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

At the committee's private meeting on 2 November, it was agreed that EU legislative proposals, COM (2022) 134, COM (2022) 242, COM (2022) 296 and COM (2022) 305, warranted further scrutiny. As part of the scrutiny, representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have been invited to today's committee meeting to brief us on these proposals.

I will again read the note on privilege before we start. Witnesses who are to give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. That means they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the 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 who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts does. 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.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary; Ms Angela Robinson, head of the food industry development division; Ms Sharon Murphy, principal officer; Ms Anne Marie Dillon, senior inspector, agriculture pesticide registration; and Mr. Charlie Brophy, assistant principal, economics and planning division. From Teagasc, I welcome Mr. Brian Moran, agricultural economics and farm surveys department.

I invite Mr. Savage to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Paul Savage:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for giving me the opportunity to join them today to discuss the EU proposals on, first, geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for agricultural products; second, a specific measure to provide exceptional temporary support under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD, in response to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; third, conversion of the farm accountancy data network into a farm sustainability data network; and, finally, the sustainable use of plant protection products. I will provide a brief overview of each of the four proposals and an update on their current status. My colleagues and I will be happy to discuss these further as required.

On geographical indications, GIs, the proposal for a new regulation seeks to address a number of objectives. These are to ensure the effective protection of intellectual property rights in the European Union, including through efficient registration processes, in order to fairly reward producers for their efforts; to increase the uptake of GIs in order to benefit the EU rural economy; to simplify administration of GIs by providing for a single set of procedural and control rules for all sectors, namely, wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products, each of which is currently governed by separate and distinct sets of regulations; and, finally, to review arrangements for traditional specialities guaranteed, TSGs. Ireland does not currently hold registrations for any TSGs.

The proposal was adopted by the European Commission on 31 March 2022 following ex postevaluations, stakeholder consultations and impact assessments by the Commission. Several member states have objected to certain aspects of the regulation and discussions on the proposal are ongoing. It is unlikely that the proposal will be finalised by the end of 2022. While Ireland welcomes the objectives of the proposal, we have concerns about certain legal provisions not already included in the existing GI rules. These concerns centre around the sustainability provisions, the outsourcing of the scrutiny of GI applications to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, EUIPO, and the proposal that GIs would no longer be referred to as quality schemes.

In addition, we have concerns regarding some of the definitions presented, including those relating to "production step", "Producer Group" and "Producer". In addition, certain elements require further clarification, including the controls and verifications and the designations, roles and powers contained in the new provisions for recognising producer groups. The Department has engaged with Drinks Ireland on the proposed regulation.

As regards the European agricultural fund for rural development, the rural development regulation proposal allows member states to reprogramme their existing rural development programme, RDP, funding allocations to support farmers dealing with the impacts of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. While there is no increase in the allocation of funding, member states can choose to redirect money from their existing supports for farmers into new measures. Although Ireland welcomed the proposal as it provides flexibility for member states, we will not avail of it. Our RDP has been performing successfully, with significant spending taking place on a range of important programmes such as the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and areas of natural constraint. Providing funding under this facility would require us to reduce funding for GLAS, the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, and some other RDP schemes. Given this high level of spending, we will instead provide additional national funding through schemes to directly address the impact of the Ukrainian invasion on farmers, including the fodder support scheme, which is expected to pay out approximately €54 million in 2022. A new fodder support scheme for 2023, similar to the scheme operating this year, has recently been opened for applications. The budget for the scheme is €30 million and the aim is to provide support up to a maximum of 10 ha per eligible applicant. There is also the tillage incentive scheme, which aims to support tillage farmers to maintain their current area under tillage production by helping to mitigate the high level of risk in production that is forecast for 2023. This scheme is expected to pay out €10 million in 2022.

The farm accountancy data network, FADN, is a source of harmonised economic and accountancy farm-level data in the EU. Drawing on data from more than 80,000 farms, it allows the economic and financial situations of farms across the EU to be assessed. The proposal to convert the FADN into a farm sustainability data network, FSDN, which was adopted by the Commission on 2 June, will add sustainability data on environmental and social matters to its economic scope. This reflects the more recent environmental and social evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. The main objectives of the conversion of FADN to FSDN are: to improve its role as a source of harmonised economic and accountancy farm-level data in the EU, including through income-related indicators in the future CAP; to reinforce the relevance of FADN and FSDN for policymaking, research, evaluation and policy analysis; to add variables related to environmental and social dimensions; to simplify existing data collection, and introduce innovative systems and practices; and to improve the sustainability performance of farmers' enterprises. Ireland has welcomed the proposal, which will support our efforts under Food Vision 2030 to achieve greater economic, environmental and social sustainability for the agrifood sector.

Teagasc, in its role as Ireland’s liaison agency, collects the FADN data, which is published annually in the Teagasc national farm survey. The survey currently presents mainly economic information. This, among other things, assists in determining the impact of measures deployed under the CAP. It is worth noting that Ireland is among the more advanced member states in its collection and use of these data. Teagasc already collects sustainability data, including some of the extra data that will be required under the new FSDN. It also produces an annual sustainability report to supplement the main national farm survey. The new data and variables to be included in the future FSDN will be set out in secondary legislation. The Commission will take account of the need to limit the administrative burden on farmers and national authorities.

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

I will interrupt Mr. Savage, if I may. Does Deputy Fitzmaurice have to leave the meeting to attend a vote in the Dáil on an amendment to the Finance Bill?

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

The Chairman and I can stay for that amendment-----

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

I have to attend the vote.

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

In that case, I will go too.

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

I apologise to Mr. Savage but there is a vote upcoming in the Dáil. We will have to suspend the meeting. We will be back after the vote.

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

Mr. Savage may continue.

Mr. Paul Savage:

As I said, the new data and variables to be included in the future FSDN will be set out in secondary legislation. The Commission will take account of the need to limit the administrative burden on farmers and national authorities. Consultation on the proposal has taken place with the main stakeholder groups, who are largely in favour of the FSDN initiative.

A proposal for a sustainable use of pesticides regulation to replace the existing sustainable use directive, SUD, was published by the Commission on 22 June 2022. The proposed revision of the SUD is one of the 27 actions outlined in the farm to fork strategy. The proposed regulation includes a legal basis for the EU pesticide reduction targets to reduce the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030. It also establishes additional requirements for the use, storage, sale and disposal of pesticides, for pesticide application equipment, training, awareness raising, the implementation of integrated pest management and the prohibition of pesticide use in and around certain defined areas. While Ireland supports the overall objectives of the farm to fork strategy, the targets for pesticides are ambitious and challenging. It must also be recognised that the usage levels of pesticides in Ireland are amongst the lowest in the EU due to our predominantly grass-based production system.

This proposed regulation is at an early stage in negotiations. Discussions began at Council working group on 13 July 2022 and are expected to continue at Council over the next 12 to 18 months. The Department will continue to work constructively with stakeholders and other member states on this important topic. Indeed, we have recently opened a written public consultation on the proposal.

I hope this opening statement has given committee members a good overview of the four regulations and my colleagues and I look forward to discussing them further with the committee.

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

I thank our guests for coming to the meeting and for their clarification on the regulations in question. I have two questions that are based around geographical indicators, GIs. All of us received correspondence from the distillers, Beam Suntory. Part of its empire is the distillery in Kilbeggan, where I am from. Beam Suntory has concerns. It has no issue with what is being proposed but it has noted that the regulation contains several proposals to strengthen the role of the industry in directly funding and protecting the GIs while respecting the role of the competent authorities. While it is appreciative of the work the Department has done with it, Beam Suntory is slightly fearful. It has asked us to lobby the Department to continue to support it in the fashion it has. Is that the Department's intention? The wording of the regulation puts the emphasis back on the industry and in that context, perhaps the Department will take a step back. Could that be clarified for the people involved?

Taking Brexit into consideration, how will all-island GIs be affected in the new EU regulation? Does the new regulation copper-fasten the arrangements or could there be issues, going forward? I am thinking in particular about the situation in respect of Irish whiskey. A distillery in the North of Ireland falls under the remit of the UK, which is outside the EU. How would that affect the status of that GI under the new regulation?

Mr. Paul Savage:

I will ask my colleague, Ms Robinson from our food division, to pick up on those points. She is in charge of the relevant dossier or file.

Ms Angela Robinson:

I thank the Senator. The reference in the regulations to which he referred may be Article 33, which provides for the designation of recognised producer groups. It provides for certain powers to be assigned to those designated producer groups, which can be an association or a body representative of industry, etc. There was a suggestion that some of the functions that might normally have been undertaken by the competent authority from time to time and individual producer groups might be vested in the recognised producer group. As Mr. Savage has said, the regulation is still at the point of discussion at the Council working group. Eight or nine working group meetings have happened so far. Those discussions are ongoing and it will be some time before they are finalised. Many of the member states, including Ireland, have raised points of clarification in respect of Articles 32 and 33 and what they mean by the designation of certain powers to certain groups, and how that would be implemented and managed. The Commission has provided revised text in respect of some of those articles. I should say that the Council Presidency has provided revised text which we are examining and seeking further clarification on.

A specific role was specified in the original article. In the case of Irish whiskey, for example, it was the member state, the competent authority, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, that applied for the geographical indication because there was no individual producer group. Normally, it would be producer groups that would apply for geographical indications but in the absence of that, the Department applied for the geographical indication. The article specifically stated that where the competent authority is the equivalent of the producer group, it would be the designated producer group. We are seeking clarification as to exactly what that means. The competent authority will retain responsibility for the engagement with the Commission, the industry and the producers in respect of the geographical indications because the competent authority is the applicant body. The background to this review is that it intends to give more power to producers and what the Commission is intending to do is to allow producers to, in particular, enhance their powers of protection and preventing fraudulent products being put on the market. An example would be a company fraudulently using the name of Irish whiskey. The articles are trying to see how those powers could be used by the producers but the rules will not change the fact that the competent authority will ultimately be responsible for the official controls in that regard. Does that answer the Senator's question?

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

Ms Robinson does not see the role of the Department as the competent authority changing, as such,-----

Ms Angela Robinson:

No.

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

-----when it comes to the implementation of the GI.

Ms Angela Robinson:

I do not. We are clarifying the text around that to ensure there is clarity about what the distinctive roles of the recognised producer groups and the Department or competent authority will be. That is what many of the discussions are about.

We have certainly raised the cross-border issue in our discussions at the Council working group in the context of cross-border GIs where the geographical indication involves a member state and a third country. The text is not clear as to how the situation would work in practice. For example, the article refers to the designation of the recognised producer group which would act on behalf of all producers of the geographical indication. When we are talking about an all-island GI, our question to the Commission was that if the competent authority must designate the producer group based on certain evidence, how does that law apply to a third country or non-member state, particularly on a cross-border issue. We are hoping the Commission will clarify that aspect. We are very conscious of the all-island aspect of these matters. We know its importance in respect of the very successful Irish whiskey product. We are conscious of that point in all of this legislation. We scrutinise and make comments to the Commission about how the cross-border GI is affected.

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

When does Ms Robinson envisage all this communication coming to an end and a final draft being available?

Ms Angela Robinson:

There is another meeting of the Council working group next Tuesday and we understand that under the new Presidency early next year, there will be at least another six meetings for discussion on these matters. There is a lot of discussion among many member states about not only that article but also many other aspects of the regulation. It is difficult to answer the Senator's question. I do not think it is going to happen in the short term. That is my view.

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

I presume the final draft will come back to the committee.

Ms Angela Robinson:

It absolutely will. We can arrange for a further update when a more refined draft is available, if that suits.

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

I thank our guests for coming in. Mr. Savage said there was a package of money we would not look for because it was worth less than the schemes in place. Perhaps he would elaborate on that.

In respect of producers groups, what stipulations were being put in?

I looked at the different communications about which our guests talked. There was a piece about designated areas or mature areas in the context of sprays and all that. There was a piece about sprays and a piece about designated areas in which sprays could not be used. What is the story with that?

Mr. Paul Savage:

I thank the Deputy.

Regarding rural development, there was a proposal to assign some of the EAFRD to supports for dealing with the impacts of the war in Ukraine where member states had money available, but it would have involved taking money from farmers in one part of the programme and putting it into supports for Ukraine. We have a good track record over the years of fully deploying all of the rural development funds that have been available to us. That track record has continued under the current RDP. We expect to deploy all of the resources in the RDP as planned across all of the various measures. We are second of all member states in terms of the amount of money that has been utilised. We have it all committed and we want to ensure that all of the planned programmes and schemes are implemented effectively. As such, we did not believe there was any scope or capacity to take money out of those and redirect them from participating farmers to other areas. That is why the focus has been on shorter term measures in response to the war in Ukraine. I have already mentioned the fodder and tillage schemes that have been put in place. We have considered this matter in terms of trying to achieve the long-term strategic objectives through the RDP, all of the resources of which are committed – we expect those resources to be fully utilised – and then focusing on shorter term responses to the war from more current resources.

The issue of producer groups is related to GIs on Ms Robinson's side, so I might ask her to address that in a moment.

Regarding sensitive areas, the Deputy referred to the pesticides regulation. There is provision in the proposal for particular consideration of sensitive areas. That is still under discussion. A number of areas have been identified – urban areas, rural areas, Natura 2000 areas-----

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

It specifically refers to Natura 2000 and designated areas. It raised alarm bells with us where it said that, in designated areas where cattle were grazing, sprays would not be allowed. This would be detrimental to some areas, which is why I am querying the point.

Mr. Paul Savage:

The concern is how pesticides would be used in various areas and under what circumstances. The Commission's definition of what sensitive areas, including Natura 2000 areas, is wide, but we are still at an early stage in the discussions on how sensitive areas will be covered and what the provisions on the use of pesticides in those areas will be.

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

Take us through the nuts and bolts of it. There will be toing and froing on this regulation. What will be the procedure after that? Will the regulation be laid before the Dáil? If the Department agrees to it, is that game over or will we have some say on it? What is the story?

Mr. Paul Savage:

We can continue to update the committee on the regulation's progress. It is being negotiated at EU level, so all member states will have an input into the discussions. There will be a decision in due course on their outcome.

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

A regulation is a regulation. It is not something that is generally voted on in the Dáil.

Mr. Paul Savage:

No, but we would have updated the Dáil and we would continue to update the committee on the progress being made. We would take the committee's views on board in our input into the discussions in Brussels until such point as the regulation was agreed. We would continue to consult the committee and could still engage with it to the extent it wished.

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

Senator Daly referred to different parts. Will Mr. Savage ensure that we are updated on spraying in designated areas? The language in that regard is dangerous. The clerk, Mr. Haughton, has highlighted the various parts about which we have concerns.

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

It was Ms Coyle.

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

Sorry.

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

We will not fall out over that, but we will give credit where it should lodge.

Mr. Paul Savage:

We are at an early stage in the discussions. We would be happy to update the committee further as those discussions progress.

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

Has the Department concerns about how the proposal on sprays in designated areas is written?

Mr. Paul Savage:

There are a number of concerns from all member states about the way in this has been addressed in the regulation. How sensitive areas are defined in the regulation effectively gives scope for large areas of many member states to be covered. The Commission views that as an issue, given member states' sensitivity to such a proposal. The way in which the regulation has been drafted gives much wider scope. It would mean that the entire territories of some member states were considered sensitive areas.

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

Correct.

Mr. Paul Savage:

The Commission is aware of this issue and is happy to engage further with member states on how it has set out the regulation's scope. We will make an input into that discussion.

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

Is it the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that has the full say? Will any other Department nose in on it?

Mr. Paul Savage:

To the best of my knowledge, this is a regulation of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG AGRI.

Ms Angela Robinson:

The Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, DG SANTE.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes. I am sorry. However, our Department is making the bulk of the input. I do not believe there are Department of Health implications.

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

That may be a positive for us.

The witnesses spoke about sustainability. My understanding from the documents is that the Department is raising its eyebrow about many regulations. What were its concerns in respect of sustainability? Producer groups were mentioned. Where are the problems in that regard?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Regarding our sustainability concerns, one of those had to do with the additional sustainability provisions that were being introduced in respect of GI. I might ask Ms Robinson to cover that issue. She might also address the issue the Deputy raised about producer groups.

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

The witnesses referred to producer groups.

Mr. Paul Savage:

That was in the context of GI.

Ms Angela Robinson:

The issue of producer groups is linked with the conversation we had with Senator Daly. Under the current regulation, producer groups can apply for a GI. Under the proposed regulation, there will be producer groups that can apply for a GI, but there will also be designated producer groups. For example, there could be a number of producer groups – not necessarily in Ireland – producing a particular GI product. Under the draft regulation, where there are a number of producer groups – or a number of producers, which would be the case in Ireland – there can be a designated producer group that will represent all of those groups or individual producers. That is a new provision. The principle of a geographical indication is that, once a producer produces the product that meets the specification that has been registered in the EU's register of GIs, it is free to produce that product and place it on the market. The producer does not have to be part of a producer group provided it meets the specification. That is the difference.

Many member states, including Ireland, have been trying to establish the distinct roles and powers of the recognised producer group, mindful of the current position that, once a GI producer meets the specification, it can put its product on the market. The draft regulation sets out a number of powers of the recognised producer groups to liaise with intellectual property enforcement. For example, if a GI was made a trademark, a recognised producer group could be involved in that kind of work. We wanted to ensure that the draft's text was clear about what powers the recognised producer groups would have – this was not clear from the text – and how they would affect individual producers. This was our concern in respect of producers.

The draft regulation defines producer groups as "any association, irrespective of its legal form, mainly composed of producers or processors of the same product". We wanted to know what "mainly composed" meant. The draft also refers to production steps and how a producer is someone who is involved in a production step at any stage in the production. We asked whether that included, for example, bottling, whether the specification set out where a production step stopped, and what else would and would not be set out in the specification.

These have become legal issues. Once the specification goes in, it is subject to detailed scrutiny by the Commission. We need to be clear about what this language means. We and the producers are clear as to what it means at the moment.

In respect of the sustainability issue, it is linked to trying to integrate the sustainability provisions into the geographical indication regime. Our interpretation of the proposal, like other member states, is that, for example, if GI producers want to apply for a new GI, it is not mandatory for them to state the sustainability characteristics of the product. However, according to the proposal, if the producers want to describe the sustainability characteristics in their product specification, they can only do so provided the sustainability standards they are including in the specification are higher than any EU or national sustainability standard. Our view is that this is inequitable for GI producers. If a GI producer is producing a product that is meeting certain sustainable standards, he or she should be entitled to mention those sustainable characteristics in the product specification, even if it is just meeting the same standard as other producers. The provision in the proposal could mean that there is a GI producer who is not permitted to put the sustainable characteristics in the specification, and a non-GI producer who can describe their product, advertising their sustainable credentials, when they are only meeting the EU standard. I hope that is clear. That is our issue with that.

The other point I should make is that the draft proposal provides that the Commission can, through delegated Acts, decide on certain sustainability standards in respect of GIs. Under the farm to fork strategy, there is provision for the Commission to bring forward a general proposal on sustainable labelling and standards. We are saying that it is a little bit premature for the Commission to start talking about sustainable standards in respect of GI when there is going to be another discussion, at the wider Commission level, in respect of sustainable standards and labelling.

Mr. Paul Savage:

The Deputy mentioned the issue of sustainability across the different regulations. It might be worth mentioning the conversion of the farm accountancy data network regulation to the farm sustainability data network regulation. What is proposed under that is that effectively the collection of data will be expanded to include environmental and social data so that we can manage those wider impacts of policies, in a general sense, under the CAP, and be able to report on that. The Commission can monitor the progress relating to those particular criteria. It is trying to flesh out the measurement of the impact of the CAP and to gather data on the measurement of the impact of the CAP, which reflects the evolution towards greater sustainability in the way that the CAP has evolved. Sustainability elements will be included in the data collection process. It means that a more complete picture will be provided, in addition to the basic economic and accountancy data that is there at the moment. From our point of view, a lot of that data is already collected by our colleagues in Teagasc, and Mr. Moran can provide more detail on that if required. We have quite a good collection of sustainability data on an annual basis, which goes into the Teagasc sustainability report. We think we are in a reasonable position to be able to move fairly readily into the type of additional data collection the Commission envisages. There are no particular concerns, from our point of view, regarding the actual collection of sustainability data.

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

I have one final question. Looking at the pesticide and designation side of the proposal large swathes of land from the top of County Donegal down to the bottom of County Kerry and out beyond the River Shannon could be affected. Does Teagasc have any concern about the wording of the proposals in relation to pesticides? The term "sensitive areas", could refer to a province or half a country. There does not seem to be anything put into it.

Mr. Brian Moran:

To be honest, it is not my area of expertise. I have no knowledge of the legislation on pesticides. I deal with the farm accountancy data network for Teagasc and the data collection.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Perhaps my colleague, Ms Dillon, might answer that in more detail for the Deputy.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

As Mr. Savage mentioned, the sensitive areas are part of the proposal of the Commission, which are specifically mentioned in Article 18. I think the point in this is more about the actual definition. Article 18 refers to the different restrictions on the ban, as it were, on the use of certain pesticides, but the definition of "sensitive areas" in the proposal is the issue. It is a very broad definition and, as the Deputy mentioned, it includes things like the Natura sites and nitrate-vulnerable zones, etc. It is fair to say that the issue has been raised by member states, including Ireland, at the Council working group. There is a recognition that we need to take a closer look at it and to amend the text accordingly. We are working actively on that.

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

I ask that the Department keeps us updated on that. A special area of conservation is a special area of conservation, end of story, just as a natural heritage area is a natural heritage area. If we are talking about the Natura network, that concerns huge parts of the country. Ms Dillon mentioned the nitrate-vulnerable zones. There is different terminology coming on sensitive areas. It would be dangerous for many parts of the country if the current wording of the proposals remained as it is.

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

I thank the witnesses for attending. Notwithstanding the fact that Deputy Fitzmaurice has rightly voiced concerns regarding the sensitive areas, it is rare that we get EU regulations that most people support and can see the value in. It is a notable occasion. GI is an important issue. The Department has to be commended on the work it has done on it. Equally, we have to acknowledge the various industries themselves have done significant work in this regard. The whiskey industry has invested significantly in it. We are probably fortunate to have a number of GIs that define a number of products, most notably, Irish whiskey and Irish cream liqueur. The sector has been long looking for this type of framework. Only in recent days we have seen how Irish brands, such as the Shed Distillery, which produces gin, are evolving on the global stage. If we look at where Scotland is, there is a huge opportunity for growth, and the Irish whiskey industry is still in its infancy. In County Longford, Lough Ree Distillery started out producing gin and it is producing its first whiskey now. In terms of GI, the distillery uses peat and the River Shannon in its processes. They are key parts of its product that cannot be created anywhere else. That is why GI is so critically important for such producers and why, in the main, they welcome these proposals. There are various proposals therein that aim to strengthen the role of the industry, directly funding and protecting producers' geographical indicators, while, at the same time, respecting the role of the competent authority, which is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is reassuring to hear that the Department is fully satisfied that it will continue as the competent authority. The industries and various sectors have huge respect for the way the Department has advanced this. If I were to ask for one thing, it would be to leave the lines of communication with producers open, and particularly the small-scale distilleries. They are keen for the engagement process to continue. They commend the Department on its work to date and wish to keep the lines of communication open.

Mr. Paul Savage:

We will certainly do that.

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

Is it agreed that the committee will discuss the proposals further at its next private meeting? The Department has assured us that it will come back to provide a further briefing when more negotiations take place.

We rarely bring in the Department to discuss COMs but we did so because we have concerns about these proposals.

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

I do not agree with this in its present form. If we are going to get this looked at again, I will have no problem waiting.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Does the Deputy mean in terms of coming back and giving an update?

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

We need to see the final draft. I have serious concerns about some of it, to be honest.

Mr. Paul Savage:

As I said, we would be happy to come back and give the committee a further update.

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

Yes.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Again, some of these proposals are at very early stages, so there is a bit of a way to go before we see real clarity in terms of the-----

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

When does the Department expect a final agreement? Will it be six months or a year?

Mr. Paul Savage:

It depends on the different regulations. There is a different pace maybe to what is happening with the GIs compared with where we are with the pesticides one, which is at a very early stage. We have effectively made an adjudication on the EAFRD proposal. The FADN and the FSDN proposals will take some time because it is only the primary legislation that is being dealt with now. The detail of what is required will only come in the secondary legislation later and we are probably not likely to be in a position to have that clarified until 2024. We are looking at collecting the data in 2025 and 2026 and having it ready to be analysed in 2027.

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

To be clear, it is not that we want to bring in officials. I know they are busy.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes.

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

What we do not want, however, is to find in one, two or three years' time that we have agreed to something that will pulverise farmers around the country. That is the reason for this meeting. It is not that we want to bring in the officials or give them extra hours. We just want to make sure that something is not agreed that we have major concerns about.

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

If, when the officials brief us again, Deputy Fitzmaurice and I, or the committee collectively, are not happy, what power do we have in the process? These proposals come to the committee for approval but do we have an input? If the officials come back and say a final decision has been reached and the final draft is X, Y and Z but the committee is not happy with the outcome, do we have any power?

Mr. Paul Savage:

The purpose or main value is to make in an input in how we contribute to negotiations. Ultimately, it is a negotiation that is agreed at EU level between the member states at Council. Our job is to reflect the concerns of all stakeholders in this country in how that proposal is developed. We try to reflect that, whether that is from stakeholders or from research that we carry out. For instance, on the pesticides side, we will be doing research. We are doing a research code at the moment which will help us to flesh out some of the implications for us and will inform our position on that. We will be able to update the committee on where that is going over the next few months as well.

From our perspective, we want to get as many inputs as possible. We want to hear the views of the committee on how the regulation is developing but, ultimately, we have to reflect that in the negotiations that are taking place in Brussels, as do all of the other 26 member states. The outcome of the regulation will still be a product of and defined by the negotiation in Brussels. We will reflect the views of the committee in that engagement we go through in Brussels over what will potentially be the next one or two years.

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

When similar cases arise in future, would it be in order to flag them to the committee at the beginning of the process and give us an opportunity to forward opinions, not just on these COMs but on any future EU legislative proposals? Rather than being informed at half-time or closer to the end of the game, would it be in order going forward to flag a COM that is appropriate to the agriculture sector to the committee at the outset and our opinion requested before the negotiations commence in order that we have an input into formulating the opinion?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes, we would be keen to do that. We can follow up, perhaps with the clerk, on the timing of that so that, as the Senator said, the committee can get in early. Normally, we would inform the committee through the COMs that we send on concerning proposals that are coming down the tracks for us. For instance, the pesticides regulation, which we are talking about now, is at a very early stage of the process. We can certainly take the committee's views on that proposal and feed them into the discussions that will get under way in earnest early next year. We are happy to come back and discuss that with the committee further. As a broad principle, we will be happy to engage with the committee as early as members wish on any of the other COMs or new proposals that are coming through. We can certainly follow up with the clerk to the committee in terms of how we might more effectively do that.

The way this works now is that we inform the committee of all proposals. We do that within, I think, 28 or 30 days of the proposal being published. If the committee needs to have a discussion with us at that point to see whether there are particular proposals that are of special interest to it and in which it wants to have input, we could certainly add that layer to the discussion. At the moment, we wait for the committee's feedback and allow it to identify the proposals that members want to discuss with us. It might be difficult to do this across all of the proposals and COMs that are coming in.

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

If the Department feeds the information to Ms Rebecca Coyle, she will keep the committee informed. If we think we need to have another discussion on a proposal, we will bring the officials in for another discussion at that point. On Senator Daly's point, Ms Coyle goes through all of the COMs and brings to the committee those that are relevant. The COMs arrived on our table a couple of months ago and we referred them back. If the Department keeps Ms Coyle informed, she can tell us when we she believes it is necessary for the committee to have another discussion on a proposal. Is that okay?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes, we can look at a mechanism to keep the committee updated on the contemporary stages of the discussions because we are not doing that at the moment.

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

Is that okay with Ms Coyle? Yes. Ms Coyle is our policy adviser and does all of the work on COMs. We can liaise with her and then evaluate when we need to have another discussion on any proposals.

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

Was the Commission due to vote on pesticides or banning certain things? I understand that was to happen a few weeks ago.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes.

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

To follow up on what was said about pesticides, we welcome that. My focus is the wording of the sensitive designation and so on because farmland in designated areas is bread and butter for many farmers. We need to make sure these farmers can make a living the same as anyone else.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes, we will certainly take on the board the concerns expressed by the Deputy and feed those into our input in the negotiations in Brussels. We can talk again about that later on. The Deputy mentioned the Commission's recent deferral on pesticides, which related to glyphosate. I am not sure where that currently stands. My colleague, Ms Dillon, will comment.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

On the vote the Deputy mentioned, a proposal was put forward to extend the existing approval. Glyphosate is currently approved but that approval has a deadline of the end of this year. The European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, process - the European review - has been extended owing to the amount of scientific data that it has to go through. The EFSA has indicated that it will take it another number of months to complete that process. To allow the process to be completed, the Commission has put forward a proposal to extend the current approval of glyphosate. That is the vote the Deputy mentioned.

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

What happened?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

Approval was not given, so there was not a qualified majority in that. The issue went to an appeals process and is currently going through that process.

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

In order that members know when farmers ask us about this matter, what will happen on 1 January? Is it on or off? Will the decision be made in the next few weeks?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

When the matter goes through the appeals process, the Commission, if it does not get a qualified majority, can proceed with the proposal. We expect that a vote will take place before the expiry date to allow the extension to continue.

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

How long will that take?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

It will be until the scientific review is completed. It is estimated that will be some time towards the end of next year.

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

Ms Dillon said the Commission will do this work or analyse the matter. Will the Commission decide to go ahead without MEPs or must the issue go back to the European Parliament again?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

Does the Deputy mean the extension?

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

Yes.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

For the extension, the Commission has put forward the proposal and it will then make a decision to proceed with that proposal.

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

Who will?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

The Commission.

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

There will not be a vote in the Commission.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

The vote has taken place already at a standing committee. If it is not completed at that level, there is a process for the Commission to proceed with it.

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

Can the Commission decide one way or the other without a vote?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

It is a technical-----

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

Extension.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon:

-----proposal to extend to allow. There is actually a legal provision for them to do that to allow due process for the scientific review to be completed.

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

Okay.

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

We will discuss these legislative proposals at the committee's next private meeting. The clerk to the committee has come forward with a mechanism that we might be able to feed into the process and we will discuss that at the next private meeting.

I thank the officials for coming in this evening and briefing us.

The committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 30 November at 5.30 p.m. when the committee will examine the environment impact of local emissions.