Mr. Stephen Meredith:

On Deputy Leddin's points and going back to issue of needing a package of measures, we have an organic strategy that sets out a roadmap for where we need to go. Obviously, we need to build on that and on the new EU organic action plan to make sure it is aligned. It is then that we need to look at the nuts and bolts of the different schemes that are offered to organic farmers.

The schemes are very important in sending a signal to farmers about the way the Government wants to see agriculture develop over time. The EU has been clear on that in respect of the European Green Deal. In the programme for Government, Ireland has set out the 75%. It really comes down to the schemes that the Government wants to put in place. Much of the focus was placed on the organic farming scheme in the last session. We would agree with much of that. Some points to highlight include that the scheme must be attractive and reliable. In the current CAP period, the scheme has only been opened four times, whereas the scheme is usually opened regularly across different European countries. That allows farmers and food businesses to plan in advance. That is key. Conversion to organic farming does not happen overnight. It is a two-year process before farmers can start to use the symbol. Therefore, a scheme needs to be put in place which farmers know is going to be open regularly. It also must be open for an extended period. An opening period of two months is better than what was provided in the past. There needs to be a more regular opening so that farmers have time to plan. In some cases farmers will try to plan the system themselves, and in others, they will ask for advisers. Those are the points I wish to make on the organic farming scheme.

I am aware that the IFA mentioned that there needs to be an increase in payment rates. If we compare the current rates with the EU member states, we are well below the EU average. That sends a very strange signal to farmers. The organic farming scheme is definitely the starting point. However, it needs to go further than that. The Deputy touched upon the issue of environmental performance and climate. The Government can use organic farming as a tool to move further into and build on the green reputation that farmers have, as many of the Deputies mentioned. That is where we see the combination of organic farming and agri-environment schemes as a win-win for developing further organic and making it more attractive, but also achieving those environmental targets. Currently, there are problems with GLAS because organic farmers have priority access to GLAS but some of the farmers have to forego their organic farming payment, despite it not being a requirement of the organic regulations. That sends a strange signal. There are situations, for example, where farmers may want to manage a traditional hay meadow or a low-input permanent pasture, or even farm land birds, and they are told they can do that but they must forego their organic farming payment to do so. That means that a farmer has to make a strange decision at a time when he could deliver both elements.

The land management schemes are important. We saw a lot of promise with the new REAP scheme. Many of the objectives go beyond the standards of organic farming in terms of improving species variety, managing hedgerows, etc. However, organic farmers were excluded from the scheme. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is on record as saying that it is double funding. For us, it is not clear that that is the case. The outcomes that are pursued under that scheme are precisely what organic farmers can deliver if they are given the right incentives. The objectives of the scheme go beyond the organic standards, as I stated. We know that it is a pilot scheme. We would hope that organic farmers will be prioritised in the roll-out of the full scheme and the new CAP. It is also very important that we move beyond that and think about the eco scheme. If we are really serious about targeting organic farming, we need to link the schemes to a budget.

In the current programming period since 2014, there has been a 42% increase in organic land. However, we have still not reached the 5% target set in Food Harvest 2020. There seems to be a disconnect between the budget that is allocated for the CAP and that available for the organic farming scheme and also for agri-environment payments, etc. Land management is definitely a big area.

Deputy Carthy spoke on the issue of advisory services. It is fair to say that Teagasc has a number of basic advisory services for organic farmers. They tend to be mainly relevant to farmers doing conversion. It is fair to say that the services are quite basic. The farming associations have pointed to the fact that are only two organic advisers. One was recently hired. We understand that there are a number of general advisers who also focus on organic farming but we are yet to find a list of them. We want to see a certain percentage of the accredited farm advisers being organic. Perhaps it needs to be 7% to represent that target. We need to think about ensuring we have advisers who understand that organic farming is not simply about reducing the use of fertiliser - it is about completely changing the system and thinking about how the land and farm management and animal health and welfare work. Advisers are needed to do that. As well as the advice, knowledge transfer is required. That was touched up by the farming organisations. That could work hand in hand, with advice being provided by Teagasc or the private adviser and the use of facilitated group meetings that allow farmers to share their knowledge with others. Such knowledge transfer could be within sectors or cross-sectoral.

Those are some of the measures that we would like to see put in place. It really needs to be tied to a very strong budget.