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

I have a few questions that I would like to put to the Minister. The first concerns ash dieback. I, like many others, have campaigned vigorously on the issue of ash dieback. I believe that what has been done for the plantations to date is inadequate. The farmers' plantations suffered a disease that was completely outside of their control. I will not go into the biosecurity issues or the question of who is at fault or whatever bit it is not helping our battle to get the afforestation figures up. In my part of the country and that of Deputy Browne, there are many plantations with ash dieback. It has left a sour taste in people's mouths. The ash crop was going to be a very valuable cash crop, usually sown on relatively good land. Now, the crop is worthless and in some cases, 30 years of growth has gone down the Swanee. I have made the point to the Minister previously that if these plantation owners decide to replant, they should have access to premiums going forward. It would be a huge gesture on the part of the Department. It would give confidence back to the forestry industry that they are not the poor relation. If an outbreak of TB or brucellosis occurred on a farm, the farmer would get compensation. Ash dieback is a disease which, in many cases, has devastated farmers' pension plans. I believe we have not done enough for them. I would like the Minister to give thought to what I have said as regards premiums. We all want to see afforestation figures going up. If we could do something on ash dieback, it would start to give a feel-good factor back to the forestry industry.

The next point I wish to make concerns the agri-environmental schemes going forward. I have spoken on the issue in the Dáil and we spoke on it the other evening when we presented to the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, the report that the committee put together last spring. It is essential that agri-environmental schemes are married with afforestation. Looking at the fact that farmers in GLAS were prohibited from going into afforestation in the last five years of GLAS makes a mockery of where we are trying to get in respect of climate change and reducing our emissions. The farmers who would want to join an agri-environmental scheme would be the ones that we would be targeting for afforestation as well. Those two schemes have to be married together in this round of CAP if we are to make any serious impression on our afforestation targets.

If needs be, I urge the Minister to meet the forestry groups. They have developed proposals on this issue which they have sent to the committee. We can pass them on to the Minister. As I have said, it was the point we made very strongly when we presented the report in the Dáil last Thursday evening to the Minister of State, Senator Hackett. It is essential that we get it right this time round. The number of farmers who opted for afforestation in the last five years of GLAS went down by around 80% to 90%.

Therefore, it is clear that the schemes as they were designed the last time around prohibited farmers from going into afforestation.

Deputy Martin Browne spoke about money being left over in TAMS. The rate of grant and most definitely the ceiling are out of touch with reality, given the increase in building costs. A sum of €80,000 would do very little work as we try to meet our emissions targets, try to improve water quality and all those issues. With the price that chemical fertiliser will be next spring, the utilisation of slurry will be paramount for farmers. All these things will require significant investment on farms. Given how costs have increased, €80,000 is out of touch with reality. I urge the Minister to increase the ceiling of €80,000 to make investment on farms more attractive for farmers. In 2007 there was a far more attractive investment scheme for slurry storage. I am not suggesting we go back to the scheme we had in 2007, but definitely the current scheme needs to be reviewed and revised upwards.

I do not believe any other members picked up on a point relating to ANC. I saw that €1 million was not taken up because of stocking rate. Is that €1 million in total in ANC or is it €1 million extra in the year of the Estimate we are discussing? Is it possible to get a breakdown by county of what farmers do not meet stocking rate requirement on ANC? I do not expect the Minister to have this this evening.

While "penalised" might be the wrong word, I have been inundated by farmers who have had to return the money they received under the beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, scheme for 2019. What will happen to the money that will be returned? Could we give a fresh reference year for farmers to try to meet the stocking rate requirement? Many farmers did not understand the intricacies of the scheme they went into. It was an extremely complicated scheme. Many people I am dealing with now felt if they reduced their stocking rate by 5% for a given period of the year, they would qualify. Very few recognised that it was a calendar-year reduction. It is galling for farmers who lost significant money in feeding cattle in that year. The scheme was introduced at €100 per head and now they are required to refund it. I have raised this with the Minister before and I know it is not a simple request. The scheme was 50% EU funded. Could anything be done to give these farmers another opportunity to meet the stocking rate reduction requirements?

The Department needs to have a fresh examination of designated land. Land that has been designated has had its capital value decimated. There are some schemes for hen harrier land etc. However, none of these schemes has restored the capital value of this designated land. If we are serious about meeting our afforestation targets, we need to look at the blanket ban on designated land. I understand this was a national decision. I have seen evidence showing that different stages of afforestation can enhance habitats rather than diminish them. There is evidence to show that different stages of afforestation can actually help the species we are trying to protect with these blanket bans.

If we could plant a percentage of that designated land over, for example, a three-year window and then do more in the next three-year window, it would go a long way towards meeting our afforestation targets and would also restore the capital value of that land. I am aware of designated land recently sold in my county for €1,200 per hectare. If it were eligible for planting it would make quadruple that amount. The land has lost its capital value completely. We are shooting ourselves in the foot in meeting our afforestation targets with a blanket ban on that land.

As usual, I have a few simple questions for the Minister for some of which he may not have the answers available immediately.