunity to further examine this and other measures, we see an option at present to support this biodiversity grazing through GLAS or GLAS Plus as a supplementary measure or for farmers not in GLAS as a standalone payment. A payment can be targeted at a set number of livestock units and take into account nitrate usage. In justifying this payment, we believe it is consistent with the priority objectives in our rural development programme.

We see another opportunity in increasing our live exports, which is the best way of ensuring the factories do not dictate the price. This has worked in the past and can deliver in the future but needs to be supported. While Turkey is prominent in live exports, most of our live exports have gone to other EU countries, most notably Spain, the Netherlands and Italy. The Iranian market is another market that is seeking beef. We understand that there is a lot of potential but obstacles relating to recognition and banking arrangements are impeding the development of this trade. Action is needed from our Government to clear these obstacles.

With regard to weaknesses and threats, market price and profitability are the major weakness. When assessing this, there are a number of factors that are undermining price and need to be addressed which include the 30 month rule that was introduced at the height of the BSE scare to help reassure consumers, which we believe is no longer required and should go. The four movement rule is no longer justified and we question if it ever was. During the last ten to 15 years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of feed lots owned by meat processors. We are concerned that these feed lots are being used to manage price. This is why we recommend that legislation be passed to ban meat processors holding or managing feed lots as we understand has happened in the USA. Another weakness is our over-reliance on the UK market, which is already an issue and could become a bigger issue in the coming months and years. The decision, whether by accident or design, to not diversify away from this market was a major mistake. Questions needs to be asked, both of Bord Bia and our meat processors. When we look at how the dairy sector is trying to diversify away from the dependency on cheddar cheese, one wonders why our meat processors have not done more.

We are where we are and we understand that the Government and EU have contingency plans in place that they are ready to implement depending on the final Brexit outcome. The INHFA will be supportive of any measure that helps the beef sector. These measures should include direct payments to farmers, price support measures, support for marketing of beef and supports for transportation. It is difficult to define exactly how much this will be needed, but even in a soft Brexit where the UK remains in the customs union, we see up to €500 million being needed.

Two further threats to our beef industry come from climate change and forestry, which is a major competitor for land use with our suckler and beef farmers. To many, especially those developing policy relating to climate change, the prospect of replacing cows with trees is no doubt quite tempting. We believe that previous experience, for example, in the Burren, will have shown that quick-fix solutions rarely work. In the INHFA, we believe that we can have our suckler cows and increase our carbon sequestration. This can be achieved through better supports for agroforestry to help offset any increased emissions from the farm of origin. Another issue concerns those farming on small and high nature value farms with suckler cows, who may want to consolidate their farms and are now being priced out of the marketplace when local farms come up for sale.

We see large industrial-scale farm operations purchasing all available land, sometimes hundreds of miles from the home operation, to circumvent the nitrates rules and also to offset any negative carbon issues as a result of aggressive expansion. This practice must be stopped.

Moving on from our SWOT analysis and looking at the next Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, more targeted support is needed. In addressing the need for these direct supports, we are aware of the two payments available to farmers, those being the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, and the beef environmental efficiency pilot, BEEP. After conducting an extensive survey of our members, the view on these two schemes has not been kind, which is why we need a different approach.

The new CAP will provide us with the opportunity to address the clear deficiencies in supporting a vulnerable suckler sector. The view expressed by many of our members is the need for a welfare scheme paid either on the cow or weanling or a combination of both. We believe this should form part of the next CAP and we are currently finalising details on a scheme based on welfare measures. However, we understand the next CAP may not commence until 2022. This will be too long for many suckler farmers to wait which is why we have recommended the interim measure to support biodiversity which can be supported from the GLAS budget, which has a significant underspend.

I thank the committee for taking the time to listen and I will take any questions in due course.