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

I remind witnesses and members, and visitors in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is to undertake an examination of various schemes: the basic payment scheme, BPS; the organic farming scheme; the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES; the beef genomics scheme; the beef environmental efficiency programme, BEEP; and the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS-III. The committee will hear from representatives from various agricultural bodies and from Teagasc.

All of 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 by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. 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.

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 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 the committee meeting when they are participating within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when making a contribution.

The committee will hear from representatives of the IFA, Mr. Brian Rushe, deputy president, Mr. Michael Biggins, rural development chairman and Ms Rachel Maloney, policy executive; from the INHFA, Mr. Vincent Roddy, president, Mr. Joe Condon and Mr. Colm O'Donnell who are all joining virtually; from Macra na Feirme, Mr. John Keane, president, Dr. Liam Hanrahan, national agricultural affairs chairperson and Mr. Mick Curran, CEO; from the ICMSA, Mr. Pat McCormack, president, Mr. John Enright, general secretary and Ms Alisha Ryan, policy adviser and secretary to the farming and rural affairs livestock committee; and, from the ICSA, Mr. Dermot Kelleher, president and Mr. Eddie Punch, general secretary.

I am not going to ask everyone to read their opening statements but I will give each organisation three minutes to make opening comments and then we will open to questions from the floor. I will start with Mr. McCormack.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank the Chair and the committee for this opportunity. Our opening statement has been received. I will be brief. CAP has a huge part to play in farmers' income. Any discussion with farmers about CAP and single farm payments and the various different environmental schemes will regularly turn to the fact that payments are losing their value. Schemes are under-funded and are not index linked. We are lucky to receive the same amount of money as we did 15 or 20 years ago but which has far less purchasing power. The demands out there are far greater than they were 20 years ago, whether it is an environmental scheme or indeed the single farm payment as it was.

Conditionality is a huge issue. It replaces cost compliance. I want to acknowledge that the tagging issues were removed from conditionality and we welcome that. However, there needs to be flexibility in relation to monetary fines. Warning systems need to be applied to new conditionalities because these are family farms that depend on direct payments to keep them viable. The toughening of conditionality also leads to the reduction of possible options of different schemes into the future. An example would be the eco schemes. We need to be very careful about the level of conditionality in order to be in a position to have further practical greening and environmental schemes as we move forward.

One of the positives of the CAP in recent times is the easing of land eligibility. We are at a time when we are talking about huge environmental impact. There are various forums around the country that are talking about biodiversity etc. and eligibility was a huge issue. For example if a farmer hit two bad years and could not top his rushes he would nearly have to commit a track machine to take them out of it. So we welcome the easing there.

GAEC and in particular GAEC 2 is a huge issue with the re-wetting of peatlands. I know a farmer in north Kerry who has 70 acres, 70 cows and 30 acres of that is black land. That is a huge challenge. People need to be able to farm that land and make a commercial living from that land. Re-wetting really does undermine that viability. From an eco scheme perspective, this is a huge challenge. We as a lobby group lobbied for milk recording and solar panels and were unsuccessful. The menu that is available is very tight and rigid for a lot of dairy farmers. The 7% area can be a measure but to come up with the other measure is a huge challenge.

Convergence is an old flame of mine, shall we say. It is a huge issue because we are seeing convergence and a movement to payments. I have no issue with that if it is a fair system but it is on a per hectare basis. There are farmers with a very small envelope but a high payment per hectare who have been absolutely decimated in the last two rounds of CAP as regards convergence. Unfortunately, that trend is continuing and to protect the family farm structure and the smaller model that is out there we need to have that envelope taken into account. That is regrettable, it is a missed opportunity. The CRISS payment will be neutral for those farming at 30 ha and for those beyond the 30 ha it will be a penalty. In terms of capping, we have always been in favour of a €60,000 cap. We acknowledge that there is a cap of €60,000 on the BISS but how many farmers is that going to affect?

We welcome and acknowledge the need for young blood into the industry. A young farmers scheme is welcome but hugely challenging. I would question the off-farm income cap that was there in the past and its removal. Farmers with modest enough and very modest margins will find themselves cut by possibly 3% to 5%. That young farmer could be on €50,000, €100,000, €200,000, working 200 km away from the farm. If we are to be meaningful about keeping people on the land that is very necessary.

Pillar 2 is a scheme that can do a lot of good work but one would question the €90,000 ceiling and the relevance of that today given the way costings have gone up in recent times. It is critical that costings remain relevant. Unfortunately in 2022 that has been hugely challenging for farmers under the scheme. We need a meaningful commitment from the Department on a dairy equipment scheme as we go forward to reduce emissions and energy use. Energy providers are talking about having a levy during peak times and dairy farmers are part of that peak. We need to have more efficient ways of milking and cooling milk in the months and years ahead. We need a TAM scheme to have that as a viable option.

All forms of investment schemes are necessary. Dairy calf to beef scheme is critical. It is a disappointment that the ACRES scheme is confined to only 30,000 farmers while there are 50,000 farmers in GLAS. We need to see a scheme to bring people in up the equivalent of 65,000 if we are to be realistic about it. On the organic scheme, the viability of organic farming needs to be examined. That is a huge challenge. It is not just a challenge for the farm families but it is a challenge to rural viability, the viability of organics as we move forward.

In the dairy welfare scheme we would like to see the stock bull included as well as the DBI because that can be a huge issue in later calving cows. As we move forward we need to see an indexation because the value of money has been lost substantially over the plast five to ten years. It can happen. We saw it announced with forestry this week so I would urge that these schemes be relevant from a financial perspective as we move forward.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Biggins, chairman of the rural development committee and Ms. Rachel Maloney who is the policy executive with the rural development committee. I will go through some summary points of our statement given that the committee is taking the opening statements as read.

We are all aware of the importance of farm schemes to farmers particularly those in vulnerable sectors and the massive dependence of those sectors on direct payments. In terms of CAP, direct payments make up 118%, 124% and 159% of cattle finishing, sheep, and suckler beef farmers' total income respectively. The real fear we have in terms of the new reform is the effects that it will have on those farms and farm incomes. The big losers in terms of convergence are not farmers with huge payments or farmers covering huge hectares of land, they are the farmers with the high payment per hectare but the low overall payments. These two measures, convergence and CRISS will decimate those farms' income.

The BPS is paid out to 122,500 farmers. It is critical in any new scheme or new CAP that the same levels of payment or the same advance levels of payment in terms of the 90% that we saw this year that was reported to the charter is achieved. We would be worried with the increased complexity, particularly with eco schemes, that it would result in delay in payments from the Department. That will not be acceptable.

We were there before and we do not need to go back there. Regarding the eco schemes, there is some flexibility in terms of space for nature with the measures that are there. There are probably more farmers getting eco schemes than they thought. However, for those farmers who will struggle with space for nature, tree planting, using the GPS fertiliser spreader, the extensification and reduction in nitrogen, they are bringing them in only one direction. That is towards a reduction in production. You have to step back and ask yourself what farmers face when income is reduced due to measures introduced with the basic payment scheme, BPS. Should we be encouraging them to reduce production as well in terms of what are further negative impacts on income? Regarding the agri-climate rural environment scheme there is huge fear in terms of how many people can get into the scheme. Everyone is aware of the backlog in applications. It is bureaucracy heavy and there is a massive fear among farmers who will exit the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, this year, and will not get into ACRES in 2023, that they will be left without a payment while they wait to get into it in 2024. We are calling for a commitment that farmers who do apply and fail to get into ACRES in 2023, through no fault of their own, will get an advance payment to support that income loss in advance of them getting into the scheme in 2024. We are aware of approximately 60,000 advance expressions of interest with Teagasc, but there is only capacity for approximately 30,000 applications.

Turning to the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, as has previously been stated it has been very positive for farmers who have put in almost €400 million of their own capital in terms of on-farm investment. However, we have to be straight about this, the current payments and reference costs are in no way related to the reality on the ground. It is resulting in farmers stepping away from TAMS and not applying or not going ahead with projects. When reference costs were in sync with actual costs it made a lot of sense for farmers to get involved in TAMS to invest in their farms. However, it is so far behind now that it needs to be reviewed immediately.

On supports for the suckler and sheep sector, which are two of our most vulnerable sectors, we have been calling for overall payments and supports to the suckler sector of €300 per animal, and supports for the sheep sector for €30 per ewe. This has to be delivered under pillar two for those farms to continue contributing economically to their communities. They are two of the sectors that will be hit hardest with the new reforms and it is vital that they get the support they need. The level of support being offered to organics is positive and a large amount of money but we need to make sure we are not leading farmers down a dead end in terms of the market that exists for those payments for that product. We are aware that in the dairy sector the organic price is not matching the conventional price, yet they are exposed to meal prices above €900 per tonne. While the levels of support are welcome and for those farmers that enter they are welcome, we need to make sure that a market exists for the product.

My final point is on the charter of rights and its importance in terms of delivery on CAP in a timely fashion. The last charter led to increased efficiency from the Department in terms of delivery on payments, and it is critical that the new charter negotiations are started immediately, in advance of any new reform.

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

I call Mr. Keane.

Mr. John Keane:

I am joined by the chairperson of our national agricultural affairs committee, Mr. Liam Hanrahan, and our CEO, Mr. Mick Curran. I thank committee members for the invitation to address them, and for their continued support. One of the overall objectives of CAP is achieving generational renewal and improving that statistic. The overall objective of the CAP as initially set out was to ensure food security across the EU for its long-term prosperity. Unfortunately, over many years reform after reform has changed the priorities of the CAP. It is now driven by environmental ambition and sustainability measures as opposed to ensuring support for farmers and for the production of food. Objective No. 7 around the succession of generational renewal as we have seen in the CAP reforms, and which Macra na Feirme has addressed this many times, referred to enhanced numbers of young people in active farming by the year 2027. The SWOT analysis of our own Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine identified it as a big weakness, one of the major weaknesses for the sector as we move forward, yet the provision of support was chosen to be at the minimum level across the CAP funding at just 3% of pillar one payments. Similarly, Ireland, through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Minister, was the only EU member state not to select installation aid as one of the measures to support young farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. From a young farmer's point of view the support and the objective from the EU Commission has been welcomed. However, the delivery of action on the ground in terms of meeting the minimum requirements by our own Department and by the Minister has been a huge disappointment for us. Urgent action is needed by all actors across all policy levels and we recognise the contribution of and the access to this committee in recent weeks to discuss the future of Irish agriculture. It is one of the major topics to be considered when discussing all policy matters.

I turn to the specifics relating to CAP, particularly the new actions around BPS, which will become basic income support for sustainability, BISS. Farmers we have spoken to are completely unaware of the impact that the reduction of 20% or 25% of their payments for eco schemes is going to have on their envelope when it hits their accounts in the early part of October 2023, whether due to convergence or setting aside. Communication is needed, first and foremost, to indicate to farmers where that is currently sitting. We recognise that the Department has attempted to make that available through its online portal, but the reality is that my advisers are currently filling out those applications for farmers.

Conditionality has already been raised, and we were before this committee a number of weeks ago regarding the EU nature restoration law. Good agricultural and environment condition 2, GAEC 2, raises two serious concerns for us in terms of the rewetting of peatlands, but also in terms of the implications it will have, not just for farmers on those peatlands but also farmers in surrounding areas. On eco schemes there has been a major missed opportunity for the Irish Government. When we benchmark across other EU member states, we see that many of them have multiples of the options we have in terms of eco schemes. Macra has called for eco schemes relating to herd management, soil fertility and hedgerow management, while also supporting the specifics of milk recording which will be a necessary measure to achieve objectives under the antimicrobial resistance instruments and policies being pursued at a European level. We also have huge concerns, which we raised previously, around the entitlements associated with eco schemes, particularly on leased lands. We find that we are now in a situation where farmers in long-term lease arrangements will be claiming entitlements and many of those arrangements have within them the requirement that those farmers have to pay back the entitlements to the landowner. With the current set-up under eco schemes, the farmer who is actively farming the land will have to take the measures to carry out eco schemes while also returning said payment to the original landowner. I do not think anybody in this committee or in the farming community at large would accept it is compatible to ask a farmer to carry out an action that is causing significant income loss, while also returning an EU level payment to a landowner. When this question was raised previously with the Department it was relayed back to us that this is contract related within the lease agreements. However, many farmers may find themselves in the situation next year of carrying out actions relating to lease agreements, for which they will be getting little reward. On the other side the landowners, who are expecting a certain envelope in their single farm payments or new BISS payments in October 2023, will find that they have 25% less than they have this year, because the farmer actively farming the land has not carried out the measure.

On the ACRES scheme the timeframe for delivery of applications into the portal is of huge concern. It is not achievable if we are going to complete 30,000 applications before the deadline. The figures from about seven or eight days ago have indicated that our numbers are approximately 4,000 completed applications, 11,000 applications in process and 15,000 applications awaiting processing. As stated by Mr. Rushe, there are an additional 27,000 applications of expressions of interest from farmers to meet that. The reality is we have 48,800 farmers who are exiting GLAS payments at the end of this year. A total of 20,000 of those will find themselves unable to access an ACRES scheme which has been highlighted, particularly by those in low income sectors, as a priority to ensure viability in the long term. That figure of 48,800 farmers is without any additional farmers applying for the new ACRES scheme.

Essentially what has been decided here is that no new farmers will have access to ACRES and at a time when we are speaking about diversification and other opportunities, not providing the opportunity for farmers to be supported in adopting these measures is simply not going to achieve those objectives. Also one of the criteria under the new ACRES, particularly in tranche 1, asks that farmers must have submitted the basic payment entitlement in the year 2021. Essentially what this does is eliminates any new entrant to farming from applying for the scheme for the subsequent 18 months. Farmers who started farming after 9 June 2021 - which is almost 18 months ago - will not be able to access tranche 1 tier 1 payments, or may not be able to access tranche 2 payments either, on which point clarity has been sought.

In terms of TAMS payments, we have consistently raised the ceilings. This includes the payment rates but also the percentage support that can be given to young farmers. The option had been to offer 80% grant aid support for young farmers, particularly given the cost of investment at the moment, and the decision was made by the Department and the Minister to provide the lowest level of funding in terms of ceiling support, at 60% for young farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. In relation to TAMS more specifically, there has been no criteria laid out for future investment after 1 January 2023 with specifics around investments for farmers. Farmers find themselves without clear definitions of what equipment will be supported across each sector once TAMS-III or the on-farm investment scheme, as promised in the CAP strategic plan, CSP, is laid out.

Macra na Feirme also recognises that support for vulnerable sectors is something which is crucially important to ensuring the future sustainability of rural areas. At a recent meeting of this committee, its representatives outlined many support pathways that can be used for those sectors. The supports provided under the measures for sheep, suckler, and beef enterprises across the Common Agricultural Policy are not within fitting in ensuring those sectors are sustainable in the long term. Further supports targeted at those vulnerable sectors will be needed.

I will finish on a specific point on organics. As has been stated, the market for organics is something that needs to be developed if we are going to encourage farmers and facilitate a large transfer of productive land into producing organics. Macra na Feirme welcomes the ambition as set out under the organics proposal but in terms of market development, it sees, not just in milk markets but also in egg and beef markets, that the supply is actually increasing beyond the demand in certain parts of the Continent. In Ireland last year, the increase in supply in organic produce and beef was 2.9% while the demand grew by 2.5%. There is also an issue with organics in the scheme, particularly around lease land. It is currently stated that all leased land must remain for the duration of the scheme. Many farmers in the organics have come forward to Macra na Feirme to state that they are at risk of losing this leased land over the course of the next number of years when it is due for renewal. They are worried they will not be able to meet the competition that currently exists within the lease market to maintain that land; thus putting their payments under the organics scheme at risk as a result of not having the same land base, achieving the same stocking rate, or being able to carry out the same practices on farms.

Finally, we want to reiterate our acknowledgement of the support of this committee and we welcome any questions.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here. This CAP strategic plan has now been agreed in Brussels and we have a roadmap from 2023 to 2027. From the point of view of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, the roadmap is far from perfect. In fact, we could go further and ask if it is fit-for-purpose at all in the context of the rapidly changing environment that farmers are working in. Much has changed since the Ciolo reform and milk quotas were established that allowed some farmers to switch to milk and others to expand. However, it is the massive inflation within global economies that gives rise to the greatest concern about whether this scheme will be fit for purpose. It is clearly seen in the inflation in farm building costs which are not reflected by TAMS standard costings nor by the ceiling. The ceiling has been increased from €80,000 to €90,000 but this is nowhere near the actual inflation in building costs since the beginning of TAMS.

The ICSA made a comprehensive submission on the CAP strategic plan. Our key asks were: a coupled payment for sucklers and sheep, €300 per cow and €35 per ewe; an early finishing payment incentive of €100 per head for beef finishers; and a greatly increased ambition in agri-environment schemes with a target maximum of €15,000. All of the ICSA proposals took into account and were fully costed and fundable under the CAP budget for Ireland, assuming Ireland fulfilled its co-financing obligations and utilised the carbon tax funds as promised in the programme for Government. Unfortunately, our plan was not taken into account in the final package. It was clear that the Department had already made its mind up to allocate a massively increased budget to organic farming. While this may be seen as part of a strategy to meet climate targets, it is questionable whether account has ever been taken of the market potential for increased organic exports. The CAP strategic plan does very little to help the sectors with the greatest need for support. The original MacSharry proposals and the Fischler reform delivered substantial support for active cattle and sheep farmers. This incoming CAP fails miserably by comparison. Instead of support at €300 per cow, the CAP plan delivers just €150 for ten cows and €120 per cow after that. This is less than the combined beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, and the beef environment efficiency pilot scheme, BEEP, of last year.

At the moment, deliberations at the Food Vision beef and sheep group are focused on measures to reduce emissions. One contentious proposal is to pay farmers to quit sucklers. The ICSA is concerned this will have a devastating and disproportionate impact on the suckler sector but also on many regions where sucklers are the only option due to land type and farm scale. Without more support for active suckler farmers, there will be many farmers tempted to pack it in and give it up. The exact same applies to sheep farmers, who have been let down badly by a €12 per ewe scheme. The ICSA is unhappy that the new suckler scheme is doubling down on the obsession with four-star and five-star maternal traits. This needs to be reviewed and a more balanced approach to breeding for real markets must be included.

The Department is also pushing for earlier finishing of cattle at the Beef Vision group. Earlier finishing of cattle is not realistic at current beef prices and with current cattle ration prices. In fact, the economics of winter finishing can be measured by the reality that our members see no point in winter finishing without a guarantee of at least €7 per kilogram next spring. A more viable model is to minimise winter costs and finish at an older age next summer. The CAP plan does nothing to address this conundrum. The ICSA wants to see the €28 million agreed in the budget translate into a scheme worth €70 per suckling cow up to 400,000 cows, in time for 2023. The CAP plan is not enough. Suckler farming needs a pathway to €300 per cow and sheep farming, a pathway to €35 per ewe. A key demand will be that funding will have to be procured to help beef finishers. If they are not viable, neither sucklers or dairy are sustainable. In our view, support must address the impossible task of finishing cattle at a younger age, when the price of cattle ration is €450 per tonne and upwards. We also need to address the issue of breeding cattle suitable for fattening from the dairy herd.

The biggest problem our members face is the stringent requirement for straw bedded lie-back areas, which are simply not in place in most slatted units. The cost of rectifying this, along with high straw costs in western counties will be a major barrier for many. Of course, farmers should also consider organics if they see it as a long-term business proposition. They need guarantees now that there will be continued organic payments without interruption into the longer term. It is also urgent that there is a coherent plan by meat factories to grow premium export markets which will deliver significant bonuses over conventional prices. We see no sign of that at the moment from factories and we are not reassured by the national strategy to grow the organic sector fourfold.

The flagship agri-environmental scheme, ACRES, is up and running but it is difficult to measure how it will work out just yet. First, the ICSA is disappointed at the lack of ambition. The rural environment protection scheme, REPS, paid many farmers more than the maximum of €7,300. That was 20 years ago when the cost structure was totally different than today. The ICSA believes that the deadline of November 21 for the current round is unacceptable. Moreover, we would like to see flexibility around the submission of geotagged photos. There must be recognition that getting so many farms walked by 21 November is an unworkable ask, especially in the short days and bad weather at this time of year. We are also concerned that ACRES is replacing rather than complementing successful schemes such as the Burren programme.

The ICSA also wants to see full transparency around how the carbon tax money is really delivering extra support to farmers and we are calling for additional funds to be made available if demand warrants it, for this scheme.

The ICSA welcomes the announcement of increased funding for forestry. It is a significant improvement to move from premiums covering 15 years to 20 years. However, the goal must be to make broadleaves attractive, and this will require further thinking about the longer term. It’s one thing to offer a 20-year premium for sitka spruce that can be harvested soon after. If we want diverse hardwood forestry that will not yield a commercial return in 50 years, we have to consider how farmers can look at this in a long-term framework. The solution here will surely lie in allowing farmers to benefit from the carbon stored and to find a way of crediting the agriculture sector with this.

The CAP is no longer capable of doing its job because it is not keeping pace with the relentless increase in costs. In parallel to this, farmers are being tasked with more and more objectives alongside food security. Therefore, new funding sources will be essential, particularly in the context of ever increasing demands on climate, biodiversity and nutrition.

The climate action plan alone is expected to require a grand total of €125 billion in investment yet agriculture is only a footnote in the calculations. This is despite the fact that agriculture is blamed for 37% of emissions. That cannot make sense. If the Government is serious, substantial levels of new money will be required. The CAP cannot be raided for every global challenge that farmers are expected to rise to. The 37% of the fault should get 37% of the money at least.

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

I thank Mr. Kelleher and invite Mr. Roddy to make his opening statement.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank the Chair. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. While I know Mr. Kelleher said that CAP is struggling to deliver what it is meant to, it is still of course vital support for farmers, whether they be dairy or hill farmers, and we have to recognise that. On the specifics, in Pillar 1 we welcome the increased level of convergence, although I know it is an issue for some, and the introduction of the front-loaded payment under the complementary redistributive income support scheme, CRISS. This will provide additional funds for farmers who had low payments. These supports will deliver improved payments for over 60% of all farmers and move towards a fairer payment system in recognition of the increased conditionality. This will also help secure an increased budget in future CAP programmes, and that is what we should all be looking at. Also on Pillar 1, we have to recognise the increased conditionality and I know it has been mentioned by some previous speakers. That will be a big demand for farmers. On GAEC 2, which concerns peatlands, we lobbied hard on this in May of last year and I thank the Members of the Oireachtas who supported that lobbying campaign because it recognised the major threat that posed to farmers both on hills, drained peatlands and throughout the country because 20% of our land base is peat soils. On the back of that lobbying, we got a footnote included that will guarantee farming activity. In light of the coming nature restoration laws and regulations, we see that has now become very critical. We cannot assume it will always be there, so we ensure that is there in this CAP and that it continues in future CAP programmes, but maybe taking one at a time.

Moving on to Pillar 2, the first point relates to the budget. We welcome the increase in the overall budget, but we need to put it in the context that that increase will only bring us back to where the Pillar 2 budget was for 2007 to 2013. Effectively, we are no better off than we were 15 years ago and we are definitely worse off if inflation is taken into account. While we welcome it, we need to recognise it is limited and we need to see further budget increases - we estimate at least an additional €150 million per year - that can deliver in schemes such as ACRES and improved supports for suckler and sheep farmers. We welcome the fact the sheep improvement programme has been included and that it has continued but the payment rates are disappointing. We are looking at €12 per ewe. While it is an increase on €10, that will depend on budget, so the first thing we need to do is to ensure that €12 will be guaranteed. We would like to see it increased to at least €20, and while I see others have said €30, even if we can get an increase to €20, that would be a major plus. Regarding suckler supports, we need to see payments of at least €200 for a suckler cow and obviously higher, if possible. What is currently being proposed is okay for the farmers who will get it and definitely if BEEP, if that comes, is included. The problem is there is not enough budget there to deliver for all suckler cows in the country. That is a major problem. At best, half of farmers and half of cows will get a payment, so that will not deliver what we would like to see it deliver.

A lot has been said on ACRES, and as previous speakers have said, the closing date is very tight. As 21 November is running in very quickly at this stage, we need and have called for an extension to that date to give both the Teagasc and independent advisers an opportunity to get as many of their plans in as possible. The budget for that is about €50 million per year above what GLAS was, but when we look at what was in the programme for Government and the talk about supporting farmers, there is no doubt it is disappointing. The fact that only 50,000 farmers will be accommodated in that will leave more than half the farmers in the country unable to access an agri-environmental scheme at a time when climate change and biodiversity loss is trumpeted as a major issue. We ask the Government to look at that. It has always been our belief that any farmer who is willing to make a contribution on the environment should be supported through an agri-environmental scheme.

I have a couple of other points on ACRES. It is disappointing for farmers on designated land that there will not now be any direct payment for them in an agri-environmental scheme. The initial REPS paid €242 per hectare for designated land; the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, paid €150 per hectare; and in GLAS it fell to €79 per hectare. Not to have any payment in recognition of the clear burden is a major cause for concern. It is worse than that: it is a disgrace, and there is no point in saying otherwise. There are other issues around ACRES and we will probably come to those in the questions. We look forward to that.

We welcome the increased budget for organics but, as has been said, we need to ensure there are markets for it. There is also the issue of the processing ability. At the moment there is only one processor who can manage it and we see that as a major problem. While the funding is brilliant, we need to make sure we have real competition in processing organic meat. We have outlined a number of proposals on TAMS and we need to see about the payment rates and how they are assessed, because in the context of a 40% grant, looking at how costs have increased, we expect those increased costs to be factored into the new TAMS. We have put forward proposals to get drones included and that will be essential for hill farmers. We also think there is potential in fencing collars and we have asked for support for mulchers as that would reduce the requirement for spraying.

We look forward to questions and I thank the committee for their time.

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

I told organisations at the start to stick to three minutes, but I was completely ignored. We have a time limit on this session, so I will give each Deputy or Senator who has indicated five minutes for his or her questions. I will not be able to let every organisation answer every time, but I will try to be fair and get whoever the question is most relevant to to answer. If I let the five organisations answer every question, we will not be out of here at midnight.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go through things as quickly as possible and I thank each of the farm organisations that are here and which have been with us all along, leading us in the right direction in relation to some of the schemes as they have been developed. It looks to me that CAP is losing its value.

When you hear some of our guests stating that more than half of the farmers in the country will not be able to access some of the agri-schemes, it is quite scary. At the same time, we are being told that farming is being blamed for 37% of the emissions, which Mr. Kelleher said. We are not going to get 37% of the money to compensate or to help farmers change.

On ACRES, farm planners are finding it difficult to ensure that they will get all of the plans in before the deadline at the end of November. Has there been any indication from the Minister that there will be an extension? There are 50,000 applications, but only 30,000 will be approved; what will happen to the other 20,000?

What is the proposal for young new farmers? Has there been any talk of a retirement scheme that would provide farmers who want step aside with an incentive to take early retirement and that would bring in new farmers?

Are there proposals under any of the schemes to help beef finishers achieve earlier slaughter dates, given that the Department sees this as a key element in reducing emissions and that finishing cattle earlier is unaffordable at the current beef and cattle ration prices?

Mr. McCormack said that a proposal relating to solar panels was put forward. Is that going to go ahead? Why did it not go ahead? Is there any indication one way or the other? There has been much talk about encouraging farmers - and everyone else in fairness - to use solar. This would have been an ideal opportunity for that to happen. I would appreciate if the representatives from the IFA or the ICSA, or anyone else who is present, could answer those questions.

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

The IFA will address the question on ACRES. I will ask Macra na Feirme to talk about the early retirement scheme. The ICSA will comment on early finishing and Mr. McCormack will answer the question on solar panels. I call Mr. Biggins.

Mr. Michael Biggins:

I thank the Chair. ACRES has been two years in gestation, as they call it. People are supposed to sign up in six weeks. It is a fiasco in the context of planners, consultants, etc.; they are closing their doors to clients at this stage. There is talk of a two-week extension. That will not suffice. They are just not able get their clients signed up in that short space of time. We suggest that it should go until the end of the year and that the decision as to who qualifies be made in January. The heat would be taken out of the situation if the Department stated that people who do not get into tranche 1 - the current tranche - but who get into tranche 2 will get a payment in 2023. Farmers cannot afford a gap year. The Teagasc national farm survey for 2021 indicates that 42.1% of cattle-rearing farmers' incomes came from GLAS in the period 2017-21. Among other cattle and sheep farmers, it accounted for nearly 25%. Those farmers cannot afford a situation where they are not in ACRES or some other environmental scheme. There is a way around this. It would take the heat out of the mad rush to get into tranche 1 if the Department stated that it will guarantee an upfront payment in 2023. The latter was done in the context of REPS. There is a precedent. It should be remembered that tranche 2 will not open until the fourth quarter of 2023. That is why farmers are at loggerheads with their planners. The planners are in a no-win situation because farmers are their clients and they are being obliged to refuse them. What is happening is creating a logjam that is not necessary.

Mr. John Keane:

On the Deputy's question about what has been done for young farmers in the context of CAP, the honest answer is that there has been very limited improvement. The same measures have been in place since 2014. We are proposing to keep those measures for the five years to 2027 and we are expecting a different outcome. Einstein had a good summation of what that will achieve by the end of 2027. We are the only member state not to go for installation aid. To be fair, at the Council of Ministers our Minister pushed for 4% to be the minimum threshold for young farmers in order to provide some flexibility under pillar 1 payments. He came back and delivered 3% in our CAP strategic plan. We welcome the higher rate of payment in the young farmer scheme, but, overall, in terms of getting more young people into the sector, very little extra was provided in the budget.

I will ask Dr. Hanrahan to give an overview about the retirement scheme.

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

I will only allow one person per organisation. I did not let in a second person from the IFA.

Mr. John Keane:

On a succession or an early retirement scheme, we have consistently put forward the concept of an on-farm succession scheme. We recognise that the early retirement scheme has failings concerning older farmers not being allowed to stay farming, but also getting them out of farming earlier was not conducive to their lifestyle or ambitions. We have put forward a proposal to the Department many times about supporting older farmers to step back and to be paid at the rate of minimum wage, which is not an excessive payment for someone with the amount of experience they have, in doing so, while also providing supports through investment support, capital investment support and access to low-cost finance and a suite of tax measures to help young farmers access farming. There are succession schemes in place in other EU member states; ours is largely based on the success of some of those. That is the measure that will drive change in respect of the age profile of the farming population.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

The critical thing to start with is that all of our farming systems, including dairy, suckler, beef, sheep and tillage are interdependent. There needs to be more thought put into that reality; we do not see it in the way CAP has emerged as a series of payments and nor do we see it in where we are with climate change. The beef sector is critical to the sustainability of dairying and sucklers - without beef, you cannot have dairying or suckling. We are in favour of live exports of calves and older stock, but there are threats coming down the track. We must be cognisant of the need to have a viable beef finishing sector. We also have to look at this in terms of the climate action discussions under the beef vision group. The reality is that we have 1.6 million dairy cows and 875,000 suckler cows. In an ideal world, we would not see any significant drop in those numbers. We would like to see space for some people to even expand their enterprises and, overall, to try to keep our important €15.4 billion agri-export business up and running.

One of the things being discussed is how we can reduce emissions. A key idea put forward by the Department is reducing the average slaughter age. This is not a realistic proposition in light of current meal and cattle prices. Consideration must be given to that. There will have to be some type of package for beef finishers designed to improve viability but could also perhaps be linked to the climate change emissions target as well. We also have to look at the calibre of calves that beef finishers are being asked to rear. If we do not look at this in an integrated and holistic way, we are going to have serious difficulties with our climate targets and the viability of the beef finishing sector.

If there is no one to finish the calves, the suckler and dairy sectors will have an existential crisis coming down the tracks. We need a payment and it must come from somewhere outside the CAP. Initially we had proposed that some of the CAP money be directed to beef finishers but CAP is now allocated and, as Mr. Kelleher pointed out, massive cost was accepted by the Government. The cost of our entire climate action plan is €125 billion. Some of that is private money, some is Government money, some is old money and some is new money. It is clear we need an honest appraisal of how and from where we will get money to help farmers to deliver on these ambitious climate targets. Much of what is being discussed in the Food Vision beef and sheep group is highly problematic. We must start with money for beef finishers to finish earlier.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

On the question on solar panels and the eco-scheme, the scheme is quite rigid. As I said, there was an opportunity in the menu for selection to meet the second criterion, for either milk recording or solar panels to be incentivised. It shows the issue we face. Today is about CAP but from an environmental perspective, it is frustrating for farm families that they were not included in the measures that could be used in an eco-scheme when they would have a significant positive impact on our national energy inventory but not from an agricultural perspective. We acknowledge the future availability of 60% grant aid for solar panels under TAMS. As Mr. Punch mentioned, in agriculture we must be cross dependent and if we are to meet our national targets, we need joined-up thinking in the various sectors. The availability of solar panels provides a major opportunity to reduce energy usage on farms as we move forward. Unfortunately, farmers cannot qualify for an eco-scheme using that option and that is a missed opportunity. It would have been a significant incentive.

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

When I saw the synopsis of the opening statements lasted 50 minutes, I decided on one question. The Chair can decide who answers it in the context of the track this meeting has taken.

I listen to the different groups that represent different sectors, albeit with crossover, and I hear one group welcoming an aspect that another group does not welcome. It goes to show how diverse the agriculture sector is. However, the one thing all sectors have in common is that we are primary food producers. As everyone has stated, we all know where CAP came from. It was to provide food security and traceable good quality food cheaply to the end user. The buzz phrase we hear mentioned in all debates in a passive manner is food security. My question is based on the fact we all acknowledge the schemes are becoming more environmentally based and the push towards organic farming and increased forestry. In essence that will reduce production hand in hand with massive population growth. How far away is the day that the witnesses will be back before the committee and the topic for discussion will be food security alone? How do we get the mix right through the next CAP and future CAP schemes, if there is another one after this one, to be able to pay farmers, look after the environment and ensure, what is most important to farmers as primary producers, that we are able to produce food and will have food security? How do we avoid it becoming the next big issue we discuss at committees like this?

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

The Senator has asked a question I cannot divide.

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

I told the Chair that before I asked it.

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

I will be strict on time. I will allow each organisation two minutes to answer Senator Daly's question. I ask the INHFA to respond first as it did not get in the last time.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

As the Senator stated, food security is a major issue. Trying to balance environmental concerns with food security is a major problem. The problem is that we keep going to CAP, which was introduced to deliver enough food for Europe. That was the initial idea of CAP. It then morphed into delivering a cheap food policy which has helped to underpin the economic development of western Europe. We must keep that in mind. We are seeing an increase in food prices now. The Senator asked when we will back before the committee again. I am not sure if it will be in the next five years; I do not know. We could be before the committee in the next five years talking about food security. I think we will be talking about it and how we balance it with environmental concerns. Much as we would like them to, those concerns will not go away either. Realistically what we need, as has been said, is an increased budget to deliver all the ambition, including food security and the environmental ambition.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

The European Commission published a report today on its response to the fertiliser crisis. It has echoes of what happened in Sri Lanka. Heads are being buried in the sand with regard to the real crisis in the cost and availability of fertiliser. In recent weeks, we saw gas prices come down, which is perhaps slightly positive, but the EU has failed to address import tariffs on fertiliser which is an insane policy given what we are facing at the moment. The general approach by the EU is that this is an opportunity to move to organic and green fertilisers. Everyone is in favour of that but we must be practical. If we want production we need nitrogen, N, phosphorous, P, and potassium, K. There is a level of detachment in the EU's response today which is frankly quite shocking.

The question of food security may be coming at us quicker than we think. Many EU member states are reducing their dairy and beef production. The reality is that the pig sector is also in crisis and expensive fertiliser is leading to major difficulties for crops across Europe. If we combine that with uncertainty about climate the EU's response today is shocking. The answer is that food security is likely to become a problem sooner rather than later.

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

We are already before the committee to discuss food security and food production. The OECD has placed Ireland in the top five in the EU for food security. We are in a strong position but we need to maintain that. Considering 900 million people in the world are in nutritional deficit, it is an extremely important issue. In the EU what has happened is that energy production has been outsourced and sectors such as fertiliser production have been outsourced. We all know how that is working out from a cost perspective. Considering our grass-based system in Ireland is best placed to produce food, we should be increasing food production. Reduction policies will not achieve anything environmentally either if we take scientific evidence into account. Reduction policies will not allow us to invest, to implement environmental policies and will not make room for the next generation. Food security is an important topic right now and we need to be clear that it needs to be addressed now and not in the future.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

The Senator asked when we will be back before the committee to talk about food security. In my view, it will be in the not too distant future. We spoke about schemes today. Every single measure contained in the new CAP reform and new schemes results in reduced production if a farmer wants financial support.

When that starts happening to a farm, it continues to happen and that becomes the baseline. We have gone from a stage where we have supported and encouraged farmers in Europe and Ireland to produce a high quality, sustainably produced product that is world renowned for being safe to a point now where we are turning our back on that. We have a tunnel vision focus on the environment, emissions and focusing on agriculture and the only way that is being addressed by the Departments is to reduce production. I would argue that we can do both. We can increase and encourage production where people want to do so while delivering on the environment. It is a matter of funding and of supporting farmers to take up technology and supporting farmers adequately to deliver environmental goods and ecosystem services. The major flaw in our environmental schemes is how they are funded. They are based on an income forgone and a costs incurred metric. When one looks at it that way, for a farmer getting involved in an eco-scheme they take a measure, they incur the cost, they lose the income from taking that ground out of production and they are no better off. They are in effect, standing in the same place they were before. We have to start recognising where there is environmental delivery and to then pay the farmer for that. We need to support incomes. We have a proud tradition of food production in this country and farmers have a proud tradition of environmental sustainability and stewardship. We need to renew our focus on all three. It is a real fear of mine, when one looks back at the average age of farmers, as Macra na Feirme has rightly pointed out, as well as the lack of support, the lack of new entrants, the barriers to entry, rampant inflation and input costs. These are all inhibitors and road blocks for producing food. I think we will be back discussing this topic in a couple of years with a renewed focus on food security.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

It is a very good question and very relevant. I read in the last week or ten days the United Nations estimate that if we are to eradicate world hunger by 2030, agricultural production or produce needs to increase by 28%. That is a significant ask even without the curfew or the potential for reduction through organics and various other groups. It was heartening to read today that the EU Commissioner for Agriculture, in acknowledging 60 years of CAP, has said that the funding post 2027 needs to be increased because it is nowhere near adequate with 0.4% of GDP being spent on food security. When it is 0.4%, that is an indication of the lack of value or investment in what is a primary source needed to exist as a human being. There are many threats out there. Mr. Rushe spoke about age and any industry that has an average age of 57 or 58 is under threat as we move forward. That is not just an issue in Ireland; it is a common issue around Europe. Our policymakers and legislators need to ask the question, why? I will not answer that question today unless they want an answer but it certainly is a question that needs to be asked.

Cow banding has huge potential. We have seen the dairy industry in the Netherlands in particular come under huge pressure and be restricted. Cow banding here has the potential to reduce dairy farmers' output by up to 26% and that is huge as we move forward. To answer the question I will put a comment on the record in the House. We will be back in this decade but how soon will depend on the volume of funding that is put in place to support groups like the dairy vision group and the beef and lamb group because there is an opportunity to minimise the reduction but it will require significant investment in clover and multi-species swards etc. in the short to medium term. Food security is not going to be a long-term issue. We can see from the United Nations activities it is here today and will be more relevant tomorrow and the day after. Somebody will be back here representing ICMSA within this decade to talk about the real issue of food security.

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

We will go to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and I will hit each one of you with a different question. I will not put the Chair in the hot seat.

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

You are all right Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. McCormack spoke about the eco-scheme and the difficulties in relation to farmers. To give Mr. McCormack the figures we have, 91% of all farmers have qualified under the new eco-scheme already. They do not have to do any other measure because they have over the 10%. Then 4% of farmers have between 7% and 10%, so they have to do one measure. Where is the big problem about the eco-scheme that Mr. McCormack talks about?

My next question is for Mr. Rushe. He spoke about the new system coming in under CAP. I will nail my colours to the mast because I have seen a lot of farmers. He talked about BISS and how it could affect the smaller farmer. We deal with a lot of farmers around the country that might have an entitlement of €80 per hectare. When we look at the new system that is coming and what they will be brought up to on 30 ha, they will probably go from €4,000 to €7,000, which I would not call bad to be honest. I want Mr. Rushe's view on this. Together with every farming organisation over the past number of years, we encouraged young farmers in. They had to do a green certificate and they had to spend time on it. Their payment, and in fairness young farmers were happy with it, when you added the two together would have been roughly €260 to €270 per hectare. I am talking about a young farmer who comes in to farming, does a green certificate and was not out in 2000 or 2001, when the punching of the bullocks was on and if you were unlucky enough to have heifers you got damn all but if you were lucky to be punching cattle twice, you built up €700 or €800 per hectare. Is he telling me that young farmer is not as valuable to us in agriculture as the person who is getting €700 or €800? Is a hectare in Mayo, Kilkenny or Kerry or wherever not to be treated the same, the way we try to treat all farmers with fairness?

My next question is for Mr. Keane, who highlighted the matter of fodder a few weeks ago and was the first to highlight it. So that you all know, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, appeared before the committee today and said he was opening it for the young farmers. Is that not correct Chair?

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

Yes.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is opening it in June or July for the young farmers. On the forgotten farmers, who have not been mentioned yet, can Mr. Keane bring us up to speed on what the story on that is. He mentioned land scarcity. Is it right around the country or where is it where dairy has increased?

My next question is for the INHFA, which mentioned ACRES. The drift we are getting is that a decision will be made tomorrow. I believe that is fair to say and I would say it will be positive, thought I am not the Minister. However that was the drift we were getting today regarding an extension. The witnesses will know about that tomorrow and I agree with them that an extension is needed. Mr. Roddy made a statement that farmers cannot access ACRES in special areas of conservation, SACs. My understanding is they can and I am trying to fathom what he is saying or is it an extra payment under it? Am I not correct in saying that if someone is in an SAC, they go into priority one, not two or three? In addition, will he elaborate on the sheep issue because I know that all the farming organisations have been talking about this and the way meal has gone up. Mr. Rushe talked about organic meal earlier on and with the way the price of meal has gone up, the sheep man who is fattening a lamb or whatever is in trouble. Is there any more room there? He might also talk about what he thinks the uptake is in organic, because I think it is fairly substantial.

My next question for the ICSA. Mr. Kelleher pointed out issues about the suckler cow . What is his understanding of the first ten cows under the new scheme, that is, under BEEP and this new suckler welfare scheme?

Will farmers struggle in the suckler sector in relation to everyone having to be in Bord Bia? Am I correct in saying that it would be over €200 for the first ten cows with BEEP and BEEP S and then after that it comes down? Can the witness give the committee the figures on that? Could there be a reduction of 40,000 this year regarding suckler cows and the new CAP?

Regarding TAMS and money, John Keane can take the money for young farmers. We need a new access for young farmers. Regarding TAMS, what is the feeling in the Department in ensuring there is enough money to increase the threshold? Concrete cost €85 a while ago and it now costs €120. People are going to get less money for trying to do the same job.

Mr. John Enright:

The reason we are bothered about the eco-scheme is that it has been created by a 25% reduction in everybody's payment. All farmers starting out are facing up to a 40% reduction in their payment when account is taken of the different schemes, the eco-scheme, CRISS, the young farmers' scheme, budget cuts etc. That is from where we are starting. The figure we have on Space for Nature is that around 60% of farmers will be over 10%. We certainly would have got 60%. What we find with these figures is that they change over time.

On cow banding, it started off that 15% of farmers would be in band 3. We now are now hearing a figure heading well over 20%. These things change and they normally change in the wrong direction for farmers. Why do we bring up milk recording and solar panels? We need to give farmers options in relation to getting funding. This is a reduction in their income to start off with. We need to give them options. Solar panels are certainly a very strong environmental measure. Milk recording has a big emphasis on anti microbial resistance. There really is nothing in the CAP that addresses that issue. We felt that milk recording was a very strong one under the eco-scheme. It was available to farmers and we incentivised farmers to go for that option.

We certainly hear what is being said on Space for Nature. The figure we got was not 91%. It was certainly below that. We need to give farmers options. There are other options, using GPS fertiliser spreaders, for example, but that is a €25,000 or €30,000 investment. This is not an option for many farmers. I know people could use a contractor but not every contractor has that equipment.

Trees or hedgerows could be planted. On inspection, all of those trees have to be alive. If 50 trees are planted the hope is that they would all survive but the reality is that they will not. The same applies to hedgerows.

There is an option for arable farmers but that does not suit every farmer in the country. We felt that there needs to be a better menu there to suit farmers and give them the opportunity to carry out measures on their farms that help the environment and anti microbial resistance. I hope the figure of 91% is right but certainly that is not the figure that we got Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Regarding the question on TAMS----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did any farming organisation talk to the Department about trying to get more?

Mr. John Enright:

The issue there is that the reference costs are completely unrepresentative of what is happening on the ground. We are facing the mica levy next September as well. There is a strong emphasis that farmers need to do more on the environment. We are not getting the support we require. Our president mentioned the Food Vision for beef and dairy. The funding is not coming. We do not have indexation. People can talk about the environment but they need to match it with the funding.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I have no problem with supporting young farmers. I identified it in terms of a key threat to food security and the vibrancy and survival of the sector. It is important that we support young farmers to get involved. My main issue is convergence and the effect it has on farms, in particular those farms which have a small overall payment but a large payment per hectare. I will give an example of a 20 ha part-time farmer in the midlands who 20 years ago was probably punching out cattle and applying extensification, doing everything he could. He had a high payment per ha or even stacked payments. Such farmers will be hit savagely by convergence.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the fellas that had the €80? Do they not deserve to come up?

Mr. Brian Rushe:

The IFA has been quite clear that it pushed for a policy at one time of upward-only convergence. That is the problem with this CAP policy. It was hugely divisive around the country. At times it was presented as being regionally divisive as in the south and the midlands losing and the west was gaining. That is the way it was put forward. It is not. It is in every parish and every county and every townland. In our meetings, it was the part-time farmer, doing a good job at home, working hard off the farm as well, who had a high payment per hectare who was going to be hammered with convergence. They were the farmers who were raising the biggest issues with us around the country, regardless of where it was. I totally get the Deputy's point in terms of those farmers on low payments per hectare and how they will gain from convergence. I understand that but how is that farmer who is going to be hit on convergence going to replace that income loss? If you look at the issues at ACRES----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only thing I am saying is that a young farmer on the 20 ha is able to get the €250 or €260 on the eco-scheme. That is what anyone can get today. If he was on €700 before, that is what a young farmer has to live on today and still work. That is what I am saying.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

The number of farmers on €700 per ha would be tiny. Farmers who were part-time farming, on a high payment per hectare are being moved into the vulnerable zone. The current suite of measures put forward with the agri-environment schemes is not enough to take them back up out of there. That was something we pushed for, so farmers who were hit with convergence had a way to get their payment back up. We are not seeing that.

Mr. John Keane:

In relation to the Fodder Support Scheme we welcome that news. It is something which we had been working on over the past couple of weeks. In relation to the "forgotten farmers" that the Deputy mentioned, at our recent national conference the Minister was in attendance and verbally outlined six criteria that the Department was planning to apply to the "forgotten farmer" category. We have asked for those to be sent to us in written form. We are still awaiting that but I can state to the committee the six measures that the Minister mentioned at our conference two weeks ago. These were as follows: in order to be successful, a farmer needed to be head of the holding before 2008, have a green cert or Level 6 completed by 2015, have never accessed the national reserve under the BPS or the SPS, have never been in receipt of installation aid, completed the BPS application in 2015 and be no more than 40 years of age in 2015. It is now 11 days since our national conference and I and our policy officers have received about 60 or 70 phone calls in that period. When I have outlined the six criteria to them, I have yet to have one "forgotten farmer" say that they are going to be able to access the scheme. We have criteria for a scheme where I have yet to see one farmer who is going to be able to access the scheme. We recognise that in the programme for Government there is a commitment for addressing the "forgotten farmer" issues under CAP. We were working very hard with the Minister and the Department this time last year to try and get that included. We were informed that there was not scope for that within the Common Agricultural Policy and it would be looked after nationally. Our interpretation and the feedback that we have got so far is that it will take a very small pool of money to satisfy the demand from the "forgotten farmers". As I said already, we have yet to have somebody contact us to say that it is going to be accessible to them. There is a huge amount of work still to be done from our side.

As for the Deputy's question on land scarcity, there is high demand for land in certain areas at the moment. That is a fair comment to make but we are looking at all policy instruments in the round and their impact on land availability into the future, given that land access is now one of the biggest challenges for young farmers getting into the sector. If you look at the recommendations put forward by the likes of the Food Vision group, the recommendations under CAP, four of the options under the eco-schemes, the options under organics or the EU nature restoration Bill and the issues around both forestry and energy production policies, all of these are going to do one thing in terms of land availability, which is to reduce it. We argue that is going to affect land availability in every parish in the country, not just in areas where there is already pressure on the leasing and prices of land at the moment. There is pressure in some areas at the moment and land rental prices are reflecting that but in the long term, the general thrust of these measures being proposed across all policy instruments will be to create a greater demand for land access. That is because either stocking rates will be less or there will be more land in organics and less land in productive areas. That is going to affect everybody. Top that with between 350,000 ha and 360,000 ha being spoken of in terms of rewetting, and it is only going to do one thing for land availability.

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

The ICSA is next.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

We all know that the new suckler efficiency scheme is €150 for the first ten cows and €120 after that. It is the choice of reference here, in that you must pick three years out of five. The BEEP is basically all over. It is gone. They took the weigh out of the BEEP and they put it into the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. This year, between the two of them, the first ten cows are €185 and €160 above that. We know that there has been an allocation in the budget of €28 million as a replacement for the BEEP scheme. That is probably €70 per cow for the first 400,000 cows. We are talking to the Department about suckler welfare issues or maybe testing for myostatins to try to get something to get that up and running. That needs to be up and running for 2023. In the smaller areas, suckler men will have 30 ha running 40 cows. That is probably above the national average. He had €9,000 or €10,000 and now he is probably down to between €7,000 and €9,000. That is all I want to say about the sucklers. Bord Bia was mentioned but a lot of suckler men were never inside a factory in their life and probably never will be. They sell all of their stock on the mart and why they are made to join Bord Bia is beyond me. It is another expense that people do not need. If they need a carbon navigator it is not rocket science to get their planner to do it.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to check something with Mr. Kelleher. He is saying €150 for the first ten, and €130, and then-----

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

No. It is €150 for the first ten, and €120 above that. That is the new scheme.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was mention of €175 and something else.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

This year, you had BDGP and BEEP.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. How much is the BEEP on its own?

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

The BEEP is working out at around €80 per cow. This year, you had the two of them together, so you got €185 for the first ten cows and €160 above that. The weighing for the BEEP is gone but they are talking about bringing in a new scheme. All we know at the moment is that the new suckler efficiency scheme is €150 for the first ten cows, and €120 above that. There is €28 million allocated in the budget, which should deliver €70 per cow for the first 400,000 cows. That would put the €150 up to €220, and the €120 up to €190. That is if we get the €70, but that scheme is not sorted yet. That money was allocated in the budget. Whether it will come or not, the Deputy's guess is as good as mine.

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

I call Mr. Roddy to respond.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

If it is okay, Chair, I would like to bring in Mr. Condon for the question on the organics. He is an organic farmer. I will take the other two questions first, and I will be brief. I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for the question and for the opportunity of being able to provide clarity. As regards the SAC, special protection area, SPA, and Natura lands, all farmers on those lands will get access to ACRES. They are a priority asset, so they will get access to ACRES. That is a positive. However, that has been the case with all schemes, whether it be REPS, AEOS or GLAS. The issue and the point I was making was that in the other schemes, they got a direct payment in recognition of the fact that those lands were designated and of the cost that the burden of designation imposed on those farmers. This CAP plan and this agri-environmental scheme is the first time we are not going to see a specific payment for that cost. Added into that is the fact that in respect of the good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, standards, the 38 activities requiring consent for farmers with designated land has also been subsumed in there. The idea is of recognising the cost of designation and there is a substantial cost. I know we spent money ourselves that other farmers would not have to spend in getting planning permission for fencing. A lot of farmers on designated land would have done the same. It is also important to note when we talk about those costs for farmers on designated land that when you are looking at TAMS, farmers with designated land have to get permission to fence that, which is not included as part of the TAMS grant. Before they put down any posts at all they are probably going to have spent between €2,000 and €4,000 in getting permission to do that. That is something we need to recognise. There is a cost there and I am glad to get the opportunity to clarify that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Roddy. You can let Mr. Condon answer the question about organics or you are going to run out of time.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I just want to make one point relating to the sheep. Deputy Fitzmaurice made a great point. We do need more money there. It is great that we have a sheep welfare programme in place and the Deputy, as well as others, were very helpful in getting that in place the first time. It is great that it is there, but €12 is not great. There is no point in saying it is. I am not going to say that. Look, you will never turn away money. We have to also recognise that there is a problem in sheep at the moment because what we are hearing in factories is there are an awful lot of breeding ewes now being slaughtered out. I would be quite concerned about the confidence in the sector at this point. We are on about breeding ewes that should be there. I will pass over to Mr. Condon and I thank the members for the opportunity.

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

Mr. Condon should be brief.

Mr. Joe Condon:

I have a couple of comments on the organics. Reducing the age of slaughter and reducing the age of calving to 36 months, as has been proposed recently, would be completely against the principles of organics. That is not just my opinion. If you go through Articles 4 and 6 of the organics regulation, they refer to using animals with a high degree of genetic diversity, disease resistance and longevity. All of those proposals are completely against longevity. I believe there is an opportunity to make organic attractive to farmers with commonage. There are advances in precision farming technology and they have the ability to demonstrate that organic animals can be kept separate from non-organic animals in a commonage situation. This does not mean that the commonage is organic and it does not require that the organic be paid on, but it would make the enclosed land much more attractive for those farmers to join organics. I do not know if there is a possibility of the Department being willing to look at some type of trial or a test run on that. The other thing I would like to comment on is GEAC 2 and there were some contributions made earlier on to the effect that GEAC 2 is linked to rewetting. I would like the record to be clear that there is no requirement for rewetting under what the Department submitted to Europe in its CAP strategic plan. Basically, it is looking for examples of appropriate minimum standards that may include a ban on ploughing or minimum till or no till. There is no requirement for rewetting. I would like that to be corrected on the record. If you are talking about food security, rewetting is going to be one of the big elements that will lead to a massive reduction in production in those areas.

There is discussion of 187,000 ha of land for anaerobic digestion and close to 700,000 ha for rewetting. A significant amount of land will be taken out of production, with forestry on top of that. We will be here soon to address the food security issue, as far as I am concerned, if some of these ideas go through. On 21 November, the Minister will meet the Council of Ministers about the nature restoration laws. I believe maintaining our hill lands and all other areas as agricultural areas, based on the vegetation on that land and agricultural activity, is vital if we are to protect food security in this country.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make two comments. One is on food safety and food supply. With the measures that have been approved by the Government to address climate change, do the witnesses feel they will be able to deliver on food safety and supply?

Mr. Biggins covered the second issue that I want to raise, which is ACRES. Mr. Biggins stated that 42% of people's income is coming from these environmental schemes. How can we be assured that the people who need to be in that scheme the most can get into it? I agree that two weeks will not be enough. I have been inundated by farmers over recent weeks. One cannot get a planner or anybody to do the work. There is no point in the Department introducing the scheme, opening it on 17 October and closing it on 21 November. Is the Department serious about that scheme or does it just want to open it and cause trouble for us all? The people who really need and want it should be in it.

The Government talks about food safety. Today, we met a Green Party Minister. If it continues to put in restrictions and pressure on farmers in this country, we will have a major problem with food supply in the years ahead. It will then cry and ask why we did this and let this happen. The people in the country will ask why we did not have sufficient food supply. All it will take is food coming from Brazil, Argentina or another place which is poisoned, then people will be sick from it and there will be outcry and questions about why we cannot supply our own food for our own country. If the Government and Green Party are serious, they have to give farmers the money, resources and time to be able to produce good food.

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

We covered ACRES comprehensively before now. How achievable do the witnesses think the climate change targets are?

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank Deputy Ring for his question. The 25% target is a significant ambition. We had an opportunity to set it at 22%. My colleague, Mr. John Enright, and I sit on the dairy vision group and the beef and lamb vision group. It is a significant challenge. The Teagasc marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, will carry us a long way, to 16%, 17% or 18%, but that is subject to having complete buy-in. The ruminant additive will deliver substantial gains if it is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency but it comes at a substantial cost to the primary producer. I will use the figure of 100 cows, whether suckler or dairy, because it is easiest from a mathematical perspective. It would cost that farmer between €10,000 and €12,000 per annum in investment in the ruminant additive alone to get that level of reduction. I live near to the Teagasc Solohead research farm, where it has done much good work on clover and multi-species swards, but they all come at a substantial cost. As my colleague, Mr. John Enright, said, there is no money from the Government on the table.

I will not get into the politics of this. I was invited, on behalf of the ICMSA, to attend a public meeting in Mitchelstown last Friday night. Two of Deputy Ring's parliamentary colleagues who were there said this was a Government approach, not driven by one minority party. There needs to be some joined-up thinking if it is the right thing to do. It is not that long since environmental aspirations were inaugurated under the previous Government, out in the Aviva Stadium. The then Taoiseach, who is now the Tánaiste, spoke about Ireland being a food island. Unfortunately, some Deputies, including urban, rural, Green and traditional farm Deputies, have forgotten what we are good at and what drives our economy. Some 170,000 people are employed in rural Ireland directly as a result of agriculture. We are in danger of undermining the viability of the family farm. If that is decimated, which is a potential outcome of all these proposals, our sectors, whether dairy or beef, will fall. We need the throughput from those family farms for the industry to remain viable.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I thank Deputy Ring. The question is whether we can achieve the 25% emissions reduction in agriculture. The IFA was clear from when this started to be negotiated. We nailed our flag to the mast and said we could go a long way to achieving 22%. There was a pathway for farmers. That depended on having complete buy-in, but it was something that farmers could buy into and there was a pathway to it. The problem is that we do not see any way to achieve 25% without a cut in cattle numbers. The Department said it will not make anyone reduce cattle numbers or take their cattle away. The fact is that the Government is using every policy lever at its disposal to reduce and put pressure on cattle numbers. All the schemes, eco-schemes and measures will result in a reduction in production. The 25% is not achievable without a reduction in cattle numbers, which will have a massive impact on parts of the country that can least afford the economic blow that it would deliver.

We get frustrated about some critics of farming or people coming up with proposals about what farming can do, including alternatives and diversification, because we have yet to see anything based in economic reality. When the targets were being set, we were told that anaerobic digestion would take off and that we would start feeding grass and crops into anaerobic digesters. Anyone who has tried to establish an anaerobic digester will understand how difficult it is to get even one off the ground. Our proposal to achieve widespread anaerobic digestion as a potential solution in a short period is not grounded in reality at all. With these emissions cuts, we need to support farmers both financially and with knowledge relating to feed additives and more efficient management of organic and inorganic fertilisers. We need that kind of real feet-on-the-ground assistance.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

We have to be straight on this. There has been no real, proper engagement and consultation with the stakeholders who are meant to deliver this. One could say that transport and building will not meet their targets either. That is a reality that people are brushing over. In the farming sector, the 25% target was essentially horse-trading between two Ministers without any real engagement with farming organisations. We were then left with the food vision consultation. I am on the beef vision group. The food vision consultation has essentially been about the Department's ideas. We have tried to point out that they have significant issues with cost and how accounting for emissions is done. It is all very well to say that we will use a 3-NOP feed additive. How does that translate to the calculation of emissions from the national herd? How does the 3-NOP additive work on grazing systems? In New Zealand, there is a real concern that the additive just does not work. It costs €75 to €100 per animal per year. Farmers can do a plethora of things but they will generally be accounted for in other sectors. Those include solar panels, anaerobic digesters and planting trees. They go to land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF, energy and so on.

This comes down to the Teagasc MACC. Farmers are willing to do what they can but there will not be complete buy-in from all farmers. There has been no consultation with us about how that would be achieved. There was certainly no consultation when the 25% figure was picked. We have been left with a gun to our heads to sign up to a set of proposals about the beef vision strategy.

There is any amount of deficiencies in these proposals in terms of houses to be funded. How we will get all the farmers to take it up and how will we encourage farmers to finish cattle earlier when the economics are going in the opposite direction and they cannot afford to buy the ration? Dairying is profitable. None of the other sectors is profitable. Realistically, we cannot advise a farmer to reduce the number of dairy cows because it would be an act of economic insanity. When we look at all of this there is complete delusion at Government level. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in out in Sharm El-Sheikh with the Taoiseach today. We have repeatedly asked him for meetings this year. He is very good at talking about his vision for agriculture but he has not spoken to us.

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

We have to go to a vote. I will first allow the INHFA two minutes to respond.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell:

Deputy Ring is well known for being a straight talker in these chambers. He has come with something that is critical. It is something that everybody in the Houses of the Oireachtas needs to wake up and listen to regarding food security and safe food in particular. We have the highest standards in the world and we produce to those standards. When we link this to climate action and climate change delivery we must look at how and what the farming systems are. Given where Deputy Ring comes from, he is well aware of the extensive sustainable farming systems in his constituency. What comes to mind is that it is not the cow but the how. It is how the animals are reared, the environment and conditions in which they are reared and the inputs. The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, in its report in 2017, stated extensive grazing of cattle was positive for carbon sequestration and storage. We need to look at this. I do not suggest the polluter pays principle but we certainly need to look at this more in the round. We need to reward farmers who are doing the right thing.

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

I will suspend the meeting as we must go to the Chamber for a vote.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all recall this 25% figure, but everyone is asking me what that means in cow numbers. The Taoiseach has denied from day one that there is a cull of cows but there is an awful lot of ambiguity about it. I was glad Mr. Rushe said this will certainly relate to cow numbers, but his organisation's president does not seem to say that when he is appears on television. We cannot get an answer. Have our guests been told what it will actually mean for cow numbers? What does the 25% refer to?

Long ago, there was a fella in Kilgarvan post office who delivered telegrams for his sister. While he was travelling, he met my two uncles. He had been told not to tell anyone where he was going with the telegrams. He asked my two uncles whether he had much farther to go, and when they asked him where he was going, he told them to mind their own business. They could not tell him how far left he had to go when he could not tell them where he was going. Similarly, we do not know the answer to this question and we cannot tell farmers, who are asking me day after day what the 25% actually means. They do not know what 22%, 25% or 30% means in cow numbers.

Turning to my next question, how much fertiliser can farmers use and what is the purpose of this register whereby the co-operatives will have to demand farmers have a certain number or whatever?

On carbon emissions, are all farmers going to be treated the same or will they get any credit for sequestration? I mentioned this at a recent meeting of the committee. In our area, there are only a few dots of green fields, from the perspective of a high point in Kilgarvan, where fertiliser could be spread. The rest is bushes, rock, firs, trees and other natural features, all kinds of everything else but nothing on which to spread a bag of fertiliser.

In respect of land designation, it is totally ridiculous to think that a farmer's land can be rendered useless. We have a good idea of who comes up and down our road, and a man came up it the other day. He asked someone passing by whether it would be a good place for hen harriers. That tells me that people are watching with a view to designating it. There are people up our road who have bought farms and so on, and to think it could be designated for hen harriers when we never see a hen harrier there. They are not there, but this is the kind of carry-on that is going on, with people out looking to see whether they can stop fellas farming - that is the way I look at it - and render their farms useless.

Moreover, we need to get clarity on the rewetting issue. Farmers have too much put into it. If someone has given his or her life to a farm and tries to make it fit for cutting silage off it or to graze it, it cannot be right that some fella with a stroke of a pen somewhere can say the farmer must rewet it. If the fella below the farmer does it, it will back up into him or her and there will be all kinds of logistical problems. I have to say to every one of our guests from the farmers' organisations that they must try to get an answer to these questions for the farmers whom both we and they are representing. It is not fair on people. They ring their co-operatives and cannot get an answer as to what it will mean or how much fertiliser they can get. The one thing that has happened is that the co-operatives are telling them that if they do not order it now, they will not get it at all until next spring. How much should they order and how much will they be allowed to spread?

We need answers. I am not aiming my gun at the Chairman, but our Taoiseach is out at this COP27 and he is saying we must cut our emissions or whatever the case may be. We must be honest and have a discussion with the stakeholders, including everyone who farms with a few animals. I have the utmost respect for Deputy Ring; he is a great man and there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, he is with the Government and he is asking questions about how it is going to achieve this or that-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but he is one of them.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is with no one, whereas I am with everybody.

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

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae should put his questions to our guests.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

On what the 25% will mean, we are not really sure. We know that target cannot be achieved without some sort of reduction in cattle numbers, but we have seen no plan from the State or the Government for what the path is-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might come in there for a moment. How can the IFA's president state on television that we will reach the 25% if he does not know what that means?

Mr. Brian Rushe:

I can speak only for myself and I did not hear him say that. It is common knowledge that there is a 25% target for agriculture, and the State and the Government have no clear plan on how to facilitate and help farmers achieve that. Farmers themselves have put their hands up and said they are willing to do X, Y and Z and to invest in their businesses, but we have seen no level of support.

To return to the issue of anaerobic digestion, Mr. Punch was dead right. First, an anaerobic digestion sector is almost fairy-tale stuff, but even if we did have one, the mitigation of the emissions would be credited to energy or land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF; I am not 100% sure. The Deputy, like farmers, is asking me what it will mean but the bottom line is we do not really know. We still do not have a clear line of sight, and it is the job of the Department and the Government to give us a line of sight and to properly engage with stakeholders. As has been said during this meeting, the level of engagement has been non-existent.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I am involved in the dairy vision and beef vision groups. The Deputy asked for numbers and I will give him approximate numbers. The difference between 22% and 25%, if there were to be a cull of dairy cows alone, would equate to somewhere around 145,000 or 150,000 cows. If it was just suckler cows, the figure would be somewhere between 210,000 and 220,000, so the difference between 22% and 25% amounts to a substantial cut to our national herd. It will have an impact on rural economies and farm families - there is no doubt about that - yet leaders in this country say we are not facing a national cull. What are we facing in that case? We are facing nitrates and cow bending. It is a cull by another name - simple as that. Nobody is being fooled by the idea that we are not undergoing a national cull.

The fertiliser register is another layer of bureaucracy for farmers that will dictate how much or how little they can spread. They are going to have to pay a nitrate planner to know. The system will not be live, so when people go into a store, they will not know whether their allocation has been bought. If we exceed our requirements by 5 kg or 50 kg, it will be an opportunity to penalise us. It is a further level of inspection on farms.

As regards land designation, I call that sterilisation for some people. They have found themselves not in a position to farm the land and make an honest living and not in a position to sell it. The banks do not want to use it as collateral in order that they can purchase land somewhere else to go about their business.

As for anaerobic digestion, that conversation is for the era when we face towards 2040 rather than 2030, particularly given the performance of our planning legislation in recent years. We would want to put in dryers to dry milk rather than digesters to process various materials to provide energy. I do not see there being a result regarding digesters between now and 2030. There are many things we could do that would deliver, but the inventory is hugely frustrating for our sector. As Mr. Punch said, if a tree is planted, it goes to land usage, or if a solar panel is put up, it goes to energy. It is hugely frustrating.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask a question?

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

No, you cannot. I cut Mr. Rushe short already. Mr. Biggins wants to say something and we have to let Teagasc in afterwards. We are an hour over time.

Mr. Michael Biggins:

I refer to the land that is designated. We heard earlier that people in the hen harrier area and the Burren can get into the new GLAS. They were receiving a GLAS payment and a hen harrier or Burren payment. For some, their payment has reduced from €16,000 to a maximum of €10,500. There is no way that we are agreeing to anymore of the country being designated without funding being provided to compensate farmers whose land is designated. A designation on a farm is absolutely crippling. You are not allowed farm in the way you should be allowed to farm. If a person has a hold over you and if it is for the good of the environment, compensation must be given for it. There can be no more designations without proper negotiation and compensation. That is our view on the matter.

We are totally opposed to rewetting. Vast areas of the country are very productive. People think rewetting is done on bogs. It is not at all. It is on the finest of productive land in every county in the country. There are dairy farmers who are in the top the tier as regards production who are operating on drained peatland. Such land cannot be allowed to be rewet.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

There has been a complete lack of engagement with the stakeholders who are expected to implement this. Decisions are being taken and visions are being outlined at a high level in Government about what we are going to do and achieve while there is an awful lot of uncertainty. We do not know precisely how much methane is being emitted by cows when they are grazing. Teagasc thinks it has been overestimated. That is not going to be examined until further peer-reviewed research is done. We do not have a baseline on how much carbon is already stored by farmers. That work is ongoing. It means there is a huge problem in figuring out how we will give credit to farmers in the future for the sequestration of additional carbon. The EU is still working out how it will deal with the question of carbon credits. Work is under way at EU Commission level on this. Again, this is a work in progress. Farmers are being asked to do a whole lot of things when there is much ambiguity around emissions, sequestration and carbon credits. Anyone who tells Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that they know exactly how many cows are going to be affected by this is guesstimating. This is the problem we have. There is a huge amount of uncertainty.

As for emissions, the targets set in the context of climate change are from the inventory. The inventory is one way of measuring it. The problem, which New Zealand and other countries are finding out about, is that the use of feed additives may not work very well with grazed animals. On the other hand, however, progress is being made by getting more productivity from the same cow or beef animal. It is well known that Ireland is a leader in emissions per kilo of output of dairy and is a close runner-up in emissions per kilo of beef produced. All of this is being done without regard to what is going on in other countries. The issue is that if we cut back our cows, someone else will take up the slack. There is a level of insanity around this based on decisions being made that are a vision of what is the most virtuous thing Ireland can do and whether Ireland can be a leader. There is no proper understanding of the precise mechanisms to achieve these grandiose visions. It is time for some serious straight talking on this. The Taoiseach and the Minister are in Sharm El-Sheikh making more grand announcements about what we in Ireland and the rest of the world will do. They have not really engaged with the farmers who are meant to deliver this on the ground, however, and that is farcical.

Mr. John Keane:

In the interests of fairness, Dr. Hanrahan wanted to respond to a couple of points raised by Deputy Ring before the break. I have a couple of points that will not take very long.

On Deputy Danny Healy-Rae's question on numbers, there is no concrete figure to say farmers will have to cut their stock by four or ten head of cattle, because the science is not there to tell us what each farmer will have to do individually. KPMG commissioned a report last year, about which the Taoiseach made comments, that estimated a 25% reduction means approximately 400,000 head of cattle would have to be culled to meet that target. The Food Vision dairy group report recommends, as part of an exit scheme, a reduction of 100,000 cows would remove 450,000 tonnes of carbon emissions from the sector. There is a multiplier effect from this. Every dairy cow has about 1.9 equivalent livestock units on a farm, therefore, it would mean 300,000 animals for that sector alone. There is also a recommendation for a reduction in the beef sector, figures for which have yet to be finalised.

As for what credit farmers may get for sequestration, we have no measurement or benchmark for that either. Research is ongoing on the towers in signpost farms to indicate what carbon is being stored, as well as what is being added. The results are promising but the figures are not available either. We regularly talk about emissions trading and creating emissions profiles for farmers - the latter are easily measured because it is on a per-head basis - but no resources are given towards investigating what sequestration is taking place inside every farmer's gate in the country. We should be getting credit for what is being sequestered and not just being penalised for emissions. We are aware the carbon farming proposal by the EU Commission is due to be published at the end of this month, which will give an overarching indication of what that might look like. We welcome what indications may be contained in that.

On fertiliser usage, reduction by another means is being proposed in that regard. It is ironic that we are proposing reductions in the total tonnage of fertiliser that may be used in the country, while at the same time we are talking about increasing the number of anaerobic digesters. Anyone who has taken the time to look at anaerobic digesters working on the Continent will say that maize, high-quality grass, whole crop and even grains are fed to anaerobic digesters. The last time I met a group of tillage, dairy or beef farmers who were involved in producing that type of quality produce, they had to spread nutrients in the form of fertilisers to grow the crop.

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

I call Deputy Flaherty.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. I know the Chair is getting tetchy, so I will not take too much time.

I never saw him as agitated as he is today. I have learned my lesson and I will try to get in before Deputy Fitzmaurice in future. I might then have a question or two that he has not had answered. There are a couple of key points I want to make. I have a question for Mr. Keane on the forgotten farmers. As Government Deputies we were delighted to see the Minister address this at the Macra na Feirme conference. The organisation is taking issue with the Minister's six-point criteria. It has had lot of engagement. Will Mr. Keane give us bullet points on what the criteria should be for entry into the scheme?

The IFA mentioned the bridging payment for the crossover for those farmers who do not get into the second tranche and face a potential delay in payments. I attended an IFA-organised briefing with Teagasc in Longford. Universally, the response from farmers was quite enthusiastic. Teagasc more or less said if most farmers did one of the recommendations they could probably get themselves into the second tranche and most of them would probably get up to the €7,000. Has the IFA had further engagement on the bridging payment or any indication that it will happen? I hope we will see an announcement tomorrow on the extension of the deadline. I have told the Department it is seriously understaffed in terms of rolling out this scheme. It needs additional people.

My next question is also for the IFA. We think the committee's proceedings are fascinating and that the general public are logged on and watching online. The reality is they are not. The IFA lives in a unique ecology with itself, the producers and the public who are the consumers. I am not here to defend Bord Bia but at the same time there is a perception among consumers that Bord Bia is the flagship and is an endorsement of all Irish products. I will play devil's advocate. Why is the IFA steadfast against inclusion of the suckler scheme in the Bord Bia programme? Does it not see how this reflects in the wider world particularly among consumers?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise as I must leave. I thank all of the witnesses.

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

No bother.

Mr. John Keane:

With regard to the forgotten farmers, the two main support payments that were missed out on by young farmers after 2008 were installation aid and access to the national reserve. Any farmer who missed out on both or one of them for the duration of the CAP until 2015 in our opinion is in the group of forgotten farmers. To add to this there is a group of farmers who entered parent milk partnership arrangements between 2005 to 2008. Approximately 300 farmers fall into this category. They were excluded because they were not head of the holding. They were involved in a partnership under certain criteria in 2008. They were told to hold on because installation aid would be available. Later in 2010 and 2011, when these farmers wanted to access schemes they were told they were more than five years actively farming as head of the holding because they had entered into a milk farm partnership in 2005. The same criteria used to not include them in schemes between 2005 and 2008 because they were not head of the holding was used in reverse from 2010 onwards to say they could not receive payments as young farmers because they had been established as head of the holding for more than five years. The criteria that need to be applied is that if farmers missed out on installation aid or the national reserve or both, they need to be in the forgotten farmers category.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the dairy partnership.

Mr. John Keane:

Yes.

Mr. Michael Biggins:

On the bridging payment we proposed to the Department that it roll over the people who were in GLAS 3. This would amount to 12,000 farmers and it would take the heat out of it. The Department said this was not achievable. There is no problem with people qualifying to get onto the scheme. The biggest problem is getting access to a planner and getting them in the door. There is a huge logjam. I suggest the way to relieve this is for the Department to make a clear statement that anybody applying in the fourth quarter of next year who meets the criteria will get an upfront payment. This would take the heat out of the situation. Nobody would be falling out with planners. What it is trying to achieve at present is not possible even if it were extended for the month of December and it will need to do this to make any inroads.

I have nothing against Bord Bia. The problem is that a huge number of suckler farmers do not sell finished animals. They would not traditionally be in Bord Bia. The scheme is forcing them to sign up to Bord Bia even though they will not see one cent from selling finished animals. No one has an agenda against Bord Bia other than it is introducing a layer of bureaucracy to a farm that was not required previously. It serves no meaningful purpose other than that Bord Bia can say there are more farms in the scheme. It is putting pressure on those farmers.

I would like to touch briefly on the TAMS costings. Deputy Fitzmaurice asked a question earlier. It is a huge problem. The grant aid bears no relation to where the costs are. The costings in the current tranche were reference costs looked at last November. They were implemented in the tranche that opened in April. They gave a 5% to 15% increase on various items. Deputy Fitzmaurice is right about the price of concrete. In my area it increased from €85 per cubic metre to almost €135 per cubic metre for 40 newton concrete. This is forcing people into building sub-rate buildings because it is cheaper not to meet the TAMS specification.

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

If the witnesses do not have any comment on ACRES and the other question asked by Deputy Flaherty, we will move on.

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

I will be very brief.

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

There is the first time for everything.

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

Do not challenge me.

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

They are all at me, so I might as well start.

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

I hope nobody was at the Chair in my absence.

I will deal with the broad macro issues because the detail of the schemes has been very comprehensively covered by the farm organisations. According to my calculations, when we take into account inflation the level of funding under Pillar 1 next year, as opposed to 2018, will be 13% less. I am speaking about the overall scheme of things. In Pillar 2 when we include all of the co-financing it will still amount to a 3% reduction on 2018 levels. Do any of the farm organisations dispute these figures? Have the organisations carried out analysis of what the real funding for the CAP will be? The reason I ask is because the Minister continuously states there is an increased budget for the CAP and particularly that there is an increase for funding under Pillar 2. He says this particularly in the context of the climate action debate. He states increased funding is being made available. I do not believe this. As I have said, my figures suggest this is not true. Do the witnesses agree with what I say or with what the Minister says? If they disagree with what the Minister has said, I have to ask each organisation why its representatives have not said so.

We have had a debate on convergence and discussions on funding. In recent months, the organisations' members have been in the firing line in the debate on climate action. The committee accepts that agriculture has a role to play in climate action and that all farmers will be expected to play their part.

The committee is also of the view that farmers need to be supported in doing that. Part of the mechanism to deliver this is the funding that will be provided under CAP. The difficulty is that CAP funding is going be reduced at a time when the members of the organisations present will be asked to do more.

My question is simple; is the premise that there will be less funding under CAP when inflation is taken into account true? Are the organisations present going to elaborate and make that point vividly? The debate on the next EU budget, which will include the next portion of our allocation to CAP, has already started at a European level. If we are collectively saying that Ireland is getting more when we are getting less for CAP, we are undermining our argument to ensure the next EU budget includes provision for an increase in the CAP allocation. That is my only question.

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

There is have a vote in the Dáil. Will we wait for the answer or will I suspend?

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

Let us get the answer. I will stroll over to the house in a few minutes.

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

The Chair and Deputy Carthy can stay here. They are only going to go over and cancel each other out.

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

Unfortunately-----

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

Our Whip would not allow that. I ask Senator Paul Daly to take the Chair. I will go and I will not get into trouble.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I stated earlier that farmers have lost out significantly as a result of not having indexation. It is critical that there is indexation for any schemes. In the late 1990s, REPS was worth £5,000. With ACRES, you have to cover a lot of ground to get €5,000. The difficulty from the perspective of the CAP funding is that we are being asked to do more. In the past round, greening was the challenge, which was overcome by the vast majority of farmers in a reasonably easy way. The grassland and tillage farmers managed that through crop rotation. The challenge this time around is that our farmers have to do something within the eco scheme to make up for some of the previous funding they would have automatically received.

The Deputy mentioned climate action. The CAP is what it is and it is limited in what it can do. We have been asked to do greening in the past and now we are being asked to do an eco scheme. To ask the CAP funding to facilitate a climate action transition is not feasible. We need to see an independent and well-funded budget put in place to fund any proposals that come from the diary, beef and lamb vision groups. There is only so far that a cap can be spread, even on a rainy day, and we are being asked to use it from head to toe.

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

I apologise that I have to leave. I will get the transcript of the meeting.

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

Does the Deputy mind if we carry on?

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

Carry on.

Mr. Brian Rushe:

We have continuously pointed out the impact of inflation on the CAP. The Minister and the Department have signalled that, overall, between pillars 1 and 2, there is an increase in funding but inflation is having an impact. Look at the impact of inflation in the past six months. It will have an impact on the value of that payment going forward. We have called out the need for indexation and we have called out that farmers have lost out hugely because they have not had indexation. That has had an impact on the CAP funding in real terms.

I agree 100% with Mr. McCormack that this CAP is being asked to do too much already. Stretching it any further, as has been suggested, to cover more environmental measures or to even attempt to use money from CAP to cover our emissions reduction target, is not feasible and will not go next or near far enough. There needs to be a separate fund that is targeted towards that. There also needs to be a separate fund for eco systems services and more environmental measures, if that is what people want and if that is what the Department wants. Already this CAP budget is under severe pressure, even though the value might be increased or the Department might point to the value being increased. However, the value of it to farmers is under real pressure and they cannot be asked to do any more.

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

I will give every organisation an opportunity to answer Deputy Carthy's question. While the witnesses might feel like they are speaking to an empty room, their answers are going on the record and will be there to be seen. If the Deputies are not back when the replies have been concluded, we will probably wrap up. I will take Macra na Feirme, then the ICSA and we will finish with the INHFA.

Mr. John Keane:

I will address the question on funding. I mention the funding from a young farmer's point of view in the context of CAP, which our focus consistently has been on. If you look at the 3% set aside under pillar 1 for direct payments, the 60% grant aid support set aside for TAMS or the supports set aside for the national reserve and the guarantee of the national reserve for the next few years, there are some measures which will support and enhance support for young farmers. However, there is a dearth in supports outside of those. For example, there is no provision of financial instruments under CAP, which was one of the key measures brought forward to address access to finance for young farmers. No support was brought forward in the land mobility service either, which was identified in the Department’s SWOT analysis as being a tool which can be used to support the transfer of farm land. It was also called out in the Commission’s document on supporting access to land and access for young farmers to start in the sector.

We are the only EU member state that has not selected installation aid as a support measure for young farmers. Taking that in the round, not only have we not selected measures to support young farmers to even maintain the status quo but we have chosen to not actively support measures that will achieve objectives around generational renewal, which was called out as one of the key objectives of the CAP. While we have been told time and again that the national Exchequer will support young farmers and in increasing the percentage of farmers under the age of 35, here we are and we are still left with a gaping hole in the supports that are required in the context of land mobility, access to finance and access to business start-up support for young farmers.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

I will try to address what Deputy Carthy was getting at and the question of whether this is being fully funded to the greatest extent possible. The issue is that we were promised that there would be €150 million of carbon tax money, along with the State doing what it is required to do under the co-financing rules to the greatest extent possible and on top of the EU money. There are three sources of funding for CAP.

We did a CAP plan proposal in the ICSA, which we costed. Using our figures we were able to account for a €10,000 average agri-environment scheme. We were able to find money for a beef finisher programme and we were able to do all of the other things as well. There is a concern in our mind that there are some serious questions about how this is being costed. It is difficult to do that analysis yet because of a couple of variables. We do not know how many people qualify for the eco scheme, although we think a lot do. We do not know how many people for ACRES and how much they will draw down under it. We do not know how many people will go into the suckler scheme and how many cows that is in respect of. There is the sheep welfare scheme as well. Both of those schemes are challenged by people getting out of them.

There is a sense that the Department, particularly with the rush to close down ACRES as quickly as possible, is playing around with the allocation of funds. The pillar 2 schemes are multi-annual in nature, with multi-annual funding allocations. As a result, it is hard, at this early stage, to say whether this is being funded to the extent we were promised it would.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

Deputy Carthy mentioned 13%. Earlier, we mentioned a 12% reduction. Broadly speaking, we are there or thereabouts in terms of being in agreement. Inflation has definitely not been factored into CAP at EU level. It is not just this CAP; in previous CAPS we have also seen reductions.

We need to see it addressed in the next CAP but in the interim, we also need to see measures put in place and pillar 2 provides us with an opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, as we outlined in our statement, pillar 2 is substantially underfunded. We must recognise that in the last CAP, on average, the budget for pillar 2 worked out at €590 million yearly. That compares poorly to the previous budget, which was more than €700 million. The current CAP we are coming out of is the anomaly. The increase is welcome but it is not close to where we need to go. We estimate that about €150 million extra is going into pillar 2 but we need to see at least another €150 million beyond that. That would put more money into ACRES and ensure any farmer who is willing to make a contribution can get access. We must be realistic. Not every farmer will join ACRES but every farmer should be given a chance.

It would also support our suckler and sheep sectors to the levels they need to be supported. To answer Deputy Carthy, we agree there is underfunding that needs to be addressed in the immediate term and in the new CAP. I hear what other farm organisations said about the requirements, conditionality and what is expected. Effectively, we are seeing less money and higher expectations and that is not good enough. It would not be tolerated in any other sector, so it should not be tolerated here.

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

I thank the representatives from the INHFA, the ICMSA, the IFA, Macra na Feirme and the ICSA for their attendance. I apologise for things getting slightly messy at the end but that is the life we live here with sporadic votes being called. It was important to get the opinions of all the organisations on the record. It was a very worthwhile engagement and we are left with plenty of food for thought on this side of the table.

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

I will resume with some housekeeping. Deputies are still returning following the Dáil vote.

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. Witnesses 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.

From Teagasc, I welcome Professor Frank O'Mara, Dr. Stan Lalor and Mr. Thomas Curran. The topic is the discussion of Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, schemes. I ask Professor O'Mara to make his opening statement.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. The Teagasc advisory service offers a wide range of technical and farm business advice to approximately 43,000 farmer clients. These clients subscribe to Teagasc advisory support packages, which include access to a Teagasc adviser for scheme application submission and compliance support across the range of Common Agricultural Policy schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Advisory support for some of these schemes, such as the basic payment scheme, BPS, is provided within the standard Teagasc advisory contracts, while other schemes, such as ACRES – the agri-climate rural environment scheme - and TAMS - the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme - are supported as services that are additional to the standard client contracts.

With regard to our activity on schemes in 2021, the last calendar year, Teagasc adviser activity totalled the following across a range of schemes in operation during that year: 41,127 BPS applications for 94% of our clients; 751 TAMS applications, with a total of 1,650 dealt with between own advisors and outsourcing; 1,544 results-based environment agri-pilot programme, REAP, applications; 13,000 green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, applications; 2,285 commonage applications; 11,000 beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, applications; 16,000 beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, applications; 13,000 beef environmental efficiency programme - suckler, BEEP-S, applications; 62 pearl mussel scheme applications; and 381 hen harrier scheme applications. In addition, we had 754 knowledge transfer groups with 11,808 farmer participants across all regions and farm enterprises.

I will now deal with the importance of schemes to farm income. Teagasc, as part of the national farm survey, reports data on the contribution of direct payments to farm income on an annual basis. Key figures outlining the contribution of direct payments to farm incomes in 2021 include the following figures, which are based on the national farm survey sample data set. The average level of direct payments paid to farmers was €18,219 per farm, or €406 per hectare of utilised agricultural area. Approximately 67% of payments were derived from Pillar 1, which covers the basic payment scheme payments, averaging €12,252 per farm. Approximately 30% of payments on the average farm were derived from Pillar 2 schemes, averaging €5,591 per farm, of which approximately 65% is derived from the areas of natural constraint, ANC, and environmental schemes, with the remainder derived from schemes specific to beef, sheep, forestry and organics.

Participation and average payment rates per participating farm across a range of Pillar 2 schemes in 2021 were as follows: GLAS, 39% of farmers, with an average of €3,990 per farm; BEEP, 32% of farmers, with an average of €1,770 per farm; BDGP, 27% of farmers, with an average of €1,945 per farm; and sheep welfare, 18% of farmers, with average of €1,330 per farm. Overall, the proportion of family farm income, FFI, that came from direct payments was 52% on average across all farms. This equates to total income at farm level derived from subsidies of €1.73 billion. Those most dependent on direct payments as a proportion of the total FFI were sheep - 90% of FFI; beef - 92% of FFI; and suckler - 139% of FFI. In addition to the schemes and direct payments I have referenced, TAMS, operating as TAMS 2 since 2015, has provided in excess of €344 million of funding to farmers since 2015. Approximately 50,000 farmers have applied for funding during this period.

I now turn to schemes in the CAP strategic plan for 2023-27. The new cycle of CAP schemes, as laid out in Ireland’s CAP strategic plan, CSP, will give rise to a number of changes in the availability, structure and funding available under schemes from 2023 onwards. These include a redesign of the structure of Pillar 1 funding - formerly basic payment scheme and associated payments - within the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, complementary income support for young farmers, CISYF, complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, and eco-scheme interventions. Supports for protein aid and sectoral interventions for the horticulture and apiculture sectors are also included under Pillar 1.

Among the Pillar 2 changes within the CSP is the continued movement or convergence towards equal payment rates per eligible hectare across all farms receiving Pillar 1 direct payments.

This will result in an adjustment in Pillar 1 payments on every farm. The changes will impact most positively on farms with historically low levels of entitlement values, and on farms of a smaller area. The largest negative impacts are on physically large farms with historically high entitlement values that are dependent on Pillar 1 payments for family farm income.

Large intensive beef farms will be most negatively affected because they tend to have entitlement values that are currently above average levels per hectare and are on average highly dependent on Pillar 1 payments for their family farm income. While large intensive dairy farms will also lose direct payment support under the CAP strategic plan, because these farms have lower dependence on direct payments as a proportion of overall family farm income, the proportionate impacts on incomes will be much smaller.

Tillage farms generally have entitlement values per hectare that are greater than the average. These farms will also generally see direct payments decline due to the continuation of the convergence process. A total of 16 interventions have been announced under Pillar 2 across a range of environmental, organics, on-farm efficiency and investment themes. The most significant scheme in terms of overall funding and advisory input will be ACRES, with a value of €1.5 billion, which has already opened for applications in autumn 2022. There is also expected to be high demand for the following schemes: organics at €256 million, sucklers at €260 million, sheep at €100 million, dairy beef at €25 million and straw incorporation at €50 million, as well as the on-farm capital investment scheme. Some €100 million will come from the CAP strategic plan for capital investment schemes but the total in that is €450 million. For the knowledge transfer groups, €71 million has been allocated.

Teagasc anticipates strong demand from clients to support accessing these schemes and is currently engaged in an intensive period of application, preparation and submissions for the first tranche of ACRES. Teagasc has, following sanction that was received from the Department, recruited an additional 73 short-term contract advisory staff to support work required within the current application window of ACRES. However, as the new CAP schemes, namely, the aforementioned BISS, CISYF, CRISS and the Pillar 1 eco-scheme, come on stream in parallel to the annual support work required for ACRES, the Teagasc advisory resources will continue to be stretched in the delivery of support to clients. Teagasc has also increased the support available to prospective organics applicants through the provision of six additional advisers and two additional specialists who are currently being put in place.

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

First, I apologise to Dr. O'Mara for running over time. I know we kept him waiting in the hall. He has given us a serious amount of information on the schemes and it will be on the committee record, which is very important. One issue I see flashing out at me now is that Teagasc will have a scarcity of resources. We are getting many complaints about people who are trying to get advisers to do their applications for ACRES. I think there will be many disappointed people out there. In fairness, they can only do what they can with the resources they have, and the timeframe is extremely short. When you consider the proportion of people's income that was involved in GLAS, the loss of the GLAS, combined with not being able to enter ACRES, will have a huge impact on a certain sector of farmers.

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

At the outset and with the indulgence of the Chair, I have a point to make from a personal point of view as a Teagasc client. My Teagasc adviser recently retired. I want to take this opportunity in this public forum to wish Mr. Christy Jones, who Dr. O’Mara probably knows, the very best of good luck in his retirement. I could never fault the service that I received as a client from Mr. Jones and indeed from Teagasc through him. I will take advantage of the opportunity to say that.

Dr. O’Mara is aware that we had the farm representative bodies before the committee. I asked them one question and I will ask Teagasc the same question. We are all aware of where CAP emanated from. It was initially introduced to ensure food security for the European population - to provide for good quality, highly traceable food, and plenty of it, that was affordable and cheap to the consumer. It was also to ensure that the farmers were able to run a viable operation through the schemes. CAP has evolved a lot. With every new CAP in recent times, we seem to be working more towards it becoming an environmental scheme. With Dr. O’Mara’s knowledge of the schemes and of the new proposed 2022-27 CAP, as primary food producers how do we get the right blend of the environmental aspect, the food production element and the compensation to the farmer that will ensure food security? From an environmental perspective, all the schemes seem to be taking an angle of reducing production. For example, the area of organics has been asked for reduced production and increased forestry which would be taking land out of production purposes. The organic schemes are compensating for less production. At the same time, we have massive population growth, even within the food-secure regions. At the present time, there are large areas of the world that do not have food security and large numbers of people who are hungry. After all that long-winded effort to ask the question, I will ask a simple question. How does Teagasc see, based on the CAP that is before us, that we can get to that happy halfway house where we will achieve our ambitions with regard to our climate goals and our environmental targets in a way that will ensure we do not end up back here with Teagasc and the previous guests who were before the committee where the topic of conversation is food security?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I thank the Senator for his nice comments about our colleague, Mr. Christy Jones, who has recently retired. I have no doubt that he will be pleased to hear that. I had an email from him yesterday. He has been retired for five weeks and he is enjoying that very much but he is still keeping a good eye on us and on what we are doing.

The Senator has asked a significant question about the future of food production. It is a complex arena, as is the whole area in which agriculture works, because we have had so many competing demands on agriculture to provide answers for climate, to protect water quality, to restore biodiversity and to produce food. There are competing demands on agriculture. In the mix of all of that, we try to provide the knowledge and help to farmers to run their systems as efficiently, effectively and profitably as possible, and to deliver as much as food as possible, while meeting the targets under the climate agenda.

To take the point of the climate targets, we have a 25% target and our proposition in that space is that through technology, efficiency and system improvement we can go a long way, and maybe the whole way, to meeting that target without negatively impacting on food production. That is important because if the response to the climate targets is to reduce food production in every country, we will obviously have a major problem in global food production and food security. That is the challenge, and it is exercising us strongly.

Whether it is in the case of climate, water or biodiversity, we must try to accommodate the requirements to meet the targets there while still delivering food production. This is the challenge of our time. That is what we are busy doing at research and advisory levels. We are significantly increasing our resources devoted to the climate area both at research and advisory level. We will be launching the Teagasc climate strategy on 1 December, which will encapsulate that increased activity and how we can help the sector to respond. There is no doubt that it is a big challenge.

It is one facing not only Ireland, but many countries that are trying to grapple with the targets around environmental issues and food production and the continuing challenge around farm profitability, because it is a long-term tightening of incomes. Even the figures in the CAP schemes, when inflation is taken into account, involve a real reduction in support over time.

It is a big question but I suppose society is saying we now have many goals for agriculture to try to deal with, not only food production. That is the challenge being put to the agricultural sector and put to us to try to help it through it. We have a challenging road ahead to do all that.

I do not know whether any of my colleagues wish to add anything to that.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

I would support that. When Senator Daly talked about the CAP schemes, he mentioned the focus being on reduced production. We are supporting farmers all the time on other regulations, particularly in relation to nitrates derogation. We have a number of activities ongoing with which we are trying to support farmers. It is not always that it has to be a reduction in production. We have the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, and the agricultural catchments programme, for example, which is very much focused on trying to operate within what is required to meet the environmental targets that are increasing in priority while still maintaining farm viability and viable profitable systems.

Likewise, on the greenhouse gas side, we need to reduce overall total emissions but it is always about mitigation strategies and technologies being applied, both in development and research, and what we can apply through advisory as well. As the director has outlined, we have a new strategy that is accelerating all of that activity as well.

It is probably important to make the point as well that the agricultural sector and the farmers involved with whom we would be working every day as a client base are all united in not wanting to do damage to the environment. They want to maintain their farm viability but they are not setting out to do any damage to water quality, have excess carbon emissions or anything like that. Our activities are very much supporting their motivation and their ambition in that regard with the research we can develop to do that. The technologies we will continue to develop into the future are a part of that. The other key area is how we can support farmers as much as possible, not always telling them they must adopt but supporting them to adopt. Many of them want to do this as well and it is important we recognise that. The advisory programme we are hoping to design and implement in the coming years, especially on the climate action side, is very much driven by that. It will encourage farmers to be motivated to take action and support them as much as possible in the adoption of our technologies.

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

I welcome the guests as well and apologise for how late it is. It is grand to hear about all that is coming on but, as the Chair said, there are too many farmers being excluded from this. There will be 5,000 of them, who are involved in the existing schemes, GLAS, and the renewable energy assessment project, REAP, who will not get a place on the environmental scheme. Does this damage the perception of the environmental demand we make of these farmers and are the payment rates inadequate and less than what they got under REPS in the 1990s?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Could Deputy Browne repeat the first question? I got the Deputy's introductory point about farmers being excluded.

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

Is there damage being done to the perception of the environment demands being made of these farmers?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I will deal with ACRES and farmers being excluded. We are very busy at present, obviously, as are the private consultants, in preparing applications on behalf of farmers to the ACRES scheme. Mr. Curran might give details of the numbers. We have more than 40,000 clients, 16,000 of whom have asked us to prepare an application for them for ACRES. With a deadline of 21 November, we will not get through all that number. We will get through a good number - there is much work to be done between now and then - but we certainly will not be able to get through them all. We have made that known to the Department and to the Minister and suggested an extension would be very helpful in terms of getting more of them through. That is being considered but we have not heard any details of it yet. At present, we are working to that 21 November deadline.

In terms of farmers and the perception of them in relation to the environment, it is a contested space. The role of farmers, whether in climate or water quality, has been much debated in recent years. People who are informed on it would acknowledge that Irish farmers do a pretty good job in terms of their stewardship of the environment, and that is reflected in their high participation rate in schemes such as ACRES or, previous to that, GLAS etc.

In terms of the payment rates, I might hand over to Mr. Curran to deal with the detail of that. They are increased in ACRES compared with the previous scheme. Mr. Curran might deal with the number of applications, where we are at and the payment rates.

Mr. Thomas Curran:

Almost 17,000 applicants or farmers have applied to Teagasc to complete the work for them. I am sure the private consultants are no different. We are working through a process where all of those applications are being assigned to both our own staff and the temporary staff whom Dr. O'Mara spoke about in his opening address. We have in the region of 3,500 of those completed. Figures I see from the Department this evening are that 7,500 are submitted and another 13,000 are in the pipeline on the system nationally.

While I do not have specific details of the payment, I can look them up for the Deputy and provide them afterwards. It depends very much on the measures chosen and whether the farmer is in the co-operation project, CP, or in the general scheme. The general scheme is very much dependent on what measures the farmer chooses to adopt and implement on the farm.

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

Am I to understand that Teagasc is looking for extra time as well as the extra staff that have been taken on to deal with this, and if so, what kind of feedback has the Minister given Teagasc?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Could Deputy Browne repeat the first part of the question? I got the piece about the Minister.

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

I am saying that Dr. O'Mara had said that Teagasc had looked for extra time as well as the extra staff it has taken on. Has the Minister indicated he will give Teagasc extra time or what is the situation there?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Dr. Lalor might answer that.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

We are conscious that the application and submission process is part of the overall journey of a farmer through the system. On the Department's side, we are aware there are things it needs to do with the application in terms of processing, and some of that has an impact down the road in the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, and eco scheme process next year. We are conscious there is time required for that. Notwithstanding that, we are aware that extra time would allow us get more of the clients in. It still may not allow us to get all of them in but it would allow many more of the clients who are seeking to get in through the Teagasc advisers.

We have formally asked the Department for an extension and outlined the need for that. We have not had any formal response yet in terms of a final decision but, from what we can gather, that is being actively considered at present. As of now, the information we have is that, officially, the closing date for the scheme will be Monday, 21 November. We have asked the Department to consider an extension of approximately three weeks on that.

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

So there was no commitment from the Minister. It is wonderful to see that there is a need to take on additional advisers and specialists because we are starting from a very low base.

Have the delegations seen interest shown in the organic farming scheme? A deadline of autumn 2023 has been set for people to comply with the organic livestock housing requirements in order to become eligible for the higher support. Is that achievable?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

As I have outlined, we have taken on a lot of extra advisers for the campaign of ACRES and over 73 staff have been taken on. We have also put in place six additional advisers for the organic scheme and two more specialists. So we have gone from having just two specialists this time last year or earlier this year and I hope that within a very short period we will have a team of team in place to support organics. My colleague, Mr. Curran, will discuss the interest shown by clients and discuss the requirements of the scheme.

Mr. Thomas Curran:

I do not have specific numbers but I will come back to the Deputy on them. Farmers have shown a high level of interest in the scheme. A lot of queries have been received by our existing advisory staff and new organic advisers.

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

Yes. The INHFA has said there is a possibility that the scheme will be oversubscribed due to changes in livestock rates. Has Teagasc any views on that aspect? Is there a chance being missed in colleges to promote the scheme?

Dr. Stan Lalor:

Interest has built up across the year and there is huge momentum. There have been a couple of sequential announcements about increased payment rates to farmers that can potentially be got as part of the scheme, which has had a huge impact on increasing interest. We have seen that with the much larger attendance that we observed at the series of organic farm events that took place during the year. The most recent event took place in September where over 1,000 people attended a joint event by Teagasc and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that took place in County Tipperary. There has been a very high level of interest shown, compared with what we have previously seen, in tranches of organics with regard to the November and December application period.

Deputy Browne mentioned potential barriers that prevent farmers from entering the scheme, in particular animal housing.

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

Yes.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

The Deputy is correct. We have received feedback from farmers that when they consider the conversion and adaptability of their system, particularly for livestock in terms of the suckler beef system, the requirement for, let us say, free space and loose bedding areas in housing is one of the most significant challenges and is one of the existing barriers. It is one of the big decisions a farmer must make if he or she is interested in joining the scheme. The feedback that we have received concurs with the view that housing is the biggest barrier.

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

Yes.

Dr. Stan Lalor:

Notwithstanding that barrier, interest is very high. Where a lot of people would have seen the impact in respect of using chemicals and fertilisers or animal remedies and so on, those barriers appear to have diminished and animal housing is now the priority barrier or fear for farmers.

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

Is singular hedgerow management a lost opportunity in the view of Teagasc? We have heard that many hedgerows may lack diversity or the ability to cater for diverse species.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Hedgerows are a hugely valuable resource in the country in terms of their contribution to biodiversity, wildlife and the fact that they provide routes for wildlife to travel from one area to another. There are over 600,000 km of hedgerows in this country, which is a huge resource. The issue with a lot of the hedges is that the management of them could be improved in both their operation as a stock-proof barrier and in the amount of carbon they hold and their contribution to biodiversity. We have a very active programme of good hedgerow management. We have a hedgerow week every year where we put a big focus on talking to farmers and contractors about the best way to cut and manage hedges. We have seen a lot of improvement with the way hedges are managed on some farms, which is very welcome. A lot of new hedges have been planted, which is also very welcome. The planting of additional hedges is one of the measures introduced by the new scheme called ACRES.

The Deputy asked whether an opportunity has been lost. It certainly is an opportunity and Teagasc is keen to see the best management practices for hedgerows taking place on farms.

Mr. Thomas Curran:

By way of information, the Department conducted an exercise where it measured the length of hedgerows to provide space for nature as part of the new eco-scheme options. That is an acknowledgement of the level of hedgerows that are on farms and will help an awful lot of farmers to achieve the 4% requirement stipulated in the new scheme. The farmers who do not have 4% will be required to plant hedging. My colleague, Dr. Catherine Keena, would say that a hedge should be a minimum height of 1.8 m. In some situations that might involve infilling existing hedges or changing to a cyclical management of hedgerows whereby not all of them are cut and perfectly neat and tidy all of the time. A thorn hedge with flowering plants is vital for nesting birds and so on. She also has put a huge emphasis on field margins, which contributes to biodiversity within a hedgerow.

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

On organics, surely it is not good enough to have just one buyer of organic beef. The INHFA has said that we need much greater competition in that sector. There needs to be a realistic assessment of what milk or beef price is required from organic production and to get returns equivalent to conventional farming. If we follow on from this, it seems to me that it would be an actual course of action if we made a distinction between the two and gave an incentive to farmers to enter into that area.

I note the issue regarding the use of organic produce in conventional retail. Does this aspect prevent farmers from entering organics? Does it seem ill prepared, given that we should have a marketing strategy built around this, as well as the supports that are in place?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Was the opening question about whether it was insufficient to have just one buyer for beef?

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

Yes.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

In any market one likes to see competition. One would hope that as the size of the sector develops, there would be more buyers. Our colleagues in Bord Bia would obviously have a big role to play in the development of marketing and the markets for organic produce. I am not too informed about it but I know that for Bord Bia, a lot of interest was shown at an organics marketing event held in Germany a couple of weeks ago. At that event there was very strong interest shown in Irish organic produce. I am sure that Bord Bia is well able to speak for itself but my feeling is that Bord Bia colleagues would say that there is a good market for organic produce.

The Deputy asked about organic produce ending up in the conventional market. That is a concern of farmers. It is a concern of farmers who are considering getting into organics. It is a concern of farmers who are already in organics but are worried, with the prospect of a lot of additional farmers joining the scheme, that the market will be flooded. Everyone is very keen that the market side of organics is developed every bit as much as the technical side of getting farmers into organics and going through the conversion process. Our sister organisation, Bord Bia, is very conscious of these matters.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. He and his staff have had an exhausting afternoon and evening. They have been very busy. I also thank the witnesses for being with us late into the night. I wish Mr. Christy Jones well. I know him well as he comes from near to where I am from in Roscommon. He is a lovely guy from a lovely family. I ask that my good wishes be sent to him.

There is no point in repeating questions that have already been asked but I have one or two questions. Teagasc is taking on up to 75 extra staff. Are they spread throughout the country?

Mr. Thomas Curran:

The staff are distributed throughout the country based on demand from clients. A higher proportion of the staff are seconded to the north west and west than to other areas of the country where the demand is lower. That is the way it operates.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Picking up on the comments made, I get the impression from farmers that they are buying into this more. They know we have to deal with environmental matters, which is good. They are also concerned about their welfare and being able to survive on a farm. I detect a reluctance in certain parts of my local area among farmers. Some are saying they are not going to enter any scheme, which is a pity. What advice would our guests give to those farmers or what advice should I give them? I advise them to get involved but they say there is too much red tape involved. Even though they can get someone to do it for them - staff in Teagasc or others - they get annoyed that there is so much red tape in the schemes. Do the guests have an opinion on that?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

That is always an issue for farmers with schemes and even for us. There is a huge administrative load and a huge amount of detail required with regard to applications for all these schemes. I would advise all farmers to inquire about the scheme and talk to their advisers, whether it is a Teagasc adviser or a private consultant. Generally, there is not as much work involved as people may have thought at the start. There seems to be very good buy-in among farmers for ACRES. As Mr. Curran stated, 17,000 of our clients have contacted us to make an application on their behalf or at least to come in to talk to us about it. We believe the vast majority of them will go through with their application. We find that once farmers get engaged with ACRES, they are quite positive about it and there is high demand to get into it. Having the time to get all the applications done is the issue we face, rather than reluctance of farmers to engage with the scheme.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On hedges, orchards and so forth, three or four months ago when I spoke to farmers about these kinds of issues, they would have laughed at me. When I was young every second farmer had an orchard. It was what people did. I find people are increasingly buying into that now. They are giving serious consideration to it because an orchard is simple enough to look after and a way for them to get brownie points, if I can put it that way. Does Dr. O'Mara have any comment to make on that?

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

Is that the planting of small areas of trees on farms without the need to go through the licensing process?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Dr. Frank O'Mara:

I believe that will be a quite popular option among farmers. As the Senator said, farmers generally buy into the idea of farming in a way that takes care of the environment. Most farmers consider themselves as good custodians of the environment, and they are. If they are being asked to do a bit more now, they are generally well disposed to that. That particular scheme could be quite popular among farmers.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. O'Mara.

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

I thank the representatives from Teagasc for being here so late in the evening. As always, the information they provided has been very accurate and pertinent to the work the committee does. Many members are no longer here. It has been a long day - we started at 1.30 p.m. - but the facts and figures provided will be recorded in the Official Report. The committee will next meet in public at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 November, when we will examine the eradication of bovine TB.