Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department will re-examine how peatlands and mineral rich soil lands are designated for good agricultural and environmental condition 2, GAEC 2; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13671/25]

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and all his colleagues here and wish them all the very best in their term in office in the Department of agriculture. My question is on GAEC 2 and how peatlands and mineral-rich soils are being designated under that scheme. As the Minister knows, the proposal sent to Europe is that if a parcel of land has 50% or more of peatlands all of the parcel will be considered as peatland. This is very unfair and will have a really detrimental effect particularly in areas along the west coast and in the north west.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Kenny and look forward to working with him in the term ahead.

I thank the Deputy for raising this really important issue about which there has been a lot of concern - I absolutely understand that - for farmers who are working on peat-based or carbon-rich soils. There has been an element of misinformation or misunderstanding of what the GAECs are. I am happy to have the opportunity again to put on the record of the House that GAEC 2 is a baseline requirement under the CAP regulations for the protection of carbon-rich soils. It is legally required to be put in place for 2025 as part of the basic income support for sustainability.

On the question posed, extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years with stakeholders about the land area to be subject to the conditionality and how it is to be controlled. The proposed approach is that, where a parcel has a 50% or greater overlap of carbon-rich soils, then the parcel is a GAEC 2 parcel. To apply a different threshold than 50% would either bring far more mineral soils into the standard or leave too much peat soil outside the protection of the standard, meaning it would probably not be acceptable to the Commission.

While there is no consensus among stakeholders, I believe this percentage strikes the right balance. There is concern around 100,000 ha of mineral-rich soils coming in. We have to use the land parcel identification system, LPIS, at the smallest controllable area to reference. If we did not use the 50% carbon-rich peat soil element, we would be in a position where could bring in 880,000 ha of mineral-rich soil. Nobody wants that. This is a practical approach that meets the baseline conditionality of what we want to do.

On the inclusion mineral soils, the conditionality requirements must be controlled at a land parcel level. Trying to isolate parts of the parcel where activities can or cannot take place is not practical and would be difficult to control from both a farmer and administrative perspective. A clear, parcel-based approach, based on well understood maps, is a fair way to ensure that we get the required protection in place and farmers have no uncertainty as to the requirements. It is in all our interests for farmers to have certainty. This is why we are waiting for a response from the Commission.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. It was pretty much the reply I had expected. To be honest, I do not agree. The parcel is well understood, everyone knows what it is and it is there for several other schemes, but in GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 relating to Natura 2000 lands, for example, one can red-line out the area. There is no reason that cannot be done when it comes to peatlands as well. There is no reason we cannot come up with a solution to designate the peatlands only and leave the mineral-rich soils apart from them.

This is going to have a detrimental effect on people, particularly those on smaller holdings. Consider the farmer who has 25 ha or 30 ha and 50% of that is peatland. All of that is designated. Another farmer, perhaps in another part of the country where there are much larger holdings, could have a larger portion that is peatland and yet none of it would be designated as peatland because the farmer has a larger portion of mineral-rich soils. A scheme needs to be brought in that will protect the carbon-rich soils without creating a situation where we disenfranchise farmers on smaller holdings, which is what this approach will do.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was extensive analysis of this by officials in my Department and engagement with farm organisations over past two years on trying to come to a solution. This is the most practical approach. It will have no direct impact on a farmer's daily activity on that land. I take issue with the statement that this will have a detrimental effect on farmers.

In response to the Deputy's specific question about how we adjudicate on what is in and what is out, it can lead to an inference that it is important to be out. It will not actually make a material difference to farmers' day-to-day activities. Due to our negotiation with the Commission - we hope it will approve the proposal that is with it now - that day-to-day activity can continue. It allows ploughing and reseeding to happen. It allows for the maintenance of existing drains and even for new drainage in line with existing planning requirements.

This is not the figure. It is only a baseline requirement for the single farm payment. That is what is required here. GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 use the LPIS as a small controllable area.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that and I take the Minister's point but at the end of the day, there are issues, particularly in my part of the world, with people in rural areas finding it difficult to get planning permission. If their lands are designated, what will happen if they are in GAEC 2? Will that be an issue for them?

There are also serious problems for farmers with ambitions to expand their lands or grow their holdings. They need reassurance on the future value of that land. They need to get reassurance around all of those issues to make this palatable for farmers. Many farmers, particularly in the west and north west, are organising public meetings. They are annoyed and upset that this will be another designation that is detrimental to their future. We need to bring in schemes and measures that show farmers there is a future in agriculture and do not make it more restrictive and close it down.

I want to work with the Minister on this. We all want to get it across the line, but what is being presented is scaring farmers. That should not be happening.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree because what is being presented is not what is reality. The Deputy used the word "designation", so I am not surprised that farmers are petrified. This is not a designation. It is a baseline requirement for applying for a single farm payment, or the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme, as it is now known. Of course farmers would have concerns on that but a planning authority would not know whether a land parcel is in or out of GAEC 2. It will have absolutely no impact on somebody applying for planning, whether it is mineral soil or the peat element. The same rules apply for planning for the sceptic tank, for example. Someone does the subsurface T test to determine whether there is peat. That is completely separate to this. This is not a designation. I understand why farmers are petrified. I have seen videos from other political entities engaging in scaremongering, linking this with nature restoration and lots of other things, and playing on farmers' concerns. This is not that. This is not something that, in the years to come, will have a significant impact on farmers. This will not have loads of farmers in breach of this in years to come because I have made sure that the process that has gone to the Commission will allow day-to-day activity to continue as normal.