Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The topic of our second session today is the proposed amendments to the good agricultural and environmental conditions 2, GAEC 2. I welcome the representatives of Macra na Feirme: Mr. Tom Duffy, national president; Mr. John Keane, president-elect; Mr. Derrie Dillon, head of policy; Ms Gillian Richardson, policy officer; and Mr. Shane Fitzgerald, chairman of the agricultural affairs committee. Mr. Duffy is coming to the end of his term as president of Macra na Feirme. It has been two years well served representing the organisation and the young farmers of Ireland. I wish Mr. Keane the best of luck in his incoming two years as president. He is following in a good family tradition of lobbying and fighting for the cause of farmers. I wish Mr. Duffy and Mr. Keane the best of luck in their future endeavours.

We have received Mr. Duffy's opening statement, which has been circulated to members. We are limited in our time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions and the committee has agreed that the opening statement is to be taken as read so that we can use the full session for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website and are publicly available.

I have an important notice regarding parliamentary privilege. Witnesses 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. Participants in the committee meeting from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether, or the extent to which, their participation is covered by the absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I invite members to ask questions of the Macra na Feirme delegation. As I stated, our guests are most welcome.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and our guests. I commend Mr. Duffy on his role and period as president of Macra na Feirme. I wish Mr. Keane all the best. I am sure the Chairman will agree that, for a Tipperary man, trying to follow in the footsteps of a Cavan man is always an unenviable position to be in. However, I have no doubt Mr. Keane will manage very well with the guidance and support of-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether Mr. Keane would fully agree that he is a Tipperary man. We will leave that to him. He is from very near the border. I do not know whether he would fully agree that he is a Tipperary man. He participates in a Tipperary Macra na Feirme club of which I know many of the members but if he was in Croke Park, I do not think he would be shouting for Tipperary.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my end of the country, we consider everyone down there the same. Through our deliberations, all members of the committee agree that if we do not create the conditions to allow young people to enter farming and be sustainable and profitable in that endeavour, the Irish family farm as we know it will not be in place in a generation. The work of Macra na Feirme is crucial. The outworkings of the current Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, negotiations are pivotal in ensuring that young farmers have a viable avenue into farming. In that regard, the opening statement provided by Macra na Feirme and its ongoing work are crucial.

I have a few broad questions regarding the current negotiations on CAP. Does the delegation believe the proposals as they stand and the general thrust of the discussions are fit for purpose in terms of their objectives and priorities? Do they believe there is scope within the current CAP template to address issues such as the forgotten farmers, for example, and other cohorts that did not receive the supports that were required in the previous CAP? Will there be a provision within the next round of CAP that will allow the Government to address their particular concerns? I refer to the issue of the GAEC proposals. I do not know whether our guests were listening to the committee's deliberations on this issue with other farm organisations last week. Are the GAEC proposals fit for the challenges that have been outlined?

There is always a balance to be struck between encouraging older farmers to retire and providing the supports that are in place, and encouraging young people to come in and fill that gap. Do the delegates believe we have the balance right in terms of the policies and financial packages that are in place? If not, what needs to be done to address that? What should the committee be proposing to the Department and the European institutions with regard to the next round of CAP that would address the clear deficiencies in terms of the age profile of farmers?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which member of the delegation wishes to reply to the questions asked by Deputy Carthy?

Mr. John Keane:

I will respond to the questions. I thank the Chairman, a man from my end of the world, for his kind words. In a broad way, the negotiations and trialogues are still ongoing, which means there are, essentially, three positions that we have to consider, that is, those of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. From our analysis, the position of the Parliament is the closest to one with which we would agree on two key aspects for young farmers. First, the Parliament has supported having a minimum of 4% of direct payments for young farmers. We believe this is essential. The current allocation of direct payments in Ireland was up to a maximum of 2%. We commend the Department on having that in place. However, now is the time to increase the amount of funding that is made available for young farmers under direct payments and Pillar 2 payments. We may return to that issue shortly.

On the question of the forgotten farmers, but also, more broadly, the many young farmers under the age of 40 who are currently going to be excluded from supports going forward - we have already seen them being excluded from supports - the key area is the so-called five year rule under which supports are primarily focused towards young farmers entering the industry. We are incredibly supportive of supports for entry into the industry but the issue now, particularly in Ireland where we have seen a change in the entire model of farm succession and planning, is that this directly discourages young farmers who are taking on the role at an earlier stage. Both I and Mr. Fitzgerald, the chairman of our agricultural affairs committee, are in such a position. In spite of the fact that we are under the age of 30, we are no longer considered young farmers, going by the Department definition, because we have been farming either as part of a partnership or a joint herd number for more than five years. The position of the European Parliament is that this should be moved to a minimum of seven years. That is at least some positive movement to address the situation.

Outside of that, in terms of potential in the current negotiations to address the issue of forgotten farmers who have been farming for more than ten years, unfortunately the only area in which it appears this could be addressed is that of the allocation of the national reserve.

Again, that ties back into the total allocation of funds under direct payments. The allocation of direct funds or payments can either go to young farmer top-up, which would only be available under the current proposals for either five or seven years from establishment, or it can be allocated to the national reserve, which would allow sufficient for young farmers and new entrants and potentially for those farmers who are farming longer than that in a so-called third category. This third category has only been used a single time. The legislative position is very clear that all demands from young farmers and new entrants have to be satisfied before there can be a third category.

On GAEC 2, I will try to be brief and run through some of the elements because there is overlap. Our concerns with GAEC 2 are under two elements. First, we have seen the definition of what exactly this will change and appropriate management versus protection of wetlands. This is a significant issue for Ireland because the country has some of the highest organic matter soils. Second, there is the question about the definition of peatland soils and exactly what that will mean, because there is a variation in Ireland which is not seen in other countries. We have some drained farmable lands and others with high organic matter. Then we have the very extreme element, appropriate management of uplands and full peatland or bog-type soils. This is the essential element. The question here becomes the appropriate management. We strongly feel that high nature value farming, which is normally practised on the uplands in these areas, is the most appropriate management to protect these from a biodiversity and carbon protection point of view. Unfortunately, and this is an element that has been raised, under the biodiversity strategy there is a question about strictly protected definitions of designation. The strictly protected definitions essentially would block all farming activity. It would be a very extreme form of designation. We believe it would be detrimental not only to the rural economy in these areas but also very significantly to the protection of farmland birds and other forms of farmland biodiversity.

On the balance of support in terms of financial packages, there appears to be a willingness to continue, and we strongly support that. The young farmer top-up payments have been excellent and a major support. We would like to see them extended to seven years rather than five. However, the legislation that is currently under consideration in the negotiations allows for an installation aid type of package. We have encouraged the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and it has agreed, to assess the potential for that in the CAP strategic plan. This would be under Pillar 2 funding. We believe this is significant.

On the other question that is often raised about older farmers, getting the balance right and encouraging land access, there are no proposals on that at present. The reason for that and the complexity is that countries vary. Countries such as Finland and Germany have a designated older farmer pension scheme which has been in place for many years and which provides increased financial support. When we discussed the appetite for an older farmer retirement scheme or something similar with our members, their major concern has been, and will continue to be, the financial viability of some of those farmers. We prefer, and we have been a major force for, moving the question away from a succession model into a partnership model, which we find is a far more suitable method for encouraging access to land and with regard to the inheritance of land.

Thank you, Chairman, for your kind words in welcoming us here today.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question relating to what you said and to a paragraph from your opening statement in regard to young farmers stamp duty relief. It is due to expire on 31 December 2021. You gave different figures on the stamp duty relief which are interesting. Is there an issue with the ceiling that exists at present in respect of the availability of stamp duty relief? Is the ceiling high enough that it is not causing an issue? Obviously, I will be lobbying for the stamp duty relief to be rolled over again for another three years because it is a very important incentive for young farmers to get land transferred into their names. In representing young farmers, what do you believe is the position with stamp duty relief and are there any innovations or improvements you would like to see in the relief?

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

There are two elements. One is that it is absolutely essential to retain stamp duty relief. That is being considered by the Department of Finance. That support is vital and the opening statement gives the exact details of how much has been taken up. However, we have suggested some minor changes to it to encourage what we have called a steeped approach, addressing a set of separate taxation measures which would encourage and support young farmers entering into the system from the beginning. We feel the extension needs to include succession partnerships - there is currently a cut-off there - and extension up to the age of 40 years, but only where there are additional measures such as taxation relief on the leasing of land to young farmers up to the age of 30 years and limited to five years. Our logic on this is very clear. We are seeing a particular issue in the handover of land. It is a major lifestyle and financial change for many farmers. Many farmers are asking, essentially, how they can test the water here. What we have proposed is a measure whereby a farmer might encourage a young person to get on board in a limited way, which would not affect the person's application for both stamp duty relief and the young farmer top-up payment in the future.

In terms of the limit, there are concerns about the limits to state aids. We engaged with the Department of Finance when this was announced as to whether it would impact on the total lifetime aid which a young farmer could draw down. There are a small number of farmers who might be affected, who would be inheriting extremely large holdings and also drawing down 100% of grant aid under schemes such as the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, and so forth. However, we are satisfied at present that, broadly, the stamp duty supports and the other taxation supports should be in line for the European Commission not to raise any objections to them.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives of Macra na Feirme and I wish to be associated with the good wishes to Mr. Duffy. It is always a pleasure to work with him. I also wish Mr. Keane the best in his forthcoming term of office.

I wish to elaborate a little on a couple of matters. We will all lobby for, and hopefully we will be successful in, getting the extension to the current stamp duty laws. While they are vital, they are not cash in hand. They are a net saving. I refer to where Macra na Feirme would like to see more capital expenditure funding coming on stream. We are very much aware of building costs. There is the percentage of funding that is available in TAMS, the capping of expenditure that is allowable to receive TAMS funding and a combination of the percentages that are available to young and older farmers. Will Mr. Duffy elaborate on that with regard to investment?

Moving on to the partnership company model, while it is a great model and works well in certain areas of the country, there is an element of partnership which will most likely require the enterprise to be in a position to support two families. This is not feasible everywhere. I am a Westmeath man and the further north one goes, the smaller are the holdings and enterprises. While it might work on a large dairy set-up in the south or elsewhere, where there is a steady cash flow, it is not a runner in the majority of cases further north and west in the country. What is the alternative to that? What consideration has Macra na Feirme given to, what lobbying has it done for or how would it look on something similar to the old retirement scheme? If the current farming generation was prepared to step aside to avoid the situation I mentioned where two incomes would be required from the holding, would Macra na Feirme welcome, or what is its opinion on, something similar to the old retirement scheme?

I will conclude on the land mobility scheme that Macra na Feirme piloted or introduced.

I know Macra is lobbying to get this included under the CAP and to get European support. How is it going down in Europe? How is the model being accepted there? What feedback has the organisation had from Europe on the scheme? Is it something that could be included in the European model?

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

Not only has the land mobility service been exceptionally well received, it is the extent to which many other member states are coming to Ireland to learn exactly how we succeeded with it. I would like to put on record the incredible work of Austin Finn, who is the lead facilitator in that role, and highlight the support we received from sponsors and co-ops to establish the service, including seed funding from FBD early on. There are two elements to this. One is the consideration for the entire EU to look at this as a system. We engaged with groups such as UK Young Farmers, prior to Brexit, which was trying to roll-out a similar model while facing challenges which were unique to themselves. It will have to be adapted and changed to each country. Specifically for Ireland we have a clear ask, namely, that there be continued funding from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - which has been supportive of the service from the very beginning - and to move away from annual support to the entire term of the new CAP, directly supporting the land mobility service under the CAP strategic plan. We have seen this grow very significantly over time. I will ask Mr. Dillon or Mr. Duggan to cover some of the key figures around the number of partnerships and arrangements that have been put in place.

On smaller farm holdings and the challenge in that regard, we mentioned this in our opening statement but, unfortunately, the amount of detailed evidence on which we are working is very limited in the context of what interventions have been successful. The EU's recommendations are still based on 2016, as are its assessments when we know that there have been very significant changes since then such as the young farmers top-ups and the taxation supports we have had in Ireland. Our best figures for the challenges of young farmers entering the different enterprises come from the national farm sustainability report, which is compiled by Teagasc. That report shows a very clear delineation. Sheep and beef farms are significantly higher as a percentage of those who are more than 60 years in the enterprise. Currently, there are no strict proposals which state that a retirement scheme would be introduced under the CAP. There are rules in member states such as Finland where you cannot receive single farm payment and a pension at the same time. There is very little appetite in Ireland and among young farmers, with whom we have discussed this, for such as scheme to be introduced. The best supporting mechanism may be through the tax code. That is something that we are working on with the Department, trying to identify potential taxation reliefs that would facilitate farmers who are willing and interested. The likes of land-leasing taxation reliefs have been significant in allowing farmers to take a step back. That is the only aspect that we can at the moment.

The Senator mentioned geographical spread. Looking across the country, there is a very clear geographic issue with land fragmentation and farm viability. It is not simply that many farms do not have the total land needed to become viable without external economic input in the form of a part-time job, it is also that a large number are simply too fragmented to become viable. That is something that we, through the Land Mobility Service, have been working on and have had very significant success in trying to assist farmers. The taxation measures which would allow the sale of land without the tax implication to allow farm consolidation is quite significant.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are members wishing to come in so I ask Mr. Duggan to be as brief as he can, please.

Mr. Denis Duggan:

Our opening statement outlines the key figures for the land mobility service. We have facilitated 700 partnerships since the foundation of the service - totalling 55,000 acres of land - where an older farmer may have wished to step back or somewhat retire yet remain involved and they have maintained a stake. They are not selling the land, it is about shared farming arrangements. They are all non-familial arrangements. We tend to stay away from family farm partnerships although we do receive queries on them and we provide information where necessary.

The Senator asked about the appetite for the scheme at European level. To put it in context, we have made a number of presentations to the European Network for Rural Development, which is part of the European Commission. We have also been part of several Erasmus and European Commission-funded projects, such as the Polish Farm Advisory Service, the University of Bedfordshire in the UK and other European partners which are looking for similar types of solutions, including the National Farmers Union in Northern Ireland and the Ulster Young Farmers, who are working in collaboration on a similar land mobility service. We have given those two organisations a lot of support in setting up the service in Northern Ireland. There is an appetite. It does need a little tweaking from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because of the various different local issues which arise but it is recognised at European level as being a critical tool in the tool box to support generational renewal. A key tenet of our lobbying, through the European Young Farmer network in the Conseil Européen des Jeunes Agriculteurs, CEJA, and to the Commission, has been to have a mechanism included in the next CAP to support at member state level a land mobility service from member state to member state.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and acknowledge the president and CEO and other members of Macra na Feirme. I also acknowledge Macra na Feirme's great input in the social and economic aspects of agriculture in Ireland. They have had a great input over the past 40-plus years which we should acknowledge.

There are probably three or four questions around how we can ensure that the next CAP will benefit the agriculture industry and hopefully the young farming community. I spoke to Mr. Dillon some weeks ago about the old young farmer dynamic that has been somewhat forgotten. It is one of the issues in the CAP that we have to return to talk about how we will ensure that there is a fair, level playing field for the cohort of young farmers who have been missed, for lack of a better word. That is something that we need to look at in particular in the new CAP in 2023. How do Mr. Dillon or Mr. Duffy think we could try to work to accommodate this cohort of farmers which unfortunately has been forgotten about? They are moving into their 40s but still receive relatively low payments, through no fault of their own, merely because circumstances meant they fell between two stools.

I welcome the president's comments about how we can work with our farming community to move land from older to younger generations, particularly the retirement scheme in other countries. That is a very positive statement.

The opportunity for the older generation to work off-farm or move away at a certain age is something that such people would welcome. We need to work with the Department to see what we can do to resume the retirement scheme of 20 years ago that, although successful, was taken off the books for some bizarre reason. It was a positive scheme that promoted the renewal of the farming community and got young farmers involved at an earlier stage in life. At that age, they have the potential to make major differences on their holdings whereas someone who takes over a family farm at 35 years of age probably has other commitments and concerns and his or her potential or ability to drive the significant changes required on some holdings is limited. Progressing a farm retirement scheme is a major issue for us.

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

I might invite Mr. Dillon to speak about investment supports in a moment. We have asked the Department how many of what we would class as young farmers, namely, those under the age of 40 years, have missed out on drawing down as a direct result of the five-year rule. I do not believe I touched on the question of investment support that Senator Paul Daly raised. We view it as a significant issue. Land is not only a capital-intensive business, but also an investment-intensive one. Many younger farmers who have inherited, purchased or leased land must make a substantial financial investment. We commend the Department in recognising this under TAMS. It has been successful and met its limits. Under the next CAP, however, there must be recognition of the need for all young farmers under the age of 40 years to be able to access some level of funding. Currently, only those qualifying under the five-year rule can apply for 60%. The limit of €80,000 on qualifying spend is increased in partnerships, but this touches on the question of gender and the break-up of farms between siblings, which is generally a tragic event. Currently, if two young farmers enter into a partnership, the limit remains unchanged. We would like to see it expanded so that as many as possible young farmers who are entering into a partnership can embrace the opportunity. We would also like to see a third category being made available from 2023 under the legislation, one that lies between 60% and 40% investment support.

The numbers are substantial. Young farmers are often recognised for their considerable commitment to social sustainability. In terms of economic sustainability, they have invested €186 million as a direct result of the support they have received under TAMS alone. That investment was mostly loaded towards the past two years. We can clearly see that young farmers are the ones making investments on farms and generating economic activity in the wider farm economy.

I will now hand over to Mr. Dillon.

Mr. Derrie Dillon:

Senator Lombard asked a specific question about old young farmers. When we were before an Oireachtas committee in June 2015, we outlined specific proposals on a solution to the issue of old young farmers. Mr. Duffy mentioned the national reserve in the next CAP. That is the primary mechanism for delivering for old young farmers. There are two mandatory categories and the potential to introduce an additional category. However, this is all contingent on us getting a minimum of 4% delivered to young farmers in the next CAP. If we do not have that level of funding available, the national reserve will, as Mr. Duffy outlined, have to provide for young farmers and new entrants, who comprise the first two categories, before it can provide for other categories. We had other proposals in the past, but we believe that the best mechanism for delivering for old young farmers is the national reserve in the next CAP.

I wish to make a comment on a point that was made about our proposal in respect of stamp duty relief. Mr. Duffy outlined the aspects of the proposal. We propose that the 35-year age limit in respect of stamp duty on general transfers of farms remain but that it increase to 40 years where succession partnerships and the purchase of land by young farmers are concerned. We would like to see the 35-year age limit for general transfers remain as is because most transfers happen where 34-year-olds are approaching their 35th birthdays and we fear that it would only move five years on to when they were approaching their 40th birthdays were it to change. There is a cliff edge at 40 years of age when the rate of stamp duty increases to 7.5%. Perhaps there should be tiering after 40 years of age so that people who just miss that date do not incur the full 7.5%.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all recognise that young farmers are the future of this industry. Therefore, they have an acute sense of what will be needed. The witnesses stated that the limitations placed on young farmers' supports directly discriminated against early entry into partnerships. Will they outline the implications of GAEC 2 and similar measures to do with protected lands? They referred to how the number of farmers under 35 years of age on uplands and peat soils was significantly lower than the national percentage. Are decisions being made that would put land use and inheritance or acquisition out of the reach of future generations?

I have spoken to Macra na Feirme about my next point previously and wish to raise it again. What do our young farmers see when they look at the technology that is currently available in terms of their ability to access and use it? What are their views on how they are being supported in accessing such technology?

I should have started by welcoming the guests and wishing them all the best.

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

Regarding peat soils, the average age is substantially higher, particularly in the west and depending on the enterprises involved. There is no denying that. Unfortunately, this issue is often not considered in the overall encouragement. There are investment supports, but many of those are not oriented towards the extensive and high nature value farming that we tend to find on uplands and peat soils. The young farmers in question are able to benefit from the young farmers top-up payment and so on, but an element that we have consistently raised with the Department in the design of new environmental schemes is that there should be prioritisation and increased ceiling levels for young farmers. We say this because these schemes have higher uptake rates in so-called disadvantaged areas and areas that are considered marginal. We have many members in some of those areas who are farming on commonage. They are progressive and driven young farmers who want to make a living and continue contributing to their local economies and societies. They are being undervalued and unconsidered. We have submitted proposals on the successor to GLAS, whatever that may be.

There should be consideration of higher ceilings for farms or farm partnerships that include someone under the age of 40. The reason for this is simply that we know these young farmers are more driven and have more desire to do it but often they hit the limits of €10,000 under GLAS and €7,500 under the GLAS plus scheme. These are the key elements.

As we have said, the question about the final language in the agreed text will be with regard to protection and appropriate use. We all agree that appropriate use will look very different on peat soils than on mineral soils. Nonetheless, the idea of essentially abandoning our hills will not deliver for rural communities. More importantly, from the perspective of many of the people who are, unfortunately, pushing this idea, it will lead directly to land abandonment, which we know has a major negative impact on the biodiversity of these areas. If we want to keep the good environmental conditions we have and improve them, we need not only to keep farmers on the land but to get more young farmers onto the hills and peatlands.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Garvey, who is deputising for Deputy Leddin.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for having me. It is an honour to be here. If I could bilocate I would probably sit on this panel every week. It is great to hear the witnesses, some of whom I have met previously. They are an inspiration and well done to them on all their work. I do not know some of the other witnesses as well.

It is probably way outside my league to have a clue about what is being said about older farmers, the grant systems and the payments. I will not even pretend. I have a fair idea from my neighbours. It is something on which the witnesses will be dealing directly with the Minister, I hope. I will not even pretend to be involved in it in any way.

From my reading of the witnesses, from having met some of them previously and from listening to what they have been saying, I have a couple of questions. Does Macra regularly meet the IFA at local or national level? Is there much engagement between the two organisations? How do younger farmers feel about horticulture as a viable option? I am into diversifying. My happiest farming neighbours are those doing things slightly differently in some ways. My sister has a goat farm and several of my neighbours are making a good living out of growing food and employing people on a much smaller holding than many big dairy or beef farmers. Another friend is creating a glamping site as well as having a bit of dairy on the side. We have increased funding for horticulture and the number of organic farmers has doubled. Do the witnesses see this as an important part of where Macra and younger farmers are coming from as well as continuing traditional methods? I believe in the beef and dairy industries. We have to give people many choices based on the types of land they have. We want to keep people on the land as much as possible and make it as viable as possible.

I have seen at first hand many farmers turn to horticulture, creating far more viable incomes for themselves and creating jobs. A couple of my friends grow food on 30 acres and employ 15 people full-time. My sister is on 50 acres and has ten staff. The job creation side of it is huge and the farmers do not seem to have to borrow as much money as big dairy or big beef farmers. I am interested in this side of things. I am from Clare where we do not have hugely intensive farming so I am biased that way. I am putting myself in a little box. I would like to work with the witnesses more on this and engage with the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, more on it also. She is a midlands farmer with good land. I am more concerned about subsistence farmers, small farmers and uphill farmers. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses again on this. It might not be appropriate for them to answer all of these questions today but we can take it out of the meeting, which is probably why I am here. I thank the witnesses for their time.

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

I thank the Senator. We engage with all of the other farm organisations fairly regularly and we are in communication with most of them and discuss various proposals. We have independence within our organisation, as do the other farm organisations, and we try to work together for common goals. Certainly when it comes to young farmers we do not shy away from demanding what needs to be demanded in CAP and under other supports.

Horticulture is a very complicated industry, not primarily because of the production method but because of market access, which is a major obstacle for many people. We do have young farmers who are involved in the horticulture sector but it is a very regional approach, primarily based on some of the best land in Meath and Louth with diversification.

On the question of diversification, the key area from where we would see support coming is under Pillar 2 of the LEADER funding for diversification and processing of on-farm product to try to capture more of the value in the supply chain. Areas with which the Senator is more familiar, which are outside prime farmland but have high levels of tourist flow, would see major benefits. An example is the Tipperary food project, with which the Chair is familiar. It has added value and it has been very successful.

Our major concerns around some of the language focused on horticulture is that in reality it needs to be farmer driven. Farmers know their land better than anyone else. For instance, I know my land is simply not suitable for cultivation over the longer term. It would lead to degradation of the soil. Senator Daly and Deputy Carthy are familiar with similar soils. Ultimately, they cannot be continuously cultivated. There is potential here and we support any measure that could return greater benefit to the farm. On this topic, I would like to hand over to the president-elect, Mr. John Keane, on the aspect of the food regulator. It is something on which he has had a keen focus.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a bit of breaking news this morning that the witnesses will be interested in. The challenge to the Glanbia planning application has been rejected in the judicial review. I know the next speaker will be very interested in this.

Mr. John Keane:

I thank the Chair for his kind words at the beginning of the meeting and to all of those who have also spoken. To pick up on the issue touched on by the Senator regarding horticulture and adding value, how the food regulator plays a role in terms of returning value to the farmer in the food chain is key. If we look at the issues and challenges our young farmers have brought to us, in particular with regard to what the Senator has raised regarding the horticulture industry, access to the market and the small nature of the retailers in the breakdown of the market have been highlighted as issues many times. It is something on which the food regulator must play a role. As Mr. Duffy has said, it must be farmer driven and farmer oriented.

With regard to other industries that play a role, I would not necessarily agree with the Senator that bigger dairy or beef enterprises do not necessarily have a role to play in employment or value.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say they did not. I was not suggesting that.

Mr. John Keane:

I appreciate that. Everyone has a huge role to play and it is important to acknowledge it.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the opinion of Macra on the indicator system being piloted, with regard to ten farmers being under an adviser?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to get Macra's views on several issues. What is Macra's views on a ceiling on CAP payments? What is the organisation's policy view on convergence? Senator Daly also wants to come in but perhaps the witnesses will deal with these questions first.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is very brief and the witnesses might be able to cover all of our questions together. What is the opinion of the witnesses on the aggregate food strategy that was published recently and on the agriculture action plan for 2021?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Collins was not there before and I do not see him on the call now. We will hand over to Mr. Duffy.

Mr. Thomas Duffy:

On convergence, our priority as an organisation is addressing inactive farmers, namely, those often called armchair farmers or who are drawing down payments while not actively involved in the sector. Our priority is ensuring that there is a strong definition of "active farmer". We have engaged with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on matters such as minimum stocking densities and minimum cropping densities which would be appropriate in that regard and which would allow for such a definition.

There are certainly concerns that while we move to a more productive and environmentally-focused area that this situation could encourage an abandonment of land and, indeed, increase the number of farmers not actively involved in appropriate land management. As we have said, it is going to be a different form of land management depending on whether people are in Cavan, Laois or Tipperary. That is our key priority regarding that aspect.

Turning to the subject of capping, I will hand over to Mr. Dillon and he will run through some of the key aspects in that regard. I apologise, I omitted Senator Paul Daly's query on the agrifood strategy. Yes, we certainly find it a very challenging document concerning some of the elements it has proposed. We engaged throughout the process and, indeed, we gained key commitments regarding the role of young farmers, particularly concerning increasing the percentage of young farmers and moving towards a continuous professional development model, which we trialled through our Skillsnet programme, and developing a network for young farmers for recognition of their education, which is a key element.

The main aspect getting a great deal of focus is the 10% biogenic methane reduction target. We will not mince words. It is an incredibly challenging target for the industry to try to meet by 2030. If it is to be achieved, we will need to see major supports for the industry to adopt practice change and in that respect we are looking at the likes of the management of the national beef and dairy herds. In dairy, we know that extending lactations is a very successful way of reducing the number of replacements. Turning to the beef herd, changes in that area would include reducing the age at slaughter. Unfortunately, we have seen the age of slaughter increase as we have seen the increase in the percentage of dairy calves entering the beef sector.

We have welcomed the support for initiatives such as the sexed semen lab, which will allow higher quality beef semen to be used on the dairy herd and that will have a direct impact. As I said, it is still a very challenging situation. Regarding enteric methane, we simply do not have the silver bullet that other industries have available to us, such as moving to electric or renewable energies. We are some way from having market-viable feed additives. What we need to do in reality, therefore, is to look at what we have. Macra na Feirme has a position on the Ag Climatise document. We feel it is the appropriate roadmap, but we would like to see greater ambition in some targets, such as 100% of the herd being milk recorded and 100% of the national beef and dairy herds genotyped. Those are ambitious targets to set, but they are a way in which we can achieve this ambition.

We remain opposed to any limits on the national herds and certainly any mandatory calling. That is our position on the simple basis that any attempt at mandatory culling or herd limits will be fundamentally unjust. How could anybody figure out which herds are to be cut and what should be the percentages? Ultimately, such an approach would lead directly to lower farm viability and have a massive negative backlash. We are concerned about such a potential backlash from the farming sector and rural communities more generally against the climate action to which we are committed. I will hand over to Mr. Dillon now to comment on our position on convergence and capping.

Mr. Derrie Dillon:

We made a proposal when we met with officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I was trying to open that proposal, but my laptop has just frozen. Regarding capping, we had an initial proposal that I am trying to recall off the top of my head. I am sorry, but the document has just frozen on my laptop. Could I return to this question in a few minutes, if the Chair does not mind? I do not want to give inaccurate figures to the members of the committee because there are two thresholds, of €60,000 to €65,000 and then €100,000. I want to double-check the detail in the document, if I could have one second?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We may not have time because we are on our own schedule. However, if it might be okay, I ask Mr. Dillon to send the exact policy document to us later, with an explanatory footnote, and we can have a read of it then. That will be grand.

Mr. Derrie Dillon:

My apologies again, I just do not want to give inaccurate figures off the top of my head. I thank the Chair.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, that is fine. Modern technology does not always work as efficiently as some would tell us that it does. That is no problem at all. I ask Mr. Dillon to send the information to us, with an explanatory footnote, so that we will have the thoughts of the members of Macra na Feirme. We will then circulate that information to the members of the committee. This is going to become a contentious issue in the weeks and months ahead. We have a policy meeting this evening which Senator Daly and I will be attending, and I would appreciate it if Mr. Dillon could send us that document before then so we can have a read of it.

Mr. Derrie Dillon:

That is fine.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Dillon. I thank the representatives from Macra na Feirme for giving us their perspective on this important issue. The organisation's chief executive contacted me some days ago and it worked out better that the witnesses had a slot of one hour to themselves this morning. While Macra na Feirme co-operates fully with the other farming organisations, it obviously has a different focus on policy because it represents young farmers in particular. It was most useful therefore to have had this separate session with the witnesses this morning. I reiterate that I wish Mr. Duffy the best after his two years as president of Macra na Feirme, and I am sure he will not be gone entirely from representing farmers. I also wish Mr. Keane the best in his two years as the incoming president of the organisation. I thank everyone for their engagement and we look forward to working together in future.