Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 19 October 2022
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
EU Nature Restoration Target and General Scheme of the Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertilisers Regulation Bill 2022: Discussion (Resumed)
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I remind all witnesses, members and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is the continued examination of the EU nature restoration target, and resumed pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Veterinary Medicinal Products, Medicated Feed and Fertiliser Regulation Bill 2022. The committee will hear from representatives of various agri-sector bodies. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.
Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in the context of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.
The committee will hear from representatives from the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, Mr. Paul O'Brien, Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan and Ms Edel McAvoy; from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, ICMSA, Mr. Pat McCormack and Mr. John Enright; from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, Mr. Dermot Kelleher and Mr. Eddie Punch; from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers' Association, INHFA, Mr. Vincent Roddy, Ms Sharon Cosgrove and Mr. Joe Condon; and from Macra na Feirme, Mr. John Keane, Mr. Mick Curran and Mr. Liam Hanrahan.
As we have five agricultural bodies at the committee meeting today we will take the opening statements as read. The session will last one and half hours and I want to give the committee members a chance to put their questions to the witnesses and the witnesses a chance to elaborate on the issues they feel are most relevant in this policy sector. I hope that is acceptable to the farming organisations.
Deputy Carthy was the first to indicate that he wants to put questions to the witnesses. As five organisations are present, I ask the witnesses to keep their answers as concise as possible so we can get through as much as possible in the one and a half hours.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome our guests and thank them for their opening statements which are incredibly enlightening and comprehensive. Taken together they outline the array of concerns the organisations have about the EU nature restoration regulations. I have a number of questions. I will ask them all and perhaps each of the organisations can respond to whichever questions are most pertinent to them. I hope that will allow other members to have an equal opportunity.
In the first instance could the farming organisations give us a sense of what the implications of this regulation are for their members as it currently stands in draft form? That would be welcome.
Members may or may not be aware a discussion is ongoing about evidence this committee heard last week on the interpretation of Article 9. It specifically arises, and the context given was the Bord na Móna rewetting, as regards whether there will be a limit on non-agricultural, or it being capped, in terms of its impact on peatlands. It has been suggested to the committee that the cap is 20%. Regardless of how much other land is incorporated, farmers would be expected to make up 80% regardless of what else happens in society. I am aware that all the organisations have independent advice and guidance and are experienced in interpreting EU law. Therefore, it would be useful for this committee to get a sense of their interpretation of that article.
The third issue I would like some of the representatives touch on is the aspect of international trade. There has been an increase in discussions on the implications of trade and how the trade deals agreed at EU level fit into obligations and regulations applied to Irish and European farmers. In respect of this regulation, which could have far reaching consequences, do the witnesses have any view on how it could be applied in the context of implementing existing and agreeing new trade deals with third countries that do not apply the same level of regulation to peatlands?
My final question is based on the witnesses' knowledge and experience of dealing with EU institutions and EU regulations. Do they believe this regulation will be implemented in its current guise or what scope can they see for amendments? Have any of the organisations had contact with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications that will be responsible for negotiating the position at Commission level? If so, can they outline the feedback they received and where they believe this is going? Considering at least one member state of the EU has already voiced an objection, do the witnesses think it is likely that other objections will follow? Should the Irish Government lodge an objection to this regulation or is there scope to amend it to address their concerns?
Mr. Paul O'Brien:
I will respond to the Deputy's first and perhaps fourth questions.
Impact assessment is the key issue. We are asking the Government to make a commitment that some form of impact assessment will be done before it is too late. It is my understanding that much of this will begin to happen in November. The first piece will be rolled out in November. Critically an assessment must be done at national level to fully measure its implications. We have heard different figures and totals for different types and amounts and of land, but we do not know. We are unfortunately living in a vacuum. I suggest the first thing the Government needs to do is assess the impact of its potential.
I will ask my colleague, Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan, to respond to the Deputy's second and third questions.
Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:
I will follow up on what Mr. O'Brien said about the impact. We have clarity on the drained peatlands. We have some figures and we understand that is a measure under agriculture. The issue we are concerned about is under Article 4 which applies to restoration and the wider enhancement and re-establishment of habitats. That is where we lack clarity about the impact of this regulation and that is why the full impact assessment is essential.
Regarding the Deputy's comment about Article 9 and the cap of 20%, it is also our understanding that 80% of the measure will be the responsibility of farmers who must rewet and restore that area. In examining the regulations, it occurs to me that we need to move that measure from Article 9 to Article 4 because that is where the wider landscape is considered. The responsibility for the measure will not then only be on farmers. One is looking the wider landscape and at letting the member state to determine which areas are best suited to that kind of restoration. That should be moved out of Article 9 and should not be the responsibility of farmers.
On the Deputy's comments about the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, we met with the environmental committee in the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations, COPA, yesterday. The farming organisations of all member states are concerned about the implications of this. Some member states have carried out analysis and found the impact on production and farming goes far beyond what they initially thought it would. I cannot stress enough that we need to understand the land area and cost involved as well as how it will be managed and resourced at a national level. If this is a legally binding target and if we miss the target by a small percentage, we are potentially open to a legal challenge. This cannot be pushed forward without an understanding of the extent of what is required and the costs associated with it.
In drafting this regulation, it was identified that the reason the biodiversity targets were not achieved was that there was a lack of funding and resources. That was a key reason previous biodiversity targets were not achieved. It is thought that CAP will fund this regulation. CAP does not have the ability to do so. If this regulation is pushed through, we need to see a dedicated funding mechanism for biodiversity and nature restoration and it must be fully costed and understood.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
I will try not to be repetitive. Deputy Carthy asked a question about implications for our members. It will devalue our land. It has the potential to sterilise. We saw that in the past with the hen harrier when there was a small incentive under the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, but they disappeared after a short time.
There is a huge fear there, as was alluded to by others. An impact assessment needs to be done to get a handle on its implication for farm families. It could undermine their viability. Ultimately, it could lead to a move away from the land. One thing that struck me when I was involved in the Food Vision group was when it brought in a department official from Northern Ireland and his one fear regarding biodiversity was that there would be land abandonment. It is the greatest threat to biodiversity and something to be borne in mind.
On international trade and this regulation, how concerned are our EU negotiators when they are involved in trade talks with Mercosur countries? What questions are they asking on the environment? Are we playing on a level playing field? These are things I would be extremely sceptical about. That leaves us at a severe disadvantage.
Mr. John Enright:
To follow on from Mr. McCormack's comments, Deputy Carthy asked about the implications for our members. If you look at history and what happened in the birds and habitats directive, we have members across the country whose land was substantially devalued by the implementation of that regulation. They have seen their land sterilised and the next generation move away from farming for the simple reason that they could not develop their farms. That was 15% of the land area in this country. To be quite honest, the treatment of farmers under that was horrendous. People were treated very poorly under the habitats and birds directive. It would not give farmers confidence that they are going be treated any better in the future.
In relation to the 20%, we have concerns about that. If you read the European Commission's document, it states that these measures should cover at least 20% of the EU land and sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. It is 20% up to 2030. After that, as far as I am aware, there is no limit. To be fair to farmers out there, they are certainly engaging in environmental issues, but to be quite honest, the way they are being treated at the moment and the raft of regulations coming on them is making it very difficult for farmers to engage constructively with such regulations.
On whether it will be agreed in its current guise, from our perspective, we hope it will not be. The reality today is that the CAP has effectively been hijacked; it is trying to turn the CAP into an environmental policy. It is completely underfunded for what is required under environmental matters. We would say very clearly that if we want to have nature restoration, we need to work with farmers, not against them. At the moment, the direction in which this policy is going is working against farmers as opposed to working with them.
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the questions. I will highlight a couple of issues that came to light in the course of reading the document and engagements we have had with CEJA at European level. A lot of the focus in this committee in the previous hearing was around peatlands and drained peatlands. When you delve down into the detail of the document, it references aspects that will affect every single farmer in the country. I would like to bring the committee's attention to some of them. The first point mentioned earlier was about restoration of peatlands. It references, loosely, the word "restoration" on many occasions in the document. Under Article 4, the only definition that contains a restoration measure is rewetting. That is the only option there currently for the restoration of peatlands. There is a piece at the end of the document that refers to Article 12. It outlines the restoration plans and their implementation. I bring the committee's attention to a piece on the reporting national governments must do. It states that an indication of the subsidies which negatively affect the achievement of the targets and the fulfilment of the obligations set out in the regulation must be reported back to the Commission on the occurrence of each reporting period. I do not know whether our question can be answered but could a negative subsidy mean that if the subsidies we give farmers under the likes of our dairy calf to beef scheme, beef schemes, CAP payments or basic payment are deemed to be supporting agricultural activities, which are not in unison with the objectives of this, put those payments to farmers at risk?
The second point, which is applicable to all farmers, comes as one of the main seven objectives of the overall document around point 3, which outlines to the following issues. It outlines that in agricultural ecosystems, the overall increase in biodiversity must be measured and there must be a positive trend for the grassland butterflies to farmland birds, but the main point here is the stock of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils, which refers to all cropland soils in the country. If the trend is not positive for soil organic carbon in all of those soils, what are the implications for all farmers? If the trend is in the wrong direction, does that mean they are going to be penalised or that they will have to introduce restoration measures that are not defined within the document?
The Deputy's second question was around trade. At the moment farmers in the EU and Ireland are being put through enhanced measures, if that is what you want to call them, in terms of eco schemes and biodiversity to meet the objectives of the Green Deal. However, we have other players in international markets who are supplying products competing with European products within our market. We are speaking about putting further restrictions on the ability of agriculture and farmers to produce food, while potentially importing food from third countries which are not keeping pace with us, even with the gap they are at. That gap is widening. From the point of view of a farmer producing food in Europe and in Ireland, it does not make any sense for a young person or any farmer in that context to be embracing the measures that are set out in all of these environmental practices and so forth, which are very beneficial, while the EU on the other hand is agreeing trade deals with third countries that will not be implementing the same standards.
Before I ask Mr. Hanrahan to comment, the final point to round off all of the discussions that we will have today is on the importance of securing certainty for young people to enter the sector. That is something which cannot be lost on the committee or the stakeholders within the industry. Given the uncertainty around the future in certain sectors and the future in relation to the implementation of some measures in the new CAP and under the biodiversity measures, a serious investigation and assessment are needed on the impact of this on the whole industry and on any measures brought forward and the impact they are going to have on securing a future for young people in the sector, not just in Ireland as it is a problem across the EU.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
To follow on from Mr. Keane's point, first, we need to have clarity around the accurate measurement methodologies for carbon sequestration. Otherwise, we do not know what we are here to try to set out to achieve. Second, if it is implemented, we want clarity around the timeline duration and the funding and proposals and what benefits there are for farmers, if any. Also, any restoration should be carried out through landowner agreement, not designation. There is a need for clarity on the implications for adjoining landowners and in the case of rewetting land. It does not just impact our members or the members of the other organisations here; it impacts all of rural Ireland.
Mr. Joe Condon:
There was a reference to moving land out of Article 9 and into Article 4. That would remove it from agricultural activity, I believe. Article 4 is not defined as agricultural land; it is defined as habitat. Depending on how hill land is going to be defined in this restoration directive, it is going to have serious consequences for that land because Article 4 is not about agricultural land, whereas Article 9 is about restoration of agricultural ecosystems. Article 4 states that there is going to be a re-establishment of areas not covered by those habitats. That means there will be a reversal of improved hill lands. Everyone knows that if you improve hill land, it will a costly exercise but reversing it will be extremely costly. How are those costs going to be met?
This will be a legally imposed target. We cannot see a funding stream identified anywhere in this document. There is plenty of funding for developing ecologists and administrative staff in Europe but we cannot see any funding for the type of cost that will be imposed on farmers to meet this legal requirement.
Mr. Vincent Roddy:
I thank Mr. Condon for that. To cover Deputy Carthy's points, on the first question on the implications for our members and for all farmers, we would have major concerns. We would see it not as just a rewetting and a farming issue of farming. There is a property rights' issue here if EU legislation can dictate what happens with one's property and if it can insist that one has to rewet it. This is different from what is happening with the designations because they told one what one cannot do. This is not only going to tell one what one cannot do but it is also going to tell one what one has to do. That has clear implications for property rights and we need to be very aware of that. That is not just with farming. Once we start to impinge on property rights as regards farmland, we have to ask the question as to where that stops. We need to be clear on that.
As regards Deputy Carthy's question on international trade, when he asked that question I was thinking about whether we are going to expect farmers to rewet land and take large areas of land out of agricultural use while at the same time trading with Brazil where more rainforests are cut away. That does not make sense. Maybe it makes sense to people at EU level if they want to sell Audis or other things to Brazil. There is that trade side of things. From our point of view, it cannot and should not happen.
On the implementation of this at EU level, first, when one looks at the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and I know we had differing views here on CAP, approximately 70% of what was originally proposed by the Commission was in the final CAP plan. Approximately, 30% was changed. What we have to think about here is the 70% that is there, if that is where we end up. We need to make sure the harder elements are taken out. I would like to think that this would not happen at all but I am also a realist and I know that maybe we will have to find a landing ground in there.
As regards the member state, we have asked that this committee turns this down and passes a motion stating it will not entertain it and put pressure back on the Cabinet. As to whether that will happen, we hope it will happen but I do not know if the committee has the power to do that. It will be down to what flexibility member states get. The CAP allowed for a certain level of flexibility. Will that flexibility be in this as well? I will finish on that.
Mr. Eddie Punch:
The implications are very serious for farmers. I point the committee to Article 9(4) which refers to peatlands. We are talking here about peatlands that have been reclaimed and that are in many cases productive agricultural land. It has set out that by 2030, 30% of such areas will require restoration measures, of which one quarter will be rewetted. It goes to 50% of such areas by 2040, of which at least half shall be rewetted, and 70% of such areas by 2050, of which at least half shall be rewetted. That is a substantial impact. Then there is the wider story of restoration measures for 20% of all agricultural land, and ultimately all ecosystems, by 2050. We are talking about a substantial implication for much of the land in the country. That is the first critical point.
This regulation is full of complexity and ambiguity. Our concern would be that there has been no engagement with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications on this with farm organisations to date. This is part of a bigger pattern that troubles us whereby grandiose plans emerge from Brussels based on headline figures. If we roll back a bit, this goes back to the EU biodiversity strategy where essentially a bit of horse-trading at Brussels-level led to a target of 30% of land being designated, one third of which would have strict protection on it. These kind of ideals are being set at a high level without any understanding even at high levels within the member state. We have asked the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine what this means and the truth of the matter is that it is not clear. When we come back to this particular off-shoot of the EU biodiversity strategy, the proposed nature restoration regulation, we understand the Minister is minded to be supportive of it but we do not know on what basis and what discussion has been held at Government level to justify that particular position. Our view would be that Ireland should, in the best traditions of EU negotiations, start out with a hostile antipathy to this because this has profound implications.
Economic impact assessment was mentioned earlier. That is absolutely essential. There are financial implications of this, which are quite immense. One figure I heard was 870,000 acres of peatland. With land at €10,000 per acre, that is €8.7 billion worth of land potentially transformed from productive agriculture to less productive or non-productive. This is big money. The document itself suggests that the administrative costs for this are €14 billion. If the bureaucrats administering it are going to spend €14 billion, can one imagine what the cost implication will be for our members whose farming activities are going to be totally decimated and whose land is going to be completely devalued?
Our concern is that the history of designation has been a lamentable one where for a long number of years people with designation had no scheme to compensate them in any way for the implications of it. For example, we had the hen harrier farmers but there were many others as well. Originally, there were National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, schemes. They were then defunded. The agri-environmental schemes were totally and utterly not fit for purpose for the people who had designations. For those reasons, farmers are terrified of what is potentially coming down the track on this. The key thing we want to say for a start is that there must be proper analysis of this and engagement between the Government and the stakeholder representatives before we go anywhere.
In terms of Deputy Carthy's question about international trade deals, an interesting point here is that when the Mercosur deal was done certain caveats were put in which essentially said that countries like Brazil would not do any further damage to rainforests or take further measures that would further damage their climate change situation. It is interesting that we now have a new piece of legislation, a regulation, coming in at EU level that was probably not foreseen when the Mercosur deal was negotiated. If one was to try to apply the logic that has been applied to European farmers, one should say that the equivalent in Brazil would be to look at all of the rainforests that were cut down over the past 70 years and tell them they have to restore them. That would be the equivalent to what is being asked of European farmers for a start. That is not going to happen because it is not provided for in the Mercosur deal.
The point is that we are hamstringing our farmers more and more in Europe and we have no possible way of putting equivalent conditions on trade deals that have now been signed and sealed although not delivered yet, and there is a long pattern of that. That is what we would have to say to start with.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will make a comment now. Time-wise it shows the complexity of this legislation and the ambiguity and huge concerns around it.
This evening we are only going to tinker at the edges of what is happening here. I was talking to the secretariat this evening and when we come back after Christmas I am going to put to the committee that we devote three full meetings to this legislation coming from Brussels. Then we intend to put a report together at the end of those three meetings because the possible impact of these proposals from Brussels is immense. I think the onus is on this committee to give it serious scrutiny and put forward a very strong view to our Government of where we think it should go. I will take two members together to see if we can get the points of view across. I call Deputy Michael Collins who will be followed by Senator Paul Daly.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not have very many questions because some of the areas have been covered already, but I have serious concerns as others do as to what is being proposed. I would like to welcome the witnesses today. I also have serious concerns about the financial implications for the landowners. Have the organisations been consulted on how this will impact on the stakeholders? Has an economic impact assessment been done on how much it will cost the farmer? It is the farmer who is going to suffer. Maybe the ICSA, the IFA or one of the other organisations might be able to answer those questions.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will take another set of questions from Senator Daly.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Carthy covered a lot. I suppose I have just one question for the five groups. It is the ongoing debate. We are living in exceptional times, as we all keep saying, and we are aware of the war in Ukraine and the whole debate on food security. There has been much mention here of impact assessment statements but from a food production perspective, and playing devil's advocate, if this were to end up as is being predicted, what impact would it have on European and Irish food security and on forestry?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. O'Brien like to answer?
Mr. Paul O'Brien:
On Deputy Collins's questions, unfortunately, the two answers are "No" and "No". We have had absolutely no consultation from anybody on this and on what it is going to look like. As all of the farming organisations have said, we need an impact assessment done immediately because at this stage many of us are flying fairly blind. We are dealing with big legislation coming from Europe. We do not know how much our own Departments have fully analysed this, but most certainly the impact assessments will need to be carried out because the financial damage this could possibly do to our rural community and our farmers is absolutely appalling. That is really the most important thing from that is to say the answer is "No" and "No" unfortunately. That is something we would like clarified.
On food security, and Senator Daly's question was about food production, if we are actively being asked to reduce our agricultural production activity on a piece of ground, obviously that will have an impact on food production. This is something that we need to fully analyse. Ultimately, as an industry, 140,000 farmers are farming and are depending on their income from agriculture. If we are actively asking them to reduce farming activity, no matter what the figure will be, whether it is 10,000 farmers or 40,000 farmers, we do not know until this impact assessment is done. If we are asking them to desist from agricultural production, then the only financial mechanism that look to be in place at this moment in time is CAP funding. We are asking them to actively devalue their land as a result to receive CAP funding. That is fundamentally flawed in our view.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. McCormack like to speak?
Mr. Pat McCormack:
In response to Deputy Collins, there was a serious deficit as regards consultation with the various stakeholders. As regards a cost analysis, as I said in response to Deputy Carthy, we need to see an impact assessment in place because it has a huge impact on the potential viability of a farm for the future generations, or maybe for a period of time where there needs to be an income for both generations in advance of a transfer.
As regards Senator Daly's question on food security and food production both within Ireland and the EU, we have seen over the last couple of years, initially with Covid and then with war in Ukraine, that food security was an issue. It was the one thing that was scarce on the shelves in our shops and supermarkets. It would potentially have a huge impact on our ability as a nation, as primary producers initially, to maintain production or output. It would not be possible. Given that we are facing two barrels as regards nitrates and the nitrates regulations, this cannot be taken as a single entity. It would impact our ability to produce. That would undermine the viability of our processors, whether it is dairy, beef, lamb, etc.
We have huge ambition, a huge target and huge aspiration as regards delivering from an environmental perspective in terms of planting of forestry. I see this as a complete and utter pick-pocketing of the opportunity to deliver forestry plantations. It will absolutely cease the planting of land. I do not know whether or not my colleague, Mr. John Enright, wants to comment.
Mr. John Keane:
Similar to what the other farming organisations have said in terms of being consulted, there has been absolutely no consultation and there has been no impact assessment conducted on it either. There is a bigger question here in terms of the economic assessment, which will be carried out on what effect it will have on farmers. The bigger question, from a rural economy point of view, is that if you take the land area being talked about out of productive capacity, what effect will that have on the wider business circle that supports farming communities? There is going to be an impact on your local co-ops, your local garage man, your local feed merchant and your local vet, who we will be speaking about later A figure was mentioned earlier by Mr. Eddie Punch of 871,000 acres or thereabouts having to be rewetted. That is an area a little smaller than the size of Tipperary. If you want an impact assessment of the food that is produced out of the county of Tipperary, I think there is €1 billion worth of exports of dairy alone from Tipperary. In terms of an impact assessment, it is not very difficult to figure out what impact that is going to have on the country as a whole.
In terms of the impact on food and on forestry, and coming back to an earlier question Deputy Carthy asked, in terms of objections raised, I think Sweden and Finland are the only two countries that raised an objection. The Swedish have carried out an assessment which shows that this will impact on 30% of their land area, from which nearly the majority of their forestry is supplied, and that is one of the major economic drivers in that country. Naturally, at a time of high input prices and when wood-related products are scarce, they are concerned about that. Similarly in Ireland, if you are looking at it from a food security point of view, we have no definition or indication as to what soil types are going to be affected or the areas it is going to be in. Is it going to be tillage, is it going to be dairy or is it going to be beef? What impact is that going to have not just in this country but in terms of international exports?
There is a huge task to be done by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. To follow up on a comment made in terms of funding, many different funding streams have been mentioned. I think there are 12 potential funding streams laid out in the document. However, the only funding stream committed to is €100 billion for the implementation of biodiversity measures. This may give members an insight into the foresight and support from the origins of this document not just for the agricultural sector but for rural economies if the single line item referring to funding is dedicated solely to ensuring biodiversity measures as opposed to the economic impact it is going to have on landowners.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan wants to make a brief comment.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
To follow on from Mr. Keane on the food security point of view, we farm in west Clare where there is a large amount of low lying flat land, including peatland. Mr. Keane alluded to the area that may be taken out of farming productivity but the amount of land that would be affected would be far greater. The surrounding lands cannot but be affected by this, and that also has to be taken into account. It is easy enough to multiply €1 billion by whatever you like. The potential to put farmers out of business here is very serious, including farmers who do not sign up.
The bill will have an extremely serious impact on rural populations.
Mr. Vincent Roddy:
I will respond to Senator Paul Daly's second question. Mr. Keane and others have covered food security. The impact will not only be on food security. The wider impact on rural Ireland will be devastating and we must be conscious of that. Most members of the committee are from rural Ireland but we hope other Deputies will recognise that as well.
No consultation has taken place with farming organisations. It is interesting that the document states a public consultation process took place. That is listed. An online survey was conducted between January and April 2021 and 111,000 replies were received. It is interesting that 97% were in favour of more aggressive EU restoration targets. The figure of 97% is close to the results of some of Vladimir Putin's referendums in Ukraine so I do not know how much attention we can pay to it. When we talk about this, we must also recognise that what is being proposed will hard-wire the EU biodiversity strategy into legislation. It is a massive document and has major implications for us, but no consultation has taken place on that. It has been sitting there since May 2020. We have tried to engage but it has been minimal. It is great that the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss is discussing it at the moment but we are concerned that forum will be seen as the consultation. The people who really need to be consulted are the representatives of the farming organisations who are on the frontline.
Mr. Dermot Kelleher:
Many of our members are upset and angry about this proposal. It seems we are being told not to worry any more about generations of work. Some of this land has been improved by maybe three or four generations and it is good agricultural fertile land today. People's fathers and grandfathers worked the land to improve it. It is shocking that 350,000 ha will be defined as in bad condition in Ireland. The regulation wants to go back 70 years. How can this be achieved without cutting food production and food security? Is that to be cut back?
The ICSA is alarmed that no engagement with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has taken place. There has been some discussion about the biodiversity strategy but none about this regulation on nature restoration. How can the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications go gung-ho to Europe and support this? I would like him to study the film "The Field" and Bull McCabe for his homework because that is not a fairly tale. That is how strongly people feel about land they have reclaimed and improved over the years. He ought to go and watch that film a few times so he can realise this is how strongly people feel.
Furthermore, the ICSA is concerned that government representative groups are totally left out of the access to justice. Where is the access to justice for farmers whose land will be taken away and restored or rewetted? We should all be asked whether the Government is acting in the best interests of the Exchequer in agreeing to a clause that will tie the State up in legal actions for years to come. It can fund all these NGOs and do all these things but it will tie up the Government for years in litigation. In particular Article 16 will have to be refused or shot down in its current form. Ireland needs to put up a big battle against this. As my colleague said, we cannot take out arable land equivalent in size to Tipperary and turn it back into a bog or bad land. That is land that has been improved over the past 70 or 80 years by generations of people. People who do not realise the implication of what they are doing are making regulations. I saw big drains being closed by flagstones. That land was first improved by the current farmers' grandfathers many generations ago and now all that work is useless. People cannot stand for this. This will cause mayhem. I will pass over to my colleague Mr. Punch who is better at technicalities than I am.
Mr. Eddie Punch:
I do not have anything to add except that Article 16 on access to justice specifically states that one side of the debate, environmental NGOs, will be entitled to bring cases against the member state if they are not happy with how the member state is implementing the regulation. The member state has to agree a nature restoration plan with the Commission. This is a complex and drawn-out process, as we all know, where consultation with stakeholders will presumably, or should, take place and will inevitably take place with environmental groups. Article 16 states that access to justice is specifically for the environmental NGOs. The Government has to make and implement policy but essentially Article 16 gives a veto, as it were, to the environmental lobbyists to take action against the Government if they are not happy with the plan the Government has put forward and agreed with the Commission or with how it is being implemented.
There has to be a level of responsibility for Government Ministers to say they will not entertain EU regulations that undermine their ability to govern and hand over the process to a one-sided litigious battle where environmental NGOs are given a specific role. What about access to justice for farmers and landowners? What about our constitutional property rights?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. It is a good idea for the committee to hold a few meetings because we cannot cover all the topics we need to cover in one. Earlier when someone asked a question, Ms O'Sullivan and Mr. Condon seemed to be coming from two different angles. What is Ms O'Sullivan's response to Mr. Condon's statement on Articles 4 and 9?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What should not be under it?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have to realise that many people with peaty-type land or peatlands on mountains in Donegal, Connemara or wherever else have to make a living from that.
Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:
The Deputy is misunderstanding me. I am saying that 80% should not be on agricultural land. It should be decided at a member state level so that we identify the best areas - not the farmland - but we identify and make the decision as to what land is restored. The responsibility will fall on farmers if it is under Article 9, which is not fair because 80% has to be restored. If we look at a wider landscape under Article 4, then the member state can choose to reduce the percentage of farmland that would fall under the requirement to be restored or rewetted.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does Mr. Condon think about that?
Mr. Joe Condon:
Article 4 is not referencing agricultural areas of activity. If we move peatlands into Article 4, we will lose the agricultural activity in that area and the agricultural area status.
It is critical that some of the habitats under Article 9, in particular, heathlands, blanket bog and upland grasslands are considered as agricultural ecosystems not as habitats. There is probably a pathway to achieving that but definitely moving those significant areas of land into Article 4 is a massive land use change. Those lands will not come into agricultural activity or the agricultural area. That is my understanding of it.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a question for the witnesses. The night I had the debacle with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, spoke about phase one of land use being done, which I did not even know was done. Phase two will be finished in 18 months. What is the witnesses' interpretation of that? I would like them to answer as quickly as they can because I want to try to ask as many questions as I can?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will you ask all the questions together Deputy Fitzmaurice, if you do not mind?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We got a few emails. Farm organisations will have been involved in the Life project. My understanding is that is voluntary. Is every farm organisation still involved in it or are they out of it? That is a question for every organisation. We got an email today from an MEP which we were talking about before the meeting started. There is a dispute about the information we were given from the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations, COPA, and an MEP has written back. What interpretation do the witnesses have of the 20% because there is a debate going on about that? Can the 20% come from the State or not? The other part of that email referred to a difference between restoration and rewetting. In my opinion, there is not but I would know the witnesses' views on that. When did the farm organisations become aware of this because it was by chance that we became aware of this so when did all of the farm organisations become aware of it. What has been done up to now about it?
Are the farm organisations going to unite with us? Mr. Dermot Kelleher talked about The Fieldand I know exactly where he is coming from because people with spades tried to reclaim this land and put in stone shores and then diggers came along and they made it better. Is there tick-tacking between farm organisations or is there any tick-tacking with other countries? We are hear that Sweden, Finland and Holland are objecting to it. Is there any tick-tacking going on? Can we nip this in the bud? My understanding is that it is in its infancy. Sweden is getting the Presidency and we hear it will lie idle for six months. Do the witnesses envisage a problem like when you get older and you get the pension? In 2030, it might be that Bord na Mona's bit will cover it and 2040 is in the distance and you might be retired by then but it is something you are clawing at, it is down the road and it is a ferociously hard thing to keep on top of. It could be another generation looking after the land in 2040 or 2050. I am not trying to retire anyone early or anything like that but do the witnesses understand where I am coming from? It is like a long haul of a battle. What tack are we taking? Are the farm organisations going to get more informed about it because other than the papers they have done and what this committee has done, there was not much about it up to the last month? I have no doubt that we will sit as a committee and put our points across.
I will await Ireland's response because my understanding is that it has not gone in yet even though the Minister, Deputy Ryan, thinks it has gone in. I am awaiting that response to see where we are because we are on the back foot. My understanding is that a big decision like that would take the three leaders to meet and a decision would have to be made at Cabinet because this is the future of an awful lot of farms around the country. I would like the witnesses to address all of those questions because I will back to them if they are not answered.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will hear from Senator Boyhan and then go back to the organisations.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is a lot of questions. I am conscious that other members want to come in, so I am just going to make a few points. I am reading a book at the moment about the ideas, aspirations and objectives of Davitt's Land League, which contains so many of the reoccurring themes we are talking about. Last week we had the mushroom production sector in. I talked to those involved and told them get political. The next day I did three or four interviews with various journalists about it. What I meant was that it was about time we got political. It is great to see the farm organisations represented here because the harmony and the singing off the one hymn sheet does not always happen. Irish farm organisations need to get political and I say that loud and clear. For years they were highly organised, highly motivated, highly co-ordinated and the political establishment in Leinster House sat up and listened. They were a force to be reckoned with. They were a political organisation but somewhere in all of that, they become slightly watered down. I see in front of me today a resolve, a strength and the ability and capacity to mobilise a national campaign. That is when farm politics really matters and I would encourage the organisations to do that. I just want to say that at the outset. It is shocking in terms of communication but that in itself somewhat reflects on the political establishment, but that is the reality of it. It is terrible that no full cost-benefit analysis has yet been carried out on the impact on large and small scale agriculture and on rural populations. We hear so much about rural Ireland and the political commitment to rural communities but we have been talking about the water extraction Bill and about peat in horticulture, nursery stock, agriculture and in the mushroom sector again and now we are talking about this. In a matter of days and weeks we are talking about ongoing issues and challenges that are attacking both the livelihoods and sustainability of farm incomes but, more important, of agricultural communities. I do not need to lecture the organisations as they know this but I just want to let them know we are picking that up on this side.
I have read all the submissions and want to thank all the groups who made them. Six recurring or common themes kept jumping off the pages of all the submissions and they were as follows. There is a need for new funding outside of CAP. The lack of financing has been identified as a key failure in the EU meeting its 2020 biodiversity targets. The proposal lacks clear and long-term financial support for nature restoration with the majority of this expected to come from CAP funding itself, and there are some issues there. Restoration can only be achieved if it is not dependent on CAP budget and is funded through a dedicated financial mechanism for biodiversity and restoration. Long-term restoration requires long-term resources and not short-term measures, and I think we would all agree with that. It is necessary that restoration is funded through a dedicated financial mechanism.
What I am saying is that we hear loud and clear what is being said. The organisations should unite, mobilise and bring their cause to community halls up and down this country. Put the leverage on the politicians, on the political establishment and the main political parties, the tripartite coalition Government, that is in place. They will have to sit up and they will have to listen but, more important, they will be motivated politically to listen and to respond.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. O'Brien like to respond?
Mr. Paul O'Brien:
There were many questions from Deputy Fitzmaurice so I will pass them along to the IFA committee. Maybe I will just focus on what is happening in Europe between the other farm organisations. Yesterday myself and Geraldine O'Sullivan were in COPA-COGECA. The Deputy mentioned Sweden and Finland but other countries such as Germany and Austria among others are as concerned as we are.
They are bringing this back to their politicians with so much fear and trepidation about what this could possibly look like for farming incomes and farming practices going forward. Yes, most certainly the lead is Sweden. They have already written back to the Commission rejecting the proposals. We spent time with our Finnish counterparts yesterday and they were very fearful of how this will impact on them. Among the whole COPA-COGECA family of farm organisations, there is considerable concern. I will ask Ms O'Sullivan to speak on Article 4.
Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:
In relation to the first question on the phase one of the land use review. As part of the sectoral targets in July, when they were setting the land use, land-use change and forestry, LULUCF, they said that before they could set the LULUCF target, there would need to be a land use review. That was going to take 18 months. They were to gather all the current information that has been available and that has been worked on. I think that is what the Minister was referring to as the phase one in the development, that is, in identifying how they were going to set that sectoral target. That is looking at existing information in relation to our land use, soils and starting the process. Then it will go into phase two and that is being led by the EPA.
On the Life project, I think Deputy Fitzmaurice is referring to the Burren Life project.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, I refer to the Life project - the Atlantic one or the rewilding one.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it voluntary?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Ms O'Sullivan's organisation still part of it?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who does the rewetting of the bogs and all that?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is voluntary whereas the new one is a regulation.
Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:
It is voluntary and there is a payment for it. This will be a law. This has proven to be much more successful in biodiversity enhancement, that is, when the farmers have been involved. Research has been done on that to show that having the farmer champion involved in it gives optimal results rather than the designations or other approaches.
On Deputy Fitzmaurice's comments on restoration or rewetting, there is a complete lack of clarity within this on what exactly is being asked. There is lack of clarity on what good condition and favourable areas are. There are many different terms used within this, including what they mean and the practicality of implementing them on the ground within each of the member states.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One thing that needs to be clarified is that the State can pick up much of it. If we are talking about 800,000 ha or 800,000 acres, whichever it is, Bord na Móna has only a quarter of that, no matter how one looks at it. It has 80,000 ha. If you were to do every bit of it, which you will not, it would be a quarter of the overall amount. It goes back to the 20% we heard about in the email we got earlier.
Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:
It is going to be a legally binding target. There is going to be a situation where every two years there will be a national framework. It will be under review all the way up to 2050. There is going to be another situation where there will be actions and measures to be achieved. It will be reviewed on a regular basis. As with the climate action plan and our emissions every year, we are going to have a similar process every two years with biodiversity.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have to be honest with farmers. From everything I have seen, this is going to be like catching someone by the neck and telling them that they are going to sign up to this or else they will not get the single farm payment. I worry this is where it going.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
I will answer Senator Boyhan and I will let my colleague, Mr. John Enright, to answer Deputy Fitzmaurice. I am glad the Senator saw similarities in trends because the challenge is there for all of the sectors we represent. We will not shirk our responsibilities from a political level. Equally, I would say to the Senator and to every Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas that they have a duty and an obligation to keep our Government, in particular the Minister who will be going to Europe to fight that battle, honest, if that is what the Government decides to do. It is critical that it does that as we move forward. From a European perspective, we will certainly be involved with the European Milk Board. Our Dutch and Danish colleagues, in particular, are being ground to a halt in a similar way to ourselves as regards legislation, bureaucracy and environmental issues. The word "sustainability" comes up time and again but unfortunately it is environmental and ecological sustainability. What is lacking right across the board on all occasions is an onus on the economic sustainability and the economic impact that can deliver. That has a huge social impact on rural Ireland. Whether it is the church, irrespective of its denomination, sport, irrespective of its code, or the parish council, farm families and the rural economy are driven by the rural output and that output is going to be severely impacted.
Mr. John Enright:
To come back to Deputy Fitzmaurice, I certainly agree with him that this is a grab you by the neck effort. There is no doubt about that. On the first comment on peat soils, people have this impression that peat soils are non-productive. We have members milking cows, finishing cattle and sheep and growing tillage crops on peat soils. People do not realise that. They are making a huge contribution to the rural economy. People need to bear that in mind when talking about peat soils.
On the phase one of the land use being done, we are aware the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is doing work on land use and designation of soils but it has not provided us with the data behind that as of yet.
On the Life project, as a organisation, we are not directly involved but we would have members involved in Life projects and EIP projects. These are all voluntary. They work well and farmers co-operate with them. Farmers are treated with respect, which is important to say.
On working with farm organisations, our president and I were at the EMB general assembly in April and there was discussion about this land restoration law. It is one of many different laws that are impacting farmers at the moment. We have seen what is happening with the nitrates and with climate change. This is across Europe; there are the same issues in every country. It seems to be a raft of regulation after regulation, some impacting dairy farmers, some impacting sheep farmers and some impacting everybody. There are huge pressures on people and there is no appreciation of that. I think every issue has been covered.
Mr. Dermot Kelleher:
To answer Deputy Fitzmaurice, I did not know about this until I spoke to him about a month ago in a hostelry across the road. It looks like an attack on rural Ireland by stealth. There are so many things coming down the pike, attacking rural Ireland. It seems to me that there are people attacking rural Ireland who do not understand. It is grand to say it is peaty soils. There is silage being cut in place that could have been a bog three generations ago but now it is silage ground and is the best of ground. Where is the definition going to come in? How many farmers are going to be closed down? As for the farm organisations in Europe, Mr. Eddie Punch has been in contact with our colleagues in Europe. This thing cannot be let go through.
It is scandalous that we have a Minister who went out gung-ho and accepted this. He never spoken to us as a farm organisation. To my knowledge, the Minister has had no contact with the stakeholders. That is absolutely shocking given the implications for this country. There is €14 billion for administration but the farmers will do it voluntarily.
Honestly, this whole thing is crazy.
Mr. Vincent Roddy:
To answer Deputy Fitzmaurice, we will try to cover all of the questions if we can. Regarding the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the question on phase one, as Ms O'Sullivan said, our understanding would be the sectoral target in the LULUCF. We are looking at mapping and assessing peat soils. I know Teagasc is currently doing so also. This is a requirement under Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition, GAEC, 2. We had a big battle on that a year ago because, as Mr. Condon referred to, there were proposals at EU level under CAP to take away the agricultural activity on peat soils. I thank all of the members who supported that campaign. We got it turned around.
On the Life projects - I know there is a Burren Life project - there are some and they are very good. We were asked by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, to support an application for a Burren-like scheme, the one referred to, I think, in the west and north west. We were happy to support that because the Burren is quite popular. When we saw the detail of the proposal when it came out, we withdrew our support because, as was said, it talks about rewetting of peatlands and a number of other things. Although I know some farmers have done quite well out of it, the other big issue with that particular scheme is the proportion of money that goes to the scheme on administration and environmentalists, as opposed to the money that is going to the farmers. I think it is €25 million but I could be wrong. Out of €25 million in total, I think there is something like only €3 million or €4 million going to farmers. We have problems around that. I could be wrong on those exact figures.
On the 20% from the State, that is a big issue. If the State cannot-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What is Mr. Roddy's reading of that?
Mr. Vincent Roddy:
Our reading would be what we have seen in here. Perhaps Mr. Condon wants to come in on that. Our reading is that the 20% will cause major problems for us because if that is the 20%, then the 80% will have to be delivered from private land. It goes back to the point we made earlier about the 80%. This is about property rights as well. That is our read on that. Perhaps Mr. Condon wants to think about that and come in on it.
We were asked when we became aware of it. I think it was around early September. It has been in the pipeline a while when you look at everything else and at what is happening regarding crossland use and the GAEC, 2. A project was proposed by University of Galway around restoration of peatlands. That specifically mentioned the removal of CAP payment from people who do not rewet lands. This went out to Brussels at the time and would have been highlighted in some sectors. I tried to find it on my phone. We can share it with the members when we find it. While it came as a surprise in some respects, there has been development on this over the last two or three years, about which there is no doubt.
On whether we see a problem with this, in that it is down the road, the Deputy is right. Farmers are going to look at this and see that it is not going to affect them now, and that is a concern. It is a concern to try to motivate farmers and to recognise the real threat that there is. Against that, restoration is not something that happens by clicking your fingers. There is a lead-in time for that, so the fact that targets have been set is a clear problem. It is not just about 2030 and 2050. In order to deliver targets in 2030 and 2050, we are going to have to start implementing actions in a year or two years' time. Farmers are going to see that. That is the point we need to get out there. Perhaps Mr. Condon wants to say something.
Mr. Joe Condon:
To go back to Mr. Punch's point on Article 16, we believe there is a catch-22 in this. We believe that the law on rewetting of agricultural land will be a fact. The scientific evidence on rewetting of agricultural land is also a fact. According to an expert who gave evidence to this committee, emissions following the rewetting of formerly agricultural land can be very high and could persist for decades after rewetting. Based on this evidence, an NGO could take a case that its right to a clean environment under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is being impaired by rewetting and that such rewetting of agricultural land is not compliant with prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources under Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Based on those two facts, farmers could be before the courts if they rewet and if they do not rewet.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call Mr. Keane.
Mr. John Keane:
I will do my best to answer the questions asked. On Deputy Fitzmaurice's question around the land use change, I think we are in broad agreement about the procedures Ms O'Sullivan laid out and Mr. Enright spoke about. Similarly, none of the details around what is going to happen regarding that have been imparted to us as of yet.
On the Burren Life project the Deputy spoke about, we have supported EIPs and investigations on that. We also have some members involved but in terms of wider-scale support, we have not been involved.
On the impact of the 20% to achieve targets, our interpretation of that is quite black and white. It is very clear within the regulation which states that of the maximum area that is to be rewetted, up to a maximum of 20% can be achieved from peat extraction points. From our side, unless there is something to the contrary, it is fairly black and white that 20% can be taken from peat extraction points. Currently, with 80,000 ha under Bord na Móna, that does not even meet 20% of the overall amount of land they are speaking about. It is currently 352,000 ha.
We also have serious questions and concerns about Article 12, where it refers to the organic soil carbon content in all carbon soils and that it must have a positive trend. I am not sure how anybody proposes to do that, when we are currently only doing the research that can tell us how much organic carbon is stored in our soils. Teagasc has, I think, 15 or 20 different soil towers that are establishing that at the moment. I am not sure about the timeline. We have outlined in our document that there is talk of putting this into practice in 2024, to have plans in by the end of 2026 and to come into force in 2027. The research by Teagasc will not be completed on a large scale even by that stage. What are we basing the baseline measurement on?
The other question on the measurement implications is on the role other soils, aside from peatlands and so forth, will have in terms of reducing the impact on emissions and habitats. As was rightly pointed out, how can one be sure that a measure conducted by one farmer does not affect the land outside the ditch? The last time I checked and drained land at home, water did not know where the ditches were. If Mr. Hanrahan is doing something on his land, how does it not negatively impact on my land right as well?
On the restoration question, there are no other definitions or references given for what restoration looks like other than rewetting. That is the only measure mentioned in the entirety of the document. Where it breaks down is that we must have 30% of such areas done by 2030 and at least one quarter rewetted. We are going to have to rewet them all to meet that. That is the reality of it.
On the question of tick-tacking between us and other member states. We have engaged with our European young farmer partners in CEJA and are meeting them next week specifically on this. The Swedish, Finnish and Norwegians have serious concerns about this, as do some of our members in eastern European countries, as the implications for frozen soils also come into this. Obviously, that does not affect us but affects other EU members states.
Envisaging the problem down the line, while Mr. Hanrahan may be a bit younger than me, I have the luck of being one of the youngest members in the room. The Deputy may be trying to retire others in the room, but I hope to still be farming in 20 or 30 years' time. That is my ambition. Having the durability and persistence to stick it out is something we will need to have no matter who is sitting in the positions representing the organisations here today. Letting something like this slip through is simply not an option. All doors and accesses to agriculture must be kept open, no matter if they are in this habitats directive or in Bills before other groups proposing measures around access for young people.
We must all unite behind those to make sure all doors are left open for young people.
As regards the final question around the environment and what has been sent forward from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, our understanding is that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage also has a role to play here because the habitants and the biodiversity directives fit under the remit of the Department and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. We have not had any engagement or the Department has not reached out to us on any of these points and I am not sure whether any of the members know what engagement has gone on between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications or the Department responsible for implementing biodiversity measures which is the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We would love to know what measures and what communications have happened between those three different Departments.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputies Harkin, Nolan and Healy-Rae are next. I ask Deputies to keep their questions as brief as possible please.
Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the guests for their presentation. What we are talking about here is massive. Land use and land use change and, as Mr. Keane just said, it is not just the farms or the lands where it happens, but it is adjoining land as well. We can basically say we are looking at much of the country here. My questions arise from the countries that are objecting. What is our position? It is not just the Dáil that can object. The Seanad can object as well and it has a massive role to play here. We can object on the principle of subsidiarity so we need to look at that and at what is in the regulation and see how we can tie in one with the other. I have two questions. The first is around the timeframe for objecting. The committee members probably think I should know. Normally it is eight weeks from when the document is presented to the Council, etc. Can we get clarity about how long we have before these objections have to be in for what we call the yellow and the red card procedure? Have we missed the boat here? I certainly hope we have not but I would like to know the timeframe. If we cannot halt this project so it can be substantially revised or thrown out, which could happen, we then get to the point where there has to be agreement with the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and there are real opportunities to influence there. As Mr. Roddy mentioned, 70% of what was in the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, proposal from the Commission ended up in the final document and that generally tends to be the way. It is not without precedent that draft directives or regulations have been completely reversed and that is the kind of territory we are in here. There is much more I could say but I want to give others a change to get in.
I support what Senator Boyhan said about these being political decisions and we need to know where political parties and Government stand on this. Most of the people here will know I am quite pro-EU in many ways, and always have been, but when we are presented with something that looks to impact so significantly on land use and land use change, we cannot turn a blind eye. We have to have definite statements from those who are in a position to examine and investigate this regulation, look at its implications, etc., as to where they stand on it. I fully share Senator Boyhan's fears and concerns around this legislation.
If history has taught us anything, it is this. When we designated land before, I am old enough to remember the meetings where it was said there would be no designation without compensation. I attended those meetings. We now know where we are and what happened subsequently. What is the position of the relevant Ministers and the Government? What sort of timeframe do we have to object to this draft legislation?
Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am very concerned about the fact that there has not been any consultation with the farm organisations. This is extremely serious legislation, a very serious regulation, which could result in a potential land-grab so it is concerning. My constituents and the farm organisations in Laois-Offaly have been very proactive in highlighting this and the fact that the rewetting of peatlands is serious and it also takes away control from the landowner. Only today, the Chair hosted a good briefing on forestry and we all learnt about the importance of afforestation in meeting our climate action targets. We are currently behind with that and with meeting the 8,000 ha per year. That means we are now going to have to plant more forestry. These environmental NGOs are doing too much dictating and are being funded to the hilt by the taxpayer. I have called for them to be defunded because it is criminal that they are getting €5.2 billion of funding every year. Some of those taxpayers are farmers and they are the people these NGOs are punishing much of the time. I have made no bones about calling for these organisations to be looked at and overhauled.
You are talking away control from farmers. There is a need now more than ever for afforestation and a forestry policy and for more uptake on that. Again, it is the farmers choice, if they want to do that. These environmental groups cannot have it every way. My question is on the assessment and the need for analysis, which I fully support. It is ludicrous to do something without having the fundamental piece such as an assessment or analysis done in advance. Some member states have done that. That is great as at least some are showing leadership on this issue but have these states influenced the direction of agricultural policy? The reason I ask is that I was very disappointed to see that a KPMG report commissioned by the Irish Farmers' Journalon emissions - it was a particularly good report, I might add - was not taken on board. My concern is if this analysis is done in other member states, we need good examples and evidence of how it is going to influence agricultural policy. We need buy-in from rural Deputies and we need unity among rural Deputies and Government now more than ever. I will certainly work with any Deputy who is sensible and pragmatic but we need to make sure we get this right and resist any attempt to instigate a land grab. I will help in any way I can.
Mr. Keane referred to Sweden in terms of the analysis and the objections were also mentioned but I would like to see some evidence on how the agricultural policy was influenced. That is what we need to do in here. There are more than 12 Green Party Deputies in Leinster House and we need to see action. Much of the time, rural Deputies, whether Government or not, or those who are Independent like myself, are very much on the one page. We need unity and we need to resist this.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all the witnesses and the organisations here, especially Macra na Feirme. It is grand to see young farmers here who are concerned and who hope they can live out their lives farming. At one time it used to be a privilege, an honour and an advantage when the farm was given to the young fella that inherited the farm. It was an advantage for a long time but now it is a millstone around their necks. If they were to do what their fathers who handed it down to them, did, there is a fair weight on their shoulders to do the same thing in 30 or 40 years' time when they hand it down to their sons or daughters. That is the worry I have when you hear this kind of carry on about rewetting lands after farmers in our side of the country anyway, including myself, got grants to drain places. I broke my leg in a drain when a stone fell in on top of it, so I know what it is. I boil with temper when I hear all this carry on is going to happen. The result of this could be that farmers will be forced to carry this out. Like the young fellow said earlier, we will be wondering about what the next fella is doing. I could bring you to my own field. The upper part of the field might be drained to catch the water.
Where will the line be drawn? In fields like that, are we going to rip them asunder? Where we have been cutting silage for many years now, we will only have half the field left. It could be different on better land but I have to talk about my side of the country. I am on the other side of the hill from Mr. Kelleher. I took the presenter from Radio Kerry to an elevated point in Kilgarvan and I asked him what he made of what he could see. In places like Kilgarvan - it is replicated all around south Kerry, down into Ballingarry, which is north-west Cork, and over the other hill into south-west Cork - all you have are a few fields maybe in one corner of the place and the rest of it is all bushes, bog, rock and every kind of misfortune you could ever think of. There are places you could not even walk through. I asked him how much of that ground was being fertilised. Ground that is green is peaty ground. It is black ground as well call it. It is reclaimed ground. Where is the line going to be drawn here? Those fellas have enough land and are sequestering carbon already. It is like giving medicine to some fella before the doctor comes. We are not being told what we are already sequestering. Before we go one step further, that is what should happen. We should be told what we are sequestering.
We have fellas who will not let us cut hedges along the road. They say we are hurting the wildlife, the birds or whatever, but there is another side to the ditch. We are not insisting that the hedges have to be cut there. These are the kind of things-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----that are going on.
There has been no proper debate on this. All I am asking is that the people of Ireland be treated fairly. What I see in Kerry is replicated around the country in other counties. Every fella must look after his own. Whether Government or Opposition Deputies or Senators, we must all join together to ensure that fairness is meted out. We are all on the same page as far as helping the environment is concerned but we cannot blame the farmer or drive fellas down into borrows and ensure they will not have a livelihood. The likes of these young fellas will finish up emigrating or something. We must all fight this and we must ask for clarity. There must be a proper debate before we go any further in rewetting land-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----because we are going to hurt farmers. It will be the death-knell of rural Ireland and the rural places that I represent.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am grateful to the Chairman but we need to be honest with the people we are representing.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I call Deputy Flaherty.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the groups for coming in. I have been at other meetings but I have been dipping in and out and following proceedings. It is great to see unity among all the farm organisations on this. What has been unveiled today is very frightening. It is not just a rural issue. If this happens, it will have huge consequences for the whole of Ireland. We have had incessant rain in Dublin today and I would say there is not a provincial town in Ireland that has not been beset by flash floods today.
The very idea of thinking we could rewet 20% of the country and somehow cope with it is beyond all bounds. It has serious consequences for large towns and cities. If you look at our population, there are thousands of people coming into this country on a weekly basis and this has huge ramifications. God made the land but he only made a limited amount of it. This is something we have to look at very cautiously.
I was struck by one point in the ICSA's opening statement. It states that there is a view in government that this can be achieved on a voluntary basis with appropriate incentives. I am a Government Deputy and I refer people to the comments made by my colleague, the Chairman, Deputy Cahill, who referenced this issue in the Dáil today. He said it would be inconceivable to allow land on a family farm that has been built up over generations and that has been nurtured and cared for to be rewetted. For the people who listen in-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am glad someone was listening Deputy Flaherty.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is it. I always listen to the Chairman. Believe it or not, even though it is probably clashing with "Eastenders", there are a few boffins who listen to these committees. For people who are not from rural Ireland, it is very important to give some context.
The IFA stated an increase to more than 315,000 ha of peatland would require approximately 157,000 ha to be rewetted by 2050. That is the equivalent of two and a half times the amount of land we are farming in County Longford at the minute. It is extraordinary and we need to put it into context to let the non-farming public realise what is entailed. That is effectively rewetting County Longford. I know many of the wags on Twitter will say that might not be any harm but the people of Longford are very attached to their bogs and waterways. It is easy for someone at European level to think these things and that they are great ideas. There has to be unity among the rural Deputies - I agree with Deputy Nolan in this regard - whether they are in party, in government or Independent. I take my lead on agricultural matters from my colleague, Senator Paul Daly, and from the Chairman, Deputy Cahill. Let there be unanimity in the House. I come back to the point that there is not a view in Government that this can be achieved voluntarily. We will do everything to ensure that is the message that goes back Europe.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would be very hard to resist when we are all floating along.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would like to apologise. Like other Deputies and Senators, I was dipping in and out of a meeting. The economic impact this could have on our agricultural entities has not been quantified in so many ways. We are looking at the co-operative movements, the meat factories and all the way down to the merchants. If were to bring this forward, the 20% rewetting proposal, it would have a huge economic impact across the rural hinterland. A real study needs to be done on what that would mean for these entities, for us as a community, for us as a farming community and for west Cork and Longford. These rural entities would in so many ways be grossly affected. I do not know where one would go to quantify it.
The big thing here is that the majority of rural people and farmers did not realise this would affect the majority of farmers. They thought it would affect a minority of farmers. The majority are going to be tied into this. That will be the pinch point here. This is going to affect you, whether you are in dairy, beef, sheep or forestry. You are all in the circle here and you are all tied in, with the potential of anything up to 20% or more of your land being rewetted. What that would mean for you, as an entity, whether you are sustainably farming, is probably negative. It would probably mean that you will not be in a position to hand on your farm even though, like all of us, you try to build up your farm to move it on. You do not want to go backwards. That is probably where this measure is going to go.
We had a session last Wednesday. These sessions have been really informative for the general public. For the first time, the public realise what is being proposed here. Last week's session, in particular, gave an indication of what is on the table. People and farmers never thought it would come to this. We need to build on it and we need to get that message out there. The impact for rural Ireland and not just the farming community is unbelievable. We have co-operatives that have invested hundreds of millions of euro in stainless steel. Meat plants and merchants are going to be devastated if this happens.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are well over time. Could the witnesses give a brief summary of the five observations made? Deputy Harkin asked a question about the timeframe and the decision-making process. How up to speed are we with where the process is in Brussels?
It is possible to reverse these things in Brussels and, thankfully, countries besides ourselves are concerned. That is a good start.
Mr. Paul O'Brien:
I ask that Ms McEvoy answer one of the questions from Deputy Nolan. With regard to Deputy Harkin's question, as we understand it, the fact that Sweden has now written back to the Commission to reject the proposal will slow things down to a certain extent. However, all of the timelines have been spoken about and we believe the Commission is looking to have this finished by the end of 2023 when each member state is to go back with a two-year lead-in period for how it will enact this.
Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Twelve months means going through the Parliament and agreeing with the Council. There is an eight-week window to object from when the Commission comes forward with a proposal. Is that what matters here?
Mr. Paul O'Brien:
I am not able to answer the question about the eight-week period but, as I understand it, the fact is that the Commission is still looking towards the end of next year. As a result, Ireland will have two years to enact the policy, which will become law from 2026 or 2027 onwards. This is an ideal opportunity, however, for us to step back and reflect. This may answer the questions from Deputy Healy-Rae and Senator Lombard; it is not too late to do a full impact and financial assessment of how this will look for rural Ireland. The enormity of this cannot be understated. It is an opportunity for us all. I have not heard anybody in this room say anything other than that he or she believes these proposals are enormous and will have such an impact that we should all be able to put a green jersey on and work together as a Dáil and Seanad and as farming organisations to try to lessen the impact at farm level.
Deputy Flaherty asked where people would go if they left rural Ireland. We must consider the enormity of this. We are all trying to encourage another generation of farmers to come into and continue the business. However, if farmers do not believe there will be a future for them to do so, the options at that stage are to go to the big towns and cities and rural Ireland will decline as a result.
Ms Edel McEvoy:
With regard to the assessment and impact analysis of the other member states, Germany and Sweden have only start their assessments recently and they have seen that there is an impact on food security and timber production. However, given how recent the proposal is, it has not really had an opportunity to sway or influence agricultural policy yet.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
I will start at the end with Senator Lombard's question. His last comment was about the public realising what the proposal is today. Does the public realise what the economic effect will be? Can any of us fully establish the economic effect without an assessment being done? That would be challenging. Deputy Flaherty talked the effect that the proposal could have on large towns. Whether it is dairy or beef, it is processed adjacent to our rural towns, it is the backbone. In many cases, such processing is the primary employer within that town, the driver of the rural economy in the area and the spin-off for other activity. Deputy Healy-Rae may have been speaking of my generation when he said that one time it was a privilege to become the farmer whereas now it is a millstone around the farmer's neck.
We have to take seriously the results of the UCD survey on mental health within agriculture. While all of this debate is going on, we are talking about people's lives, livelihoods and homes and what they, their fathers and their grandfathers have worked for. With one flash of a biro, this could all be undermined for this generation or indeed for the generations to come. It is no wonder or surprise that the results were as they were. It is a sad state of affairs that among the issues, one was the way farmers were being spoken of in the public domain and the other was the legislation and bureaucracy to remain compliant with the various different hurdles that are put in front of us from an EU perspective.
I acknowledge Deputy Nolan's work with us in the ICMSA on the re-wetting of the Bord na Móna bogland and the effect on the surrounding areas. She is dead right about forestry and the 8,000 ha. That is a considerable aspiration and it becomes greater with this set of circumstances. My colleague, Mr. Enright, will deal with what Deputy Harkin said about the Parliament and the issues there but we certainly need to mobilise as a sector, a nation and a rural economy.
Mr. John Enright:
The Commission adopted its position on 23 June. Discussions are taking place with the Parliament and the Council at this stage. We can talk about doing an economic assessment here in Ireland and we need to insist that the Commission do that, because it introduced the farm to fork strategy without any economic assessment of the impact on rural communities of farmers. Our Government cannot let it away with that again. We will have to put the facts on the table with regard to what the implications are for people and rural communities. Our Government will have to insist on that at European level.
Mr. Dermot Kelleher:
I just wish to make a point to Deputy Healy-Rae and the rest of the politicians. This is a total attack on rural Ireland and moreover on disadvantaged areas in rural Ireland. Deputy Healy-Rae made a great point because 20% is a kind of a con job. I know one farmer who rewetted his land and the water would be up over the roofs of all the lads beside me before it would come to me. Lads on top of hill will drown everyone else around them. It is grand to say that we should wet so much of the land but one cannot wet a piece of a field or a piece of a farm. I know of land that has been improved over three, four or five generations. The land has been improved nearly as far back as the time of the Famine. We now have a Minister who will go to Europe and accept all of this. He needs to watch Bull McCabe a few times and memorise how seriously people take to land they have improved.
Mr. Eddie Punch:
With regard to Deputy Harkin's questions, the subsidiarity question is important. The EU has referred to this in its document and claims that subsidiarity can be set aside because biodiversity is such a transnational problem that it cannot be solved by subsidiarity. That should be challenged nonetheless because, while biodiversity is an international issue, it is different between each member state and having a one-size-fits-all strategy here has to be contested.
With regard to some of the decision-making process, as the Deputy knows well, there is a process whereby the European Parliament side of the decision-making has been handed to the ENVI committee in this case and that is significant because there are many people on the ENVI committee who are not sympathetic to Irish farming. We have representatives and substitutes on the committee but considerable work will have to be done there. On the one hand, one is off to a bad start if one starts in ENVI. On the other, it is on a working group which is linked to the Environment Council of ministers of the environment. That has many implications for how this will go.
Land use came up earlier on. This whole thing has become considerably complex. We have, on the one hand, climate targets that are totally focused on emissions and, on the other hand, the land-use change sector and the storage of carbon. It seems that much of the burden for tidying up the emissions of other sectors is now being visited down on landowners.
A lot of discussion must be had here about the extent to which farmers are getting the blame for the fossil fuel and energy sectors.
This is massively complex. I am not at all satisfied we as farm organisations have the resources to deal with this stuff coming at us. I am not entirely sure the Department of Agriculture has the resources to deal with it either. I was told by Department officials they thought some of these measures may be voluntary but who is going to volunteer to sign up for rewetting? There is also discussion, by the way, about carbon credits and there is work afoot in the EU to decide whether farmers can be given some financial reward for storing carbon, but this is a hugely complex and not widely understood area. It is quite obvious all the farm organisations here do not have the personnel and resources, and that is in contrast to the huge resources that seem to be available to the environmental lobby at an EU level.
Mr. Vincent Roddy:
I will make a few general comments. I am appreciate the comments that have been made by members. Deputy Harkin mentioned the 70% but she also said there have been cases where there has been a redraft and obviously we hope for that. Most of the other points have been covered so I am not going to stress them.
I have an observation on the back of a point Mr. Punch made. It relates to what Deputy Nolan said about NGOs. With Article 16 on access to justice we are creating the ultimate crank's charter and that is a real problem. Deputy Nolan is right when she says that they have unbelievable funding from the State. As Mr. Punch said, farming groups - not just us, but also community groups - are left bereft of funding. I am conscious as well of the McKenna judgment in the High Court around the divorce referendum, which called for equality of funding. We need to make two decisions. This committee does not have the power, unfortunately. We need to take away the funding from the NGOs, as suggested by Deputy Nolan, or we need to fund community groups and representative organisations equally. We must have fairness and we are not getting it at the moment. I will leave it at that.
Mr. John Keane:
Much has been covered. Deputy Harkin asked for our understanding of what is happening in this regard at EU level. I understand it is due by the end of 2023. It is going to follow a strategic process similar to the CAP strategic plans, namely, 24 months to form a plan, six months for observations by the Commission and then six months for Ireland to respond to any changes proposed at Commission level. We understand that the European Parliament agriculture committee has been asked to provide an opinion on it, but the rapporteur on that committee has not yet been appointed. There is obviously work to be done with Irish representation on that committee to ensure the voices from this room, the Oireachtas and other places are reflected in the contributions from that side of things.
Senator Lombard spoke about an economic assessment and an enhanced environmental assessment, which has been mentioned a number of times. We have question marks over what exactly is going to be measured in an enhanced environmental assessment. If there is no baseline for what the environmental footprint or outlook is on peatlands or organic soils now, what exactly is the baseline to be measured from? What improvement is going to be measured over the course of this period of time? Until an actual baseline is established, I am not sure what is being assessed.
On the question of an economic assessment, I return to some of the other points we made earlier. Article 12 of the regulation speaks about the content of the national restoration plans. There is an irony in here as well. Article 12(2)(m) refers to an indication that the content of the national restoration plans must give "an indication of the subsidies which negatively affect the achievement of the targets and the fulfilment of the obligations set out in this Regulation". From our understanding, that puts all payments that support any kind of production on farms at risk. Article 12(2)(n), irony of ironies, refers to "a summary of the process for preparing and establishing the national restoration plan, including information on public participation and of how the needs of local communities and stakeholders have been considered". Up to now, there has not been much consideration or assessment of what is going to impact on our communities or on rural people.
Deputies Fitzmaurice and Danny Healy-Rae and others spoke about the need to ensure there are young people left in rural areas. Many members of our organisation are from parts of the west of Ireland where other environmental measures have taken place, including large forestry plantations that are very important for the environment also. We are talking about a doubling-up of the impact of these measures on such communities. I cannot remember the last time a coniferous tree walked into a post office and posted a letter. Flooding bogs in these areas is going to have a huge impact on the social fabric in these communities as well. Our members in GAA clubs and many other clubs in these areas are finding it difficult to field teams at under-10, under-12 and under-14 levels. This is the reality of what is happening in these communities. As has been mentioned, measures like this will, at the stroke of a pen, impact on our rural communities. If all of these measures as currently proposed are brought forward, it will be a case of the last person out turning off the lights. Opportunities need to be created in the sector and not barriers.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank our guests. I have a few comments of my own and then I will close this session.
I strongly advise against going down the compensation route. This must be resisted. The compensation route is definitely a port of last resort. I have seen it before with designated land. We were promised good schemes for that land when it was designated and the funding dried up very quickly. As well as that, the capital value of the land has been completely destroyed. It probably has less than 20% of the capital value of undesignated land. It baffled me how it was allowed to happen at the time.
As a committee this is the second session we have had on this. An awful lot of questions have been raised in this meeting. We are all fairly ignorant of where this process is at and what we need to do to put the brakes on it and get a bit of common sense to prevail. The secretariat here will take away from what we have heard at the last two sessions. We will try to find out exactly where it is in the EU process, what exactly our Government's position is and where the decision-making is at as well. There is an onus on us in the Government parties to ensure we get accurate information to this committee quickly. As I said at the outset, we intend to devote a number of sessions to this. These proposed regulations from Brussels could have huge implications not just for rural Ireland but for our whole economy and we as a committee intend to put a lot of effort into getting a defence of Ireland's position put in place to ensure common sense prevails. We have seen it with the war in Ukraine and food security, and also with forestry security. We had a forestry briefing this morning. There is huge competition as it is for land for forestry. If this goes ahead as proposed, we can forget about the forestry industry in this country. It will be over. That is leaving aside the arable land they will be trying to foreclose on.
Our guests will be in this room again discussing these proposals. I thank them for their participation this evening. It was a very worthwhile discussion and it has briefed us well on where the farming organisations are coming from. I will now suspend the meeting to allow our guests to leave and then we will commence our second session.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Welcome back. There has been a change in Chair. There is a vote in the Dáil, so I am taking over for the time being. We have representatives here from the Irish Farmers’ Association, IFA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA and Macra na Feirme.
Before we go any further, I must read a note privilege so the witnesses are aware of where they are legally regarding this. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Since there are no witnesses outside the precinct, we will now move ahead.
We are resuming pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the veterinary medicinal products, medicated feed and fertilisers regulation Bill 2022. Due to time constraints, submissions will be read by members. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will go to members. I will move swiftly to Senator Paul Daly.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses to the second half of the meeting. Some of them have been here before and we have been dealing with this for the past two years. The committee did a report on the veterinary medicinal product side. The fertiliser regulations were added to the Bill and they are coming in together. From the veterinary medicine side, we did a report previously and even had some of the witnesses in previously.
We heard recently from the merchants, such as the Independent Licenced Merchants Association, ILMA, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, and the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU. The veterinarians are in next week and we have heard from the Department. Today, it is important for us to hear the farmer’s advice in how both parts of this Bill will ultimately affect the farmers and what changes they would like see, if possible, within the Bill.
I welcome all of the opening statements. Like everyone else who has been here previously, ourselves included, there is nobody arguing about the need to deal with antimicrobial or antiparasitic resistance. Everybody sees that and is well intentioned that this needs to be done. It is about the “how” - the most effective way to do so - without jeopardising farmers’ incomes and livelihoods. In particular, two issues seem to have come to the top of our agenda through our previous deliberations. From the veterinary medicine side, the word we are getting loud and clear from other witnesses we have had in previous weeks is that antiparasitics becoming prescription-only medicines could well be the death knell for the merchants, in particular, and many of the co-ops. Part of the ambition of the regulation would have been to enhance the availability of veterinary medicinal products, however, we are hearing it will actually have the opposite effect to that. Already with the antibiotic side of things, the merchants and co-ops will say that the prescriptions are not filtering through to them. We had people here who put on the record that their sales of intra-mammary are down 90% since they became prescription only.
It is important to hear the farmers' voice on that. A number of issues have come up, the most pressing of which is still outstanding. It relates to the fertiliser regulation part of the Bill. I refer to the Border issue and how that may be handled. The Border was also a strong player in our conversations on the veterinary medicines. The Border issue is linked with the burden on the farmer. We have heard the potential problems that could be faced by the pharmacists, the merchants, the co-ops, the vets and the Department officials. We want to hear how this Bill, if it goes through in its current format, will affect the farmers. What role have the representative bodies played to date? Have they had much or any consultation with the Department on either of the two topics included in the Bill? I think I have asked enough questions to keep the guests talking until the other members come back.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
In its current form, this Bill is overly complex and needs to be simplified. If you read through the fine print, you will see there is the potential for a farmer or a farm family to be fined up to €100,000 for a breach of it. That is a huge fine. Obviously, I fully endorse the Senator's comments as regards antimicrobial resistance and the need to move it on. We need to do this in a pragmatic way that will deliver for farm families and deliver opportunity. There needs to be common sense in the legislation. The prescription-only status of antiparasitics is a huge issue. Quite rightly, the licensed merchants were predominantly involved in the co-op movement. We know from discussions we have had with vets in various different parts of the country that they would be quite happy to see that arrangement stay in place, with the co-ops providing merchant credit, as it is termed. It can be an issue for farmers at different times of the year if they put in a bunch a cattle and want to dose them and go through that routine. It may be the date of slaughter before the cash flow would come. Many of the vets' practices are family businesses. They want to try to service their members' needs but at the same time they do not want to be carrying the can for the entire agricultural community within that. As regards what improvements we would like to see, there are significant practical issues relating to the veterinarian being the only one to issue the product. Such issues may arise in the spring if you arrive in the door of a large animal practice with two or three vets, and one of them is gone out doing a herd test and another is doing a Caesarean section. They have responsible persons who have issued those products in the past. We see no reason to change that. We believe that was working well and there is absolutely no reason to change. Geographical issues may arise if a co-op does not source a product going forward because there will be a huge issue with travel. A farmer who lives beside the local co-op could be 30 km, 40 km or 50 km away from their local vet. There are issues as regards location. There are other issues regarding putting the sticker on the label. Very often, the sticker that is put on covers the date or the withdrawal period. This can be a huge issue. I ask my colleague, Mr. Enright, to answer the Senator's question about the Border.
Mr. John Enright:
The Border is certainly an issue for the Department and for the trade. I am going to focus on something the Department has to give clarity on and deal with. When we look at the fertiliser regulation Bill from a farmer's perspective, our concern is that we are almost at a stage where there is forensic checking of what farmers are doing on the nitrates side. We have serious concerns about the direction that is being taken. A farmer who makes a very minor mistake could be excluded from the derogation and suffer penalties under the nitrates directive. We have made a number of very specific points in our submission. Most significantly, we have asked why a farmer needs to apply to be part of the register. All the talk about simplifying matters for farmers and giving them freedom to farm is the biggest joke of all time, to be quite honest. It is getting more and more difficult as we move forward. To give a simple example, why do I have to register to purchase fertiliser? When changes were brought in regarding pesticides, I did not have to register for that. I go into my co-op, give my herd number and get the pesticides required for my farm or whatever I need. We have made some specific points on that. Our big concern from the point of view of the register is around the sanctions to be placed on farmers who make minor errors. It is very easy to make a minor error in relation to fertiliser usage. If a farmer spreads an extra 10 kg of nitrogen in a year, as per the register, what are the sanctions going to be? There is huge frustration about issues like that. We heard earlier about the nature registration law. There is huge frustration about the raft of regulations being introduced. I will not go through the specifics of this matter because it is very detailed but if we are to make it as simple as possible for farmers, we have to address those issues. As I see it, we are setting up a structure that is quite complex. My real concern is that it will get more complex over time as we move forward. We need to get clarity and keep it simple for farmers. There should not be a need or a requirement to apply to be registered. The Department has all the details of every farmer - his name, address, herd number, cattle details and land details. Why in the name of God do we have to go and apply for this again? We need to keep it simpler. I will not go into the detail of the specific points we made in our submission at this time.
Mr. T.J. Maher:
As an organisation, the IFA is very much in favour of a targeted approach towards the reduction of use of antiparasitics in our farms. It is in our long-term interests as farmers and as in the interests of society as a whole. Certainly, we have played a leading role in that. It is critical in all this debate that this is to the forefront.
There is no doubt that there are some key issues, and they have been touched on by Mr. Enright and Mr. McCormack. The reality is that this proposal will have a severe impact on competition within the system. Effectively, we are going to be at the behest of one supplier. Regardless of the goodwill or otherwise of those suppliers, inevitably they have a monopoly and farmers will ultimately be the ones to lose out. We will also lose huge economic activity in the broader range of the sector in Ireland. There has been a growing tendency for corporates to take over veterinary practices around this country. In many cases, the prices are built on the goodwill of farmers. In effect, we now have a situation where outside bodies are looking at changing regulations and inflating valuations to be seen to benefit groups that are outside the agri-sector, for all we know. This is a huge concern in terms of the competition for these products for farmers in the future.
The two-tier supply system on the island of Ireland is an absolutely critical issue and cannot be overlooked. As somebody who has been the victim of fake and incorrect labelling on imported products, I believe this is an area of huge concern. It undermines the national effort not only to have a targeted and one-island approach to food production in Ireland and to medicine usage reduction across our State, but also to ensure we can stand over the quality of all our products. It is our clear view that prescription by qualified persons can be facilitated in the existing regulations. This would align both jurisdictions, in effect, and allow us to move forward with the one-island approach. That is absolutely crucial.
Outside of those issues, there are other issues within the Bill that are particularly significant for us. In terms of the national database in particular, farmers have real concerns that individual farmer data will be accessed and stored in a format that is currently not available. At this point in time, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine cannot use the data to flag herds for inspection but will they be able to hold this position in the future? We will be in a situation where farmers are being held accountable for the faults and failings of those who are prescribing. The reality in Ireland today is that farmers cannot access antibiotics unless they are prescribed to them by a third party who is suitably qualified and recognised by the Department. In this situation we have to ensure individual farmers' data are not going to be used against them.
In addition, we will have the development of a huge database under the national veterinary prescription system that could be sought for use by outside bodies for the surveillance of agriculture and our farms. The control and management of this database is a whole new area about which we are extremely concerned. In particular, when we look at the monopolies that exist outside our farm gates for the purchase of our products, it is very concerning for us.
Another issue with the Bill that is particularly pertinent is the whole enforcement issue. It is not appropriate that the legislation would provide a right of entry onto farmlands or farmers' premises without notification or warrant. It is certainly not something we envisage should be allowed as we move forward. The reality is that farms are also family homes. This approach cannot be accepted and must be deleted from the Bill for best use.
The other issue that is particularly important is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has responsibility to ensure compliance of prescribers and suppliers. It must ensure this Bill does not turn things on their head and lead to a situation whereby farmers are the ones taking the blame and responsibility for future inaccurate behaviour by the prescribers. We are very concerned about that for the future.
I will hand over to my colleague, Dr. Potterton, to discuss the fertiliser issue.
Dr. Max Potterton:
I have a few points to make regarding the proposals in the Bill for fertiliser regulation, the register and sales data. An exact definition of the terms "fertiliser product" and "fertiliser manufacturing" should be included in the Bill. The IFA does not consider it fair and reasonable to treat farmers as fertiliser importers if they buy or purchase fertiliser in Northern Ireland. We would like clarification as to whether, if farmers purchase fertilisers in Northern Ireland, they will be classified as fertiliser economic operators and professional end users at the same time. There must be flexibility for fertiliser economic operators, as they are referred to in the Bill, to use the fertiliser database to sell and transfer into the Republic of Ireland. There are several references in the scheme of the Bill to fines and sanctions in the event of fertiliser economic operators failing to meet their obligations. If they so fail, our view is that farmers must not be held accountable.
The requirement for the submission of fertiliser product details and quantities owned or held on a premises, either at regular intervals or even in real time, has the potential to become very onerous and overly demanding for farmers. The IFA has concerns about farmers who may not be technologically literate or good with IT. Many farmers already employ agents and consultants to fill out applications for payments and schemes on agfood.ieand this will likely extend to the fertiliser database as well. It will increase administrative costs with little or no direct economic return for farmers. The statistical returns into the database should be kept to a minimum and should take place within the closed spreading period and away from any major farm payment scheme deadlines. Further clarifications are needed on what additional details may be required at a future time for submission to the database by professional fertiliser users.
Moving to the processing of information, it is clearly stated that the use of information compiled in the database is to inform policy and control programmes and reduce inorganic fertiliser use. The IFA is concerned that 2023 will be used as a baseline or reference year to inform this decision-making. The unprecedented increase in fertiliser prices and widespread predictions of more restricted use and availability in 2023 must be taken into account by the Minister and his officials.
There must be clarification regarding the anonymised data that could be submitted to third parties from the database.
My final point relates to the serving of notifications and notice periods. Should an inspection of a premises be required in respect of fertiliser, sufficient notice must be provided by officials and entry must be strictly by arrangement only.
Ms Anna Daly:
I thank Senator Paul Daly for his questions. He asked what role farm organisations have been playing in regard to regulation. Since 2015, the IFA has identified the key areas of concern with the regulations as being categorisation, supply routes, the prescribing process and access to antibiotics. We have continually raised those concerns with the Minister, MEPs and senior Department officials, yet we are still here having to deal with them in this Bill.
Mr. John Keane:
I will try to address some of the issues that were raised. Regarding the scope of the Bill and its provisions on veterinary medicines, the number one issue we see concerns the implications around the data that are created, who has access to them and for what purposes. There is reference in the scheme of the Bill to access to the database being given to "such other persons specified by the Minister". As we are aware from the conversation we have had since 5.30 p.m., there is a concern this may include various interest groups with non-relevant knowledge of the sector. The information and data contained within the database could be used against farmers in respect of what they have been doing with veterinary prescriptions and veterinary medicines.
There is an omission in the scheme of the Bill. It mentions sharing data with the likes of Bord Bia for the purposes of inspections relating to that body's quality assurance schemes. However, no consideration is given as to what the implications or consequences might be for failure to comply. Is it Bord Bia that will enforce those requirements or will they be enforced through the regulation itself? There are similar concerns regarding the effort to move the sector forward in terms of improving the overall health of our herd, which Macra na Feirme has supported for many years and continues to support in the context of this Bill, in order to reduce our dependence on, and usage of, certain medicines. However, there is no mention within the scheme of sharing relevant information with our national health bodies, whether that be the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, which is developing genetic testing to improve the genetics of the herd, which is a measurable trait genetically verified within our economic breeding index, EBI, and also within the indexes of beef, or the Animal Health Ireland programme, which is charged with reducing the incidence and occurrence of disease within animals. There is an omission in terms of requirements for sharing these types of data.
The second point raised was around market competition. There is concern about the burden that is being placed on veterinary practitioners. A lot of practices around the country are quite small, particularly in rural areas. Many of our members have noted that veterinary practitioners in some areas now have limited staff who work only certain hours. We all recognise, however, that farming operates on a 24-hour basis. The increased burden that is going to come on those practices in regard to labelling, premises-keeping and record-keeping will be a significant additional time requirement. The overall context to keep in mind when we speak about vets and the supply of large-animal vets into the sector is that there are about 75 vets trained in Ireland annually in the one veterinary medical school we have in the country. We must bear in mind the age profile of the vets we currently have. The number who are leaving the sector due to retirement or because they are entering into small-animal practices for various reasons is in the region of 250 to 300. At the moment, we are exporting people and then importing back the education they have received abroad for four to five years. There is significant work to do in that regard, similar to the generation renewal point we have made many time in respect of farms. There is a significant issue that must be addressed in terms of providing places for veterinary practitioners in more than one veterinary college in the country.
The issue of parasite control was raised and the question of the duration of prescriptions for parasites and also for antibiotics. There is ambiguity as to what should happen in the case of an outbreak of a disease such as cryptosporidiosis, for example, in a dairy or beef herd in springtime. When there is such an outbreak, as we know, all the animals within the group must be treated, whether or not they are showing symptoms, because the likelihood is they are all going to be infected.
What would be the application of this proposed Bill regarding the outbreak of a disease like that in a group of animals where the likelihood is that they would all become infected over time? That is the example relating to cryptosporidiosis.
In terms of the general scheme, it is noted that everybody taking part in 2023 must voluntarily register. A number of users of fertilisers are not herd owners, herd keepers or landowners. They include parks and GAA facilities. What is the proposition for dealing with those small-scale users? We have exemptions for small-scale users of pesticides and herbicides. What is the proposal here in terms of the proposed Bill?
In terms of the fertiliser Bill being used as a baseline to monitor sales and potentially reduce fertiliser usage over time, we are in a period of high input prices and high fertiliser prices. This year is an example. I hear many stakeholders and many people working in the sector championing this year as being a year in which fertiliser sales will reduce. We obviously support the reliance on that but looking at PastureBase Ireland figures, the average tonnage and across hectares on farms on PastureBase is down between 1.5 tonnes and 1.7 tonnes, which, depending on the farm in which you are operating, is a 12% to 18% reduction of annual tonnage grown. If you are at optimisation of that, that is a 12% to 18% reduction of your livestock on that farm.
In terms of enforcement and creating baselines, it is important to recognise where we have been historically in the context of the baseline established under existing Acts with regard to environmental assessments. Other environmental targets are set on the baseline of 2018.
Mr. Hugh Farrell:
I thank Senator Paul Daly for his questions. I will start at the Border. I live only five minutes from the Border, so I know a lot about that end of things. It is just as unrealistic to think that we can have one law on one side of the Border where they can trade with freedom in whatever warehouse, store or merchant's they choose with no problems, while there are restrictions on the other side of the Border a few miles up the road and it can only be done through vets. This is discrimination against the trade. Take a responsible person such a pharmacist. These people have put in years in training and education to get this far. People put time and money towards this and suddenly it takes a note to destroy their livelihood. This happened with special needs assistants. I do not think there were too many pupils in the school the next day and there was a bit of standstill in the country. We are being treated as the quiet people and it will have to be pushed on us. Farmers are going to suffer as a result of this. The Border is a major issue. We have a problem with cross-Border trading. The biggest issues here is the availability, competition and price, the number of people it will take out of the areas. Communities are dying because people have to travel miles. As Mr. McCormack mentioned, a vet is unavailable when you get there. You might have a bit of help the day you want to do something. That is where the problem lies. Licensed merchants, pharmacists and relevant people in the business are vital parts of it for us as farmers and they must be retained. Otherwise we will end up with animal welfare problems and they will not come from overdosing; rather, they will come from under-dosing.
The studies we brought to the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, were based on a small number of farms. If it wants to do something practical or relevant and maybe go forward with this, for example, dung sampling, that can be done to get a feel for what is happening nationally and not just on a couple of farms. We know how relevant this is and that it is not an issue in many cases. This is a significant thing to go forward.
This proposal has been in front of us for the past number of years. We have met the Department on different occasions. We get so far and then it stops. It is pushed back. Within the past month or two before the new reset date, we will be called again to a meeting. This is not working. Stakeholders are not being treated properly. It is time for the Department to make the decision to continue as we are under what is proposed, go forward and retain the ability of licensed merchants and pharmacists to prescribe and dispense drugs and dosing remedies to us because that is the only we can move forward with this. That has always been the ICSA position on this. We are talking about rural Ireland and a lot of small farmers. It is alright for the big farmers and possibly the multiples but when you are talking about 20 or 30 farms to make up the numbers, we must consider that. We are going to look at areas being locked out. This is of no benefit to any of us so we must move forward on that end of it.
Mr. Eddie Punch:
We have concerns about the database in terms of veterinary medicines. The general scheme lists a range of different bodies that may have access to it, including Bord Bia. Not every farmer is a member of a quality assurance scheme. The Data Protection Commissioner should be asked for a view about whether it is appropriate that there can be such access to this database. We are creating a fertiliser register as well. Equally, we must be careful that care is taken and that there is no access to this information for anybody who should not have it.
Under Part 3 of the general scheme, which concerns enforcement, quite draconian powers are given to Department officials to enter premises and so on. We have a major concern about that because the sad fact is that there have been horror stories in the past with family homes being entered. We must be very careful that enforcement is proportionate to the risk.
The key point is that we want competition. The Department has been trying to say that veterinary practices can issue prescriptions and other outlets can supply or dispense but we still do not have a real working model regarding how that would work in practice. That is the issue. Reference is made to the human medicines scenario. I do not think it is exactly comparable. Ivermectin is a key example. Because there is such competition, that product has become relatively inexpensive. We know that many years ago, Irish farmers were paying a multiple of what farmers in other jurisdictions were paying for this. Competition has been key in bringing the prices down. However, there is not just competition between the retail outlets, vets, licensed merchants and co-operatives. There is competition between suppliers of the product. We would be concerned that this could be decimated. If you go to a veterinary practice, a cheap ivermectin from one company is available. If you go to a co-operative, a couple of other companies are supplying another type of ivermectin product, so we have competition not just between the retailers but also between the suppliers.
If we disrupt that model, we potentially take a lot of those other suppliers out of the market because the veterinary practice only deals with one particular pharma company. That is a key issue.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there concerns about the movement of animal medicines across the Border? In the line of competition, did any of the organisations write to the competition authority about the way they are promoting it at the moment. What is the witnesses' view? Every one of them has interaction with the Department. What is their read on it? We understood it was progressing well until probably a week ago. We heard there was legal opinion there for them. We heard it was there for a week and then we heard it was there for four or five weeks, even though we were told in here it was a week. We heard the brakes were put on internally in the Department by a few. Is that what the witnesses read into it? We have made our views clear. Where do the witnesses see this going as representatives of farming organisations?
On fertiliser, the witnesses have touched on the northern side of it.
Going back to the animal medicines, we would be for the trained person still being able to do it, simple as that. A few of us encountered a thing you can get on your phone. VetPal was the name of it, was it Chairman?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
An app on your phone, yes.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thought it was a great idea. Did any of the witnesses come across that yet? I do not know where the veterinary bodies are on that. They might or might not like it. We will hear that next week. The Department is not doing a lot about it yet. These are things that could help resolve issues. Did the witnesses hear anything on that?
The witnesses talked about next year being a reference year on fertilisers. Is that what they are getting from the Department? Will fertiliser be gettable next year? That is the first thing, before we do a reference on anything. What are their views from talking to different bodies about that? Are they for a fertiliser register or opposed to it?
Mr. T.J. Maher:
I thank the Deputy. As we have outlined, the whole area of the cross-Border two-phase implementation of this process undermines, as we see it, the ability of the country to proceed with an all-island approach to reduction of antiparasitic and antibiotic usage and undermines the whole food island concept. It will be crucial, through the combination of the Northern Ireland protocol, that we operate in one system to ensure we do not have a Border. Let us be honest about it: there will not be a Border. Deputy Carthy has plenty of cousins in the North of Ireland, the same as every person along the Border, who will have the opportunity to purchase products at a different rate. It will totally undermine the position of the farmer in this country. It cannot be allowed to proceed without uniformity across the State.
The national veterinary prescription system, NVPS, is a critical piece of national legislation that we need to implement to comply with animal health law in Europe. We need that recording capacity to protect us as farmers and highlight the fact that Ireland has low antibiotic usage on farms and monitors and records reduction in our anti-emetic use going forward. At the moment we are exposed without that because we do not have clear trade patterns to identify opportunities to promote our country as a low-usage antibiotic system. The weakness we have is that we are eight weeks from its supposed relaunch and have not been presented with the updated system that was shelved for six months to allow further clarification of the system and allow it to work on farms.
The key issue for us is that the farmer should have the right to take a prescription and fill it where he wishes and to ensure that, where there are multiple prescriptions, the supplier of any of those pieces of medicine can only have visibility of that prescription, not of all his prescription, because that weakens his position in the supply chain. If, for the sake of argument, I want to buy my antiemetics from my local co-op, naturally I have to buy my antibiotics from my vet and want to get my vaccinations from another outlet, I have to be in a position to separate those out and trade as I normally have done, while retaining the advantage of recording those. This will be a critical piece of infrastructure for us but it has to operate in a manner which retains competition in the system and protects the right of the farmer to choose his supplier.
Another issue in terms of that data which has been highlighted on numerous occasions is that as farmers we are becoming very aware that we are the source of valuable data. Our food is essentially feeding many parts of the world. The control and management of that to respect the rights and production of the farmer is crucial to ensure we can control that in future.
On the vacuum in terms of legal opinion which the Deputy has indicated may or may not be there, we are running to a cliff edge. To be fair to the suppliers in the market, other than the vets at this stage, they are running into a situation where they have to ask whether they stock or not. It is completely unfair for those businesses to be operating in those circumstances. We believe that a trained, qualified person, as indicated by the HPRA report, requires a multifaceted approach and multi-supplier level to deal with the issue going forward.
Dr. Max Potterton:
I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice. While it has not been explicitly stated by the Department, in the draft Bill it clearly says it is to inform policy and achieve a reduction in organic fertiliser. There would have to be concerns about how much the reduction would be. The database creates a valuable well of information in that regard.
In respect of fertiliser availability, it will be challenged but it likely will be available. The slight decline in gas prices this week across Europe gives a little bit more hope about European manufacturing of fertiliser, which has been heavily hit in recent weeks.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
The Deputy spoke about the legal opinion. The timing of his information or ripple-effect information is similar to ours. The cross-Border is an issue. If you turn right going out the gate and arrive into freedom to trade or turn left into complex issues, that would have to be addressed. In the past, brucellosis was a hugely challenging issue in this country and it took an all-island approach. From a BVD-eradication perspective, it will be something similar. As Mr. Maher alluded to, our product is sold around the globe in significant proportions and we need to be in a position to stand over what we have and do.
The Deputy mentioned the trained persons. In response to Senator Paul Daly's question, I said it is imperative that the trained responsible operators and veterinary practitioners are in a position to dispense drugs. For example, at the busy time of the year, if there is a Caesarian, a herd test and two veterinaries out on call, it may not be feasible for the farmer to come back in four or five hours. As we move forward, therefore, that is imperative.
The Deputy referred to the availability of fertiliser. Industry sources indicated to us with some confidence that it will be available up to and including the spreading of first-round silage. In 2022, we saw panic and inflation set in and we saw where the profits went. There was a threefold profit increase along the supply chain, which was hugely frustrating given that farmers were paying at an all-time high. That is the last thing we want as we head into 2023.
The Deputy asked a question about 2023 becoming a reference year. The indications to me, as someone who is involved in the Food Vision 2030 dairy group and the beef and lamb group, is that all the talk is about using 2018 at a national level. I suspect there will not be a reference year for individuals but that it will be linked to the available area of land and stocking density as we move forward. I fear that, yet again, we will see an imposition on farmers of the requirement for a fertiliser plan, which would cost them significant sums irrespective of their scale. I issue that word of caution to Deputy Fitzmaurice to be vigilant for that. I do not see 2023 being the reference year. I see 2018 being the year in overall use. It will depend on terms and conditions after that and farming intensity and level.
Mr. John Enright:
Deputy Fitzmaurice asked if we want a fertiliser register. We had discussions with the committee some weeks ago on the new nitrates action programme and the nitrates derogation. There are legal limits on the amount of nitrogen we can use on our farms. A fertiliser register is just another piece of red tape and bureaucracy for farmers and another hurdle I will have to jump as a farmer. It is a significant concern for farmers from the point of view of penalties, sanctions, etc., and another headache.
From our perspective, we have legal requirements. The vast majority of farmers are meeting those requirements but, unfortunately, the European Commission and the Department have said it is a necessary requirement. It is a bit like the nature restoration law. It is another issue and another cost and headache for farmers.
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the questions, many of which have been covered. I will not restate some of the points that have been made. On the cross-Border question, this is a major issue in regard to the operating of the market on both sides of the Border to undermine the system of trade that operates on the island. It will be a significant issue, not only for farmers and those operating in the Border counties. It will also have wider implications for costs and trade within the island. It is mentioned in the Bill that fertiliser is recorded at the point of dispatch but there is nothing to say, in terms of measuring that, when it comes across the Border into a farmer's yard.
In terms of enforcement, a farmer may be using the market tools at his or her disposal to get the product at the cheapest price possible. At the point of inspection halfway through the year or in a spot inspection later on in the year, the farmer, who has access to the market on a cross-Border basis, may not have registration documentation for some of the fertiliser used. Where would that leave the farmer in the context of meeting the requirements of the inspection and also the enforcement? With the stricter rules under the nitrates derogation, that also raises the question as to whether farmers who may be involved would essentially lose their derogation given how strict this is.
On medicines, we have received opinions and information similar to the Deputy received in relation to the legal opinion the Department has obtained. We are unsure, obviously, what is contained in that but we recognise that the brakes have definitely been put on the development implication and the procedure that was highlighted to us earlier in the summer as to the steps that would be conducted before 1 January. At this stage, a database must be established that is capable of registering this information. Similarly, suppliers in the market must, as has been highlighted, have product on the shelf for farmers as well.
We are aware of the development of the app the Deputy spoke about. We are aware of similar apps that have evolved and been implemented in other markets across the EU and have worked effectively. There is, however, a role for the Department in terms of certification and validation of any and every form of app that would be used with regard to prescriptions, etc. We are unsure as to the timeframe in which something like that may become effective or deliver for farmers. We would welcome any opportunity for that to be developed if it makes the administrative burden on farmers any easier.
On the availability of fertiliser for next year, what we have heard is similar to what Mr. McCormack described. We have significant concerns about the availability of phosphorus, P, and potassium, K, fertiliser. The breakdown in terms of the fertiliser make-up could have on-farm implications as well for farmers who are operating within derogation but also outside of derogation, given that some straights may not be available. Obviously, farmers using more compound fertilisers will reach their ceilings much quicker than they would if they were using straight fertilisers. That must be taken into consideration in the context of the derogation as well.
The progress we should be trying to make on antimicrobial resistance, etc., will depend on the capability of our analysis to keep up with the demand farmers may have for identification, whether of antimicrobials or any disease risk that might come on farm. We will need significant laboratory analysis to identify the issues. We have seen a lack of investment and the attitude of the Department has been to significantly under-resource that sector in terms of forage and laboratory analysis. We have been looking for increased funding for forage and laboratory analysis for farmers to drive demand for six or seven years, during which there has not been any increased support from the Department. That support will be needed if farmers are required to test for worm or egg burdens for parasites for anthelmics. Investment will be needed to support the roll-out of any such measures as well.
Mr. Hugh Farrell:
I will start on the issue of fertiliser and then address availability. We are hearing that fertiliser will be available and there are stocks due to underselling this year with the way the pricing was. It is affordability we should be looking at for some farmers, especially in the beef and the suckler end. That is a big issue.
The amount spread has already slowed production in the past year. Recording it is a mystery exercise, as far as we are concerned. We need to be reducing bureaucracy and paperwork rather than creating them.
As far as medicine is concerned, we have no more information than the other speakers and members, which is disappointing. We should have been meeting on a more regular basis to be updated on these issues but we were not given the opportunity. It is just presumed a decision will be made and we will be told this is it and be expected to row in. That will not happen and has not happened. The ICSA and all farmers stand firm in that belief.
We must look at this in another way. If the right decisions had been made some years ago and derogation had to be applied for, we would not be in this position. That is the problem with us. Northern Ireland, which is only across the road from me, has a derogation and farmers there can work away. There has been a failure by the Department to seek a derogation. We saw it with harvesting the bogs. Nobody is taking responsibility for that and nobody else is being penalised on those grounds but it is coming back to penalise farmers.
We need to look at that one. We want the Department to come forward. It is down to a small number holding it back at this stage. It cannot hold everyone to ransom. We have been fair at all times and co-operated through all discussions and meetings to bring it forward. Our industry needs to be looked after. We also need to look after the suppliers of our product because they are part of it. There are available dates, as I said earlier.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am conscious of the time and I am conscious that every conceivable question has probably been asked. In respect of the fertiliser regulation, we have had the interactions previously. While I cannot speak for everyone, the view of this committee is that while the principle of the regulation is good, it is unworkable because of the Border. The witnesses have outlined the challenges that that will present, as Mr. Farrell will know well, in the Border region where in many instances a farmer's closest merchant may be on the opposite side of the Border. That applies equally to people on both sides. There are potential implications for a farmer who does not know the detail of the regulation and happens to buy a trailer-load of fertiliser in one place without realising that that places an obligation on them. I believe that is unworkable. We will convey that message. Do the witnesses have other concerns with the regulation outside that?
Without going into all the difficulties, we have had much discussion on the implications for the licensed merchant sector and the co-ops in respect of the veterinary medical aspect of the legislation. Have the members of the organisations represented here relayed their concerns? They have a particular interest in their own livelihoods and futures. Up to now the responsible person and not just the vets themselves had the opportunity to dispense. Is that important to the members of the organisations represented here?
I ask for more detail on the data protection concerns, particularly the sharing of data with Bord Bia and the quality assurance audits. We may need to engage with Bord Bia to try to get clarification.
Mr. T.J. Maher:
I will take the medicine questions. Our members are extremely concerned because they do not want to buy more antiparasitics. As I said at the start, the crucial factor for us is to be able to access them at the right time, in the right amount, at the right price. That is the key issue. If three suppliers are removed from the network leaving only one, ultimately our farmers are aware that they will be at the bottom of the food chain and totally exposed. That is a key concern that cannot be ignored. There is absolute evidence that this will certainly place us in a weaker position in the purchase of antibiotics.
As outlined previously, only a limited number of suppliers operate in the country. Ultimately, we are concentrating the power in a smaller number of bodies supplying a smaller number of suppliers back to us. Ultimately, farmers will be the losers because we will have to pay for it. While the Department's efforts to have a broader approach to dealing with this might be well meaning, changing the address of where one buys the antiemetic does nothing for the reduction and more accurate use of these antiemetics and antiparasitics. As we have continually stressed, modern technology and science is moving quickly. Multiple companies are now supplying quick-test faecal egg worm-counter machines that can provide results in ten to 15 minutes for suitably qualified persons to read them.
We appreciate that all bodies will need to step up to the plate. Money will need to be spent to ensure proper service is provided to ensure a better and more accurate use of the products we have so that we can retain them and ensure they remain effective. It is in our interest not to overuse but to use properly. Everybody accepts that we are moving to new world and things cannot operate as they operated in the past. Things will need to be done differently because we now have greater controls on us and we will need to be seen to be doing the right thing. That is absolutely in farmers' interests. We are clear that a practical solution recognising the professionalism of all parties, farmers, vets, licensed merchants and pharmacies, can be worked out on this. However, there needs to be respect for all people involved.
Dr. Max Potterton:
There is concern among the membership regarding the extra administration this will place on farmers. In respect of purchasing fertiliser in the North, there is an onus on the Department to make farmers aware of the regulatory obligations they may have to declare this. We have concerns about older farmers needing to do more administrative work online. While it has largely gone this way with farm scheme payments, this is another thing with no direct economic benefit. It is another thing for agents to comply with. It also puts further pressure on consultants and agents.
Ms Anna Daly:
It is interesting that the Deputy used the word "choice". Effectively reducing the competition will put the viability of licensed merchants and veterinary pharmacies at risk, which will ultimately reduce the choice farmers have when purchasing these products. Farmers are the end users of these products and if the choice is not there the competition is severely affected.
On the NVPS and the data concerned, the Deputy specifically mentioned Bord Bia, but I wish to come in on some of the other points. Given the potential for the Department to have access to all this information, it could be used to flag herds for inspection, which would be a major concern. Data could also be requested by, for example, milk processors or meat processors. It could be used to categorise herds and, ultimately, devalue the products that farmers are supplying. That is obviously a massive concern for farmers and should not be disregarded when considering the sharing of data as proposed in the Bill.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
The Deputy asked about our members. Other stakeholders who appeared before the committee said it could be a loss of earnings for them. In many cases, the other stakeholders are either co-ops or pharmacies. Not near as much is going through the pharmacy as was the case. Given the age profile of farmers with more over 75 than under 35, some of them would be calling to the pharmacy anyway.
There is a convenience element to it. That is just one point.
I pointed out earlier in response to Senator Paul Daly that the majority of farmers are shareholders in co-ops. They run accounts in them. Vets, in many cases, are family-run operations. It is very hard for them to provide the level of credit that may be required if someone is putting in a shed of cattle, dosing them and feeding them to finish. There is a better chance of getting that credit from the co-op. That also creates competition. One of the witnesses behind me alluded to this, and maybe it was meant with no offence. He said that from now on this will deliver and we will have to do what we should be doing. It is my belief that since 2012, and the introduction of the dairy audits and the beef audits before that year, we have had great traceability from an animal medicines perspective. When the audit in its entirety is put together, and fertiliser usage and so on is put in place, we have a unique selling point, which is used by Ornua and Bord Bia. That must be built upon but it should be done in a practical way that is not going to eliminate or reduce the result for the farmer.
Regarding the audits, it was said that the information would be available to Bord Bia. If an audit and inspection is done of my farm every 18 months, that is my information and it should require my permission to use those data going forward. That is critical.
On fertiliser, our herd numbers are linked to the animal identification and movement, AIM, system and the single farm payment. That should be the level of bureaucracy required to purchase fertiliser, rather than this notion of having to register as a purchaser and a user and all that. All that should be required is the herd number, which is linked to the stock and the area farmed. It should be made straightforward to reduce the complexity. In the earlier session I talked about the mental health of farmers. This is not going to do anything to improve that survey result.
Mr. John Enright:
To follow on from Mr. McCormack's comment, we do not want a situation next spring where farmers are looking to buy fertiliser and are told they are not registered. It would be ridiculous. Our understanding is that the Department already has all the information it requires about farmers. Why require them to apply to the register? We are really complicating things here and creating more headaches for farmers. The sanctions must be clarified as well.
Mr. John Keane:
The main question was around the issues for farmers as opposed to the merchants and so forth. The number one issue that has come back from our members is market competition, as Mr. Maher touched on. The number of suppliers within the market may become diminished as a result of this. Mr. McCormack touched on the local merchant, which is convenient, as well as the ability to avail of credit. There are certain times of year when there is a strong demand for supports for animal health measures on farms, which do not necessarily coincide with times of year when cash flow is strong. The availability of additional credit through a merchant is something a lot of farmers welcome.
The other aspect that has been raised is data sharing. The ownership of those data and the freedom the Minister has to administer the database and share it with whoever he or she sees fit to share it with is a major obstacle for our members moving forward, given the interested parties that may require or request access to the data. Some of that has been touched on as well.
Another issue is access to antibiotics in a timely manner. Farmers will know that access to intervention in case of disease is one of the most important things in determining the outcome of the disease. Timely access to medication is important. We understand that prescription medicines and antibiotics have a five-day period in which the prescription falls due. Let us take, for example, a cow that comes in with mastitis on a Sunday morning and the farmer is without a prescription. I am not sure how many vets would thank the few hundred farmers, or even a few thousand, who would be ringing them every Sunday morning looking for a prescription for mastitis tubes. There must be some workaround to facilitate that within the Bill. A point was made before about the timeframe within which this is going to be implemented. Farmers have little understanding about what direct implication this is going to have and little knowledge is being shared with them on it.
Mr. Eddie Punch:
The data protection issue needs to be looked at by the Data Protection Commissioner. As I said, some people are not members of Bord Bia schemes so why should their information not be protected? It has been custom and practice that quality assurance inspectors have had access to this information from veterinary practices but it is timely, when looking at a new Bill, to question whether that is, in fact, compatible with data protection regulations. Aside from that, when creating a new database we should question whether it can be used for purposes for which it was not originally intended. It was mentioned with regard to flagging herds for inspections. There is a whole area here where it has been assumed the Department has power to use and take advantage of data and information that have been collected. I am not sure it would stand up to scrutiny in other sectors. I might be wrong but, on the other hand, if we are talking about a new Bill, we should have a bit of clarity around this. Farmers at some levels are concerned about access to product. There is some awareness of it with fertiliser but there are equally a lot of farmers who are not aware that they are expected to have the information about what fertiliser stocks they have on hand on 1 January, or about the requirement to tell the Department what they have left over at the end of this year. There is a job to be done there in informing people.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will be brief as we have been this for three and a half hours. I compliment the five farming organisations. This is our third session examining this issue. Nearly everything has been said and today has been positive. The information we have been given is practical and also gives an indication of where we need to go in making sure this Bill is workable. The terminology used by the Data Protection Commissioner, Ms Helen Dixon, and the role she might play, is something that is new to the debate, without a shadow of a doubt. That is something this committee will probably go back and look at on some level. There are data here. The Data Protection Commissioner has exceptional powers, is well able and does exceptional work. We should ask her view on the Bill. The level of information required in the Bill and where the information goes is something that is new to the table. That is an issue we will take on board, given what we have seen here.
We should also engage with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to make sure there is competition in the marketplace. We have previously seen issues with veterinary practices that were going to be moved on, particularly in the UK, but the competition commission stepped in in the past few months to make sure there is competition in the market. Competition is an important part of what this is about. We need to make sure we have competition not alone at the primary level but also at wholesale level, so farmers can have the opportunity to purchase appropriate products.
The timelines are also a huge issue, not just for the farming community but also for the advising community that is involved here. There is a significant body of work in making sure all the farming community are tied into this scheme in an appropriate timeline. I am genuinely concerned about whether that will be appropriate. All the questions have probably been well answered so I will pass on to other members. After three and a half hours, we have some good information but we probably need to go back and look at how we are going to move it forward. The data question in particular is one that has to be answered. It is up to this committee how we will move that forward.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am very concerned about this fertiliser register. Many farmers in my area are seriously concerned because they need fertiliser to maintain the level of stocking they have today. Without it, there will be a reduction in their herds. It again looks like we are going backwards. We will be in the same situation we were in during the early 1970s, when everyone knew how many cows the grass in different areas could sustain. One person's grass might be enough for seven cows while another person with a great farm could provide for 17. We are going backwards. Farmers did what An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, ACOT, and other farming agencies told them to in the 1970s and increased their stocking rates. That is what they are trying to live with now. Many of them would not be in existence now if it was not for fertiliser.
I have a question on the fertiliser register. Where was discussion held on it? Were farming organisations or farmers told why this was going ahead? It is clear that it is not for the fun of it. There will be an account of what fertiliser farmers get and what use they are going to make of it. It looks like it is for the purpose of getting herd numbers down and stopping whatever. We all know that you can sometimes put out fertiliser only for it not to work. It may snow or freeze or something else might happen. You may use a lot more fertiliser in one year than in another. I am very concerned about this aspect. I have asked many farmers in my area what this will mean to them and how much fertiliser they will be able to buy. No farmer knows because they have not been told. It is not fair on farmers that there has not been some discussion about it. I cannot understand how this can be introduced in January when nobody knows what they can buy, or if they can get any at all. We were listening to the farming organisations all along. The organisations are saying that we will get it up to the middle of the year, and I hope we will, but it is clear that this register is being formulated to block us in some way. It is not for the fun of it that it is being brought in but to nail us.
I am very concerned about that because farmers did what they were told all along. They made their farms more productive and increased the size of their herds. In 2012 or 2014 the Minister, Deputy Coveney, was the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and told us to produce more milk. It was the new white gold. Now, the Government is doing its level best every day to curtail, stop and nail us in every way it can. What is the need for this register? Who agreed to it? Do the witnesses believe it is fair on the farmers in light of the things I have said? You could use way more fertiliser in a given month of one year than you did the previous year. I heard the witnesses saying that 2018 might be used as the base year. We do not know that. The Government will use whatever year suits its story the best. I am very concerned about this.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will be very brief because the witnesses have had a long day. I thank them for their input on this Bill. We have now been over it a number of times. I believe we will ultimately arrive at a much better Bill thanks to the witnesses' input. There are still some tweaks and so on needed. We will reflect on the witnesses' input today.
I have one thing to share and to ask all of the groups about. When this comes in, there may be an opportunity to streamline the data. I know there are reservations about sharing data with the Department, Bord Bia and other agencies but, ultimately, we all have to embrace technology at some stage. Has anybody from the private sector approached the witnesses' organisations with online portals or propositions to safeguard everybody, including the farmer, the small retailer and the large retailer? Off the top of my head, there might be a system whereby a farmer was able to go to a central veterinary point online, get his prescription back via his local vet and then select where we wanted to buy the medication. Has anybody come to the organisations with a proposition like that?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call on Mr. Maher for a final summing-up.
Mr. T.J. Maher:
On that question, the national veterinary prescription system, NVPS, is ultimately the answer. With regard to data control and protection, as farmers, it is critically important for us that the NVPS be controlled and monitored centrally because, once we include and involve outside parties, it becomes more difficult to control and manage the data.
The issue of sanctions was raised and it is worth making one more point to the committee on it. There are references to sanctions throughout this Bill. They must be appropriate and reasonable. If a prescriber fails in his duty, the farmer cannot be held responsible. The current regulations on veterinary medicines incorrectly sanction farmers if somebody else fails in his or her duty. It is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to ensure supplier compliance. It is a small point but the Bill needs to clarify that.
Farmers are ultimately the end users of the products covered by this Bill and, as a result, they are the ones most impacted by it. The legislative obligations this Bill establishes will be crucial to farmers. As I have said from the very start, we are absolutely in favour of a reduction in the use of antiparasitics and of their proper use but the supply chains must not put farmers at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with the current position. It is critical for us, as farmers, that the Bill is framed in a way that addresses the issues in a positive and proactive way and delivers on the objectives we have targeted, which are the appropriate use of medicines and ensuring we do not end up with a two-phase operation in this country whereby there is one set of regulations operating North of the Border and another set operating South of the Border. That ultimately looks like the situation the Department is leading us towards if it does not change course.
In respect of the fertiliser sales database, the IFA strongly believes the following key principles should be adhered to: the provisions in the Bill must seek to minimise any additional extra costs and administration being placed on professional fertiliser end users; the Bill must not disincentivise the purchase or spreading of fertilisers at farm level by professional end users; the protection of data and information gathered by the database is of critical importance; and individual farm data on fertiliser usage should be treated with the strictest confidence. That equally applies to the medicines register. We have already gone into that in great detail.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
In reply to Deputy Flaherty, it is absolutely critical that a system is put in place that minimises the exposure of the end user. Farmers are normally referred to as the primary producer when discussing things but the term "end user" is used here. The document specifies that there is potential for a fine of €100,000 or for an invasion of one's home. That is extreme, to put it mildly. When Pat McCormack, or anybody else, goes to his local co-op or anywhere else to purchase fertiliser and gives his herd number, the person on the other side should be able to key in that information and find out how much stock he is still allowed to purchase rather than him finding out in six months' time when the fertiliser is all spread that he has spread one 50 kg bag too many of 27-2.5-5 or whatever formulation he is using and that he is now in breach of the various regulations. There are companies out there that provide apps in respect of animal health and medicine remedies usage. Perhaps they will come on board but the ICMSA would like to see the obligation on somebody other than the end user, specifically the retail outlets, retailers and providers of fertiliser.
Deputy Danny Healy-Rae raised huge concerns and rightly so. He went back as far as the 1970s. We can come up to 1983 and the introduction of the milk quota and then the abolition of the milk quota in 2015. In that intervening period, we saw a substantial reduction in the number of dairy farmers. That was because margins eroded for the primary producer. The challenge then was to scale up to remain viable. The challenge now is regulations and the potential for those regulations to make us unviable.
There have been challenging years in the past and I have no doubt there will be challenging years in the future as regards grass growth. The Deputy is right; sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. We need a level of tolerance. Rather than entering a fodder crisis and putting our hands up in the air in the months of July or August, there should be a tolerance where we can do something about it at home on this island nation, which is on the periphery of Europe.
In summation, we need common sense. As an organisation, the ICMSA was obviously involved in some of the discussions but the Department seems adamant that the European Commission insists on this as a tool to move forward. Whether it is fertiliser or medicines, however, they need to be available. The responsibility cannot be borne solely by the sole trader, in the vast majority of cases, or the family farm unit. There is enough stress out there on farms without having the bureaucracy of keeping this register or, indeed, the availability of medicines on a timely basis. We need to see common sense prevail and very often, that is sadly lacking.
Mr. John Keane:
I thank Deputies Danny Healy-Rae and Flaherty for their comments. I will make some final comments to sum up the main aspects of what we have been discussing from Macra na Feirme's side of things. The main issues are around ensuring market competition remains in place and is enhanced, which is crucial, and making sure farmers get access to the market. We must make sure a system is in place that protects farmers, as the end users, from prosecution should other actors within the sector have failings. There should also be ease of use for farmers to ensure there is no additional red tape or bureaucracy, which affects both older and younger farmers in terms of the burdens of, for instance, data recording or time constraints. Increased investment and support for laboratory analysis is needed to enhance the ability of services to analyse faecal egg sampling and other laboratory analysis that will support the implementation of the measures. Also important is the protection of data to secure assurances for farmers that their data are being used and shared with the appropriate bodies.
I will highlight the main core objectives as set out in the EU's own overarching document, which are harmonising the internal market for veterinary products, reducing the administrative burden, enhancing the availability of veterinary medicine products, stimulating innovation of new and existing medicines and strengthening the EU's response to fighting antimicrobial resistance. We have serious reservations as to whether the proposed Bill will meet any of the first four objectives. We ask that consideration be given to all the suggestions and proposals put forward this evening to ensure fairness and equity is brought to farmers with regard to this.
Mr. Hugh Farrell:
Much has been said, and I suppose we are starting to repeat a bit ourselves. The biggest issues here were raised by Deputies Flaherty and Danny Healy-Rae. I thank them for their questions and comments. I will begin with Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, who spoke about going back to the 1970s and the number of cow buyers or whatever on a farm.
If we look at this over the last few months, and even last night, we attended another meeting on sucklers, we are talking about reduction through organic farming. Money is put into it through maybe environmental schemes and asking where the cutbacks are. This is all coming from Europe and different angles. Is this another part of it? A greater reduction in livestock is being put on farmers. We are the enemy every time the television goes on in every direction. As we said earlier, I do not think this levy and hard press should be put on fertiliser. It is over-burdening. As was said, every year is different with supplies at times. This year was a different year with a drought. Next year could be a better growing year. We hear so many different things. We cannot be limited like that. We need to have access to the product at all times. This is where we must have that. Putting a quota on supply is really creating a reduction in certain events where people cannot feed the animals, which causes welfare issues. Much more has to be looked at in this Bill. It could be deferred a bit until it is better thought out or as someone said earlier, tweaked on where it is going.
I want to touch again on the other issues of accommodation and differences in medicines and stuff. That is our biggest worry. There is talk about taking the licensed merchants and pharmacists out of it. The Government is talking about reducing by maybe half or two thirds the number of people in the system who are supplying products to the farming community. We will be running with a shortfall. Accessing that is where our problem as farmers will be big time. We have seen this in energy with power stations being closed. Now, we are short on power and the Government cannot open them again. Are we going to look at that? We have these licensed merchants sitting in closed-up buildings when we are short on supply and we cannot get to them. We cannot be looking at this happening again. We want to see this continue as it is until it is better put together and the Department becomes clear on it. It has to be pushed back down the road until we get clearance on it. The ICSA is not happy with the position.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Farrell very much. I thank all the witnesses for participating in today's meeting.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will ask for clarification if I may regarding what Mr. McCormack said about farmers needing to be told in May or June how much fertiliser they have left that they can buy. They need to be told by their distributor, whether it is Kerry Co-Operative Creameries or another co-operative, before they run out or they will have nothing to spread in July or August in terms of fertiliser, silage or whatever. Is Mr. McCormack telling me they know how much fertiliser I can have next year? Is that decided?
Mr. Pat McCormack:
My point was that a person can go to his or her local co-operative merchant and the merchant will know that person's allocation. A person would not be in a position where he or she would break the law by over-purchasing. The obligation would be on the employee in the co-operative to look at the screen, type in people's herd numbers and say they can only take 2 tonnes or 2.5 tonnes because they has used their allocation. The last thing we want is that come next September or October, a Department official goes out to people's farms and tells them they have breached the nitrates directive by spreading an extra 50 kg bag above and beyond what they should have.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will that be in place for next year? Who is looking at my place to see how much stuff I can get? This is-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are not getting into a big, long debate again. We are stopping now.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know, Chairman. These are important questions, however. I do not know how much fertiliser I can get. Mikey Joe Murphy, Danny Healy and all these people are in no man's land-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am going to close the debate now.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They do not know how much they are going to be allowed or who is going to vet them to decide how much they can get.
Mr. Pat McCormack:
That is a huge challenge. At any stage of the year, it is not until 31 December or, indeed, 1 January in any given year that a person will know his or her full stock for the year. That can have an impact on a person's fertiliser usage. It shows the lack of flexibility that is out there.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for participating in today's meeting. The next public meeting of this committee will take place on Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 7 p.m. when the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine will appear before us to review the fisheries sustainability impact assessment. The committee will also meet on Wednesday, 26 October when we will examine a number of matters including flooding in Lough Funshinagh, the vision for the future of Irish farming and continued pre-legislative scrutiny of the veterinary medicinal products, medicated feed and fertiliser regulation Bill 2022.