Ms Gillian Westbrook:

I will take some of the questions. My colleague, who is an organic dairy farmer, will take the others because he has practical experience of this. There was a question about increasing the land used for organic production and how to achieve that. Opening up a new scheme would be a really good start. Our existing target for organics is 5%, yet we only ring fence 2% of land area for organics under the rural development budget. To have a target and allocate finances accordingly would be good. We have not had a scheme open since 2015. How do we increase it? We have a huge waiting list. A scheme would be good. It is probably not such a good idea to open it right now because the demand is in the tillage sector. It will benefit all the other sectors. I hate the term "grow organically"; it is a "Grand Designs" term that keeps being used. It needs to be done from the ground up. More tillage and a more sustainable local supply of feed will benefit existing farmers. Under organic regulations, 60%, and it will soon be 70%, of animal feed has to come from one's own farm. It is built within a regulatory requirement.

Organic offers a real win-win situation. It has a significant impact on climate change in a positive way. A very tangible and market-driven policy is needed. The Minister has put a new strategic group together to look at where we go with organics and it is very much welcomed. It is needed. We have a seat on that panel. It will look at how to grow organics and the infrastructure that is needed, including logistics and distribution requirements. It is fragmented because there has been a stop-start approach. We opened up the scheme in 2012 and then we stopped it for a few years. We opened one in 2015 and then we closed it. It needs to be opened up every year and should include a certain number of people. It might need to be based on criteria but that is down to the market to decide. It needs to be opened up every year to allow people to come through. It will never grow because much of the time it just gets fed scraps. Nothing that gets fed scraps will grow and prosper. There is a huge market we can look at that is evident in the European market. The existing Food Wise strategy does not include organics. It is not even mentioned. What can I say because it is not even there? It would be nice if the new strategy group could get it included in the Food Wise strategy.

Germany is aiming for 20% organic production. Sweden is already at over 15% and Estonia is at 18%. It goes on. These countries are not growing organics for any other reason than that the market is there and it helps them to meet their climate change targets. They are doing it to achieve environmental targets and avoid paying fines. To me, it is a win-win situation. It is not a pre-industrial revolution type of farming system. There is massive innovation in it and much more can be done. A lot more research could be done on organics. Quite a lot needs to happen. Hopefully it will be pooled together by the new strategic group. Around the Paris basin areas, when they are tackling pollution under the Water Framework Directive and specifically in compliance with the Nitrates Directive, they use organics to do it. They are targeting their organics in those areas because they have a problem. In Denmark, 8% of all retail sales are organic. It has grown the organic sector because it had a nitrates problem. That is what started much of the change to organics in the first place and then suddenly it caught on. They asked themselves what was not to like about it and decided to push it even further. Denmark is doing a fantastic job on it now.

Deputy Kenny asked about imported feed. Organics is currently importing 9,000 tonnes of feed a year; it needs 10,000 ha extra just to meet the current demand. It is not all for animal feed; breweries, bakeries, distillers and beer production are also concerned. There is a bigger range of products involved, much of which need feed. The bulk of that feed is not necessarily grown in the UK but is shipped via the UK. Brexit will cause a problem with that so we desperately need tillage here. We are looking at a €700 to €800 gross margin on tillage. In terms of its economic viability, tillage is a very attractive option. We import 55% of our vegetables, most of which are potatoes and cabbages, not only citrus fruits. In organics, the figure is 72%. Our organisation is just about to launch a European innovation partnership, EIP, as the lead partner. It will be the first market orientated EIP that has ever been done, which is great, so hopefully we will succeed. It will look at the supply and demand of vegetables versus retail demand. It is a three-year project that will kick off in June. We are looking to get a collaborative group of organic horticulturists, from Donegal to Wexford, to produce as if they were one farm and to use their different geographical locations. By taking advantage of the difference in soil type and conditions, they can supply the retail demand. There is huge potential there. The Bord Bia figures are accurate but are not broken down into organic and conventional product. We estimate that we are importing somewhere in the region of €26 million worth of products. They are products we can grow here. I am not talking about citrus fruits; I am talking about products we can grow here. There is a massive increase; 46% of organic food is sold through the discounters so it is not a niche market anymore. It is not expensive. It is slightly more expensive. The farmer gets a better farm gate price and he should be applauded for that because it is a viable price.

In terms of the Brexit crisis and the projection for the beef and dairy sectors in three years' time and whether we have thought it through and how we will work and fit within organics, the farming method is recognised but it needs more ranges of products and it certainly needs more processors. There is a monopoly on processors. We will not bring it up here but everybody knows it. In the beef trade, there is one main processor who is earning a lot. I am not saying it is a negative thing but everything needs competition for it to be healthy. We have concentrated an awful lot on just beef. We do not really even have a market for our organic lamb. We need more ranges of products. When there is a bigger range of products, as we are finding now, the retailers will use more products. There is a lovely little organic shop down in Tralee, which the committee might know of, and it does a fantastic range of different products from its own farm. That is what starts to increase sales. If one has a shop only selling beef, not many people will go in, but if it is selling a whole range of products, it will boost the whole sector. There are huge opportunities within the organic sector.

I do not want to get into the science now because I did not refer to it in my submission, but in terms of organics and what happens next, a 90% nitrogen load comes from agriculture into the sea, as was mentioned earlier. It has been reported that the pollution comes from agriculture.

For example, shellfish from class A shellfish water may be exported or otherwise must go through declaration and such processes. As earlier stated, if one can reduce pollution in terms of inputs such as nitrogen fertiliser, which is sometimes not a very efficient use of nitrogen, class A shellfish waters can be maintained. These systems are all interlinked.

There has been over 33% growth in organics in the Irish market in the past 24 months. I accept that it started from a low base but it is improving and the retailers with whom we have discussed this have very ambitious targets for the future. One of the reasons for those ambitious targets is the fact that they are spending a little more. An organic grower does not have to and will not supply below cost price. A processor, packer or anything else of organic products must pay the right price if they want to be able to label a product as organic, and we should strongly encourage that. Growers should stand strong in terms of pricing and should not sell the product if they do not achieve the price they require.

There has been double digit growth in organic products across the EU in recent years and growers cannot keep up with demand. The current EU capacity for organic sales is a little more than €32 billion and has increased tenfold in recent years. Consumers are now far more aware of the virtues of organic foods and their benefits in terms of the environment. What is not to like about organic produce? It is a win-win.

Deputy Pringle made the point that organic farmers state there is little point having Irish farmers dramatically change their approach only to result in insignificant or possibly no impact on a global problem. That is not what we were suggesting. I cut my initial address short and apologise if the point I made in that regard was unclear. We suggest having a whole food system. For example, if there is much emphasis on farmers to reduce emissions, that impacts on agriculture, but if a farmer reduces the amount of fertiliser he or she uses, the contribution goes to the benefit of industry such as manufacturing rather than agriculture. There must be an incentive such that it is worth people's while to reduce emissions because otherwise they will be put at a loss to achieve certain targets. We have exponentially increased our use of plastic packaging over the past ten years and that is rightly getting much media attention. I have the figures in that regard in my office but do not have it with me. If a farmer is going to be forced to destock or take other measures to meet climate change mitigation but the industry keeps wrapping everything in plastic, that mitigates the benefit of the measures taken at an agricultural level. The plastic is of no value because it just goes into landfill and produces methane which we do not attempt to capture. That is the point I was trying to convey in my initial address and I apologise if I was unclear in that regard.

We need a coherent strategy within a food system. That is a big ask and may be somewhat idealistic but we need a far more coherent system in terms of how we look at food. Should agriculture be responsible for all mitigating measures? A farmer can get a contractor to come to his or her farm and, therefore, not have a resultant carbon footprint contribution, but if the farmer uses his or her own machinery to harvest his or her own crops, he or she will be liable for such carbon footprint contribution. That is an example of incentivising in the wrong way and fudging the figures. There must be better encouragement of sustainable farming and also, more importantly, of food and sustainable diets. I am not saying to eat less meat but, rather, to eat better quality meat and pay more for it.

Senator Paul Daly asked about an organic solution to the problem of climate change. Organic produce has a significance in terms of food tourism. It is a high-value product with a very positive image. Some 86% of aquaculture here is organic, and that is used to market those products to the European market. It is interesting that very little of that product is sold in Ireland. There is an awful lot behind an organic label or logo in terms of what it means.

Deputy Healy-Rae asked about diesel vehicles and the use of such machinery. We must encourage more use of the circular economy such as increased use of biogas and such products from anaerobic digestion. There is a large plant in Donegal that will soon produce some interesting results in terms of biogas production. We must foster a circular economy.

As regards how worried we are about the 2040 plan and the targets that must be achieved by 2030, farmers should see it as a golden opportunity. Irish agriculture has an image of producing environmentally friendly produce and farmers should prove that is so and get it right. If a farmer can get a better farm income, slightly destock, reduce fertiliser use etc. and farm within the capacity of his or her farmland, there is the potential for a win-win. The plan need not be viewed in a negative light.

As regards the point made by Dr. O'Mara regarding fertiliser use, there is research on emissions in terms of product per yield gap in terms of per kilo and per hectare product. I mean no disrespect to Teagasc, which does an excellent job, but the argument it has made is part of the problem and is almost a skewing of the figures. If we get rid of mineral fertiliser, that would lead to an 18% reduction in EU agricultural emissions, although that does not account for the yield reduction that would arise. I do not suggest that all farmers should go organic but, rather, am just putting forth a hypothetical scenario. In terms of the EU greenhouse gas emission inventories and targets, such reductions would be accounted for under industries such as the fertiliser industry but not in agriculture. To reduce mineral fertiliser use, the actual use of which is 45% of the total EU nitrogen input, would be to reduce soil-bound nitrous oxide emissions by 45%, or 20% of total EU agricultural emissions. One would have to add in alternative sources such as lagoons for nitrogen fixing and so on. However, it would result in a 10% reduction overnight should that be implemented. I am not suggesting the committee should favour that because it would be bad for our business but if we were genuine about tackling the issue, it could be done.