Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason mineral soils were included under GAEC 2, despite its intent to apply only to carbon rich soils, that is, peatlands and wetlands; if he intends to amend Ireland’s proposal to align with EU requirements and prevent detrimental impacts on small farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13802/25]

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very specific question. I know the Minister is very familiar with this because there was a protest outside the Dáil on the issue. I am not sure whether things have moved forwards or backwards. What is the reason that mineral soils were included under GAEC 2 and why was the percentage chosen despite the regulation being intended only to apply to carbon-rich soils? I fully support the provision regarding carbon-rich soils, that is, peatlands and wetlands.

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

I am delighted to again have the opportunity to speak on GAEC 2, which was raised in the House earlier. As a reminder, 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 conditionality requirements for the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, payment scheme. The proposal my Department has submitted to the European Commission for approval aims to strike a balance between the vital protection of peatlands and wetlands and farmers' rights to continue with agricultural activity on this land.

With regard to the Deputy's question on the inclusion of some mineral soils, conditionality requirements must be controlled at land parcel level. Trying to isolate parts of the parcel where activities can or cannot take place is not practical and would be very difficult to control. If farmers believe their parcels should be split, they can do so as part of making their BISS application.

If a farmer believes that a land parcel has been incorrectly included in the standard, they can appeal to my Department. However, if 50% or more of the parcel is identified in the map it is in scope. To apply a different threshold than 50% for GAEC 2 would either bring in far more mineral soils into the standard or leave too much peat soil outside of the standard. As a result, I am of the view that this percentage strikes the right balance.

On the impact on small farmers, the proposal does not prohibit any of the common practices that are typical on these lands. There is a risk that this might be seen as something we really want to avoid, which is what farmers with carbon-rich peaty soils are feeling. However, the truth is that in the context of grassland, reseeding is still possible as are the maintenance and repair of existing drains. New drains are also allowed, subject to relevant planning legislation. That is already a requirement. I was determined that the proposal that went to the Commission, which was the subject of extensive consultation with all farm organisations, was set down on the basis that day-to-day farming activity on this type of land would not change. This is a baseline conditionality of the BISS. It is not a designation. It is nothing more than just that as part of this CAP strategic plan.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the baseline conditionality. I am no expert on this, but I listened to carefully to what those who are experts are saying. It seems on the face of it that small farmers are disproportionately affected by the percentage employed. I can only tell the Minister what I have been informed of, which is that the Department has decided that if 51% of the parcel comprises peatlands and wetlands, the entire land falls under GAEC 2. This means that 100,000 acres of mineral sites are captured that were not meant to be captured. On the other hand, by using this percentage, if 49% is peatlands, it is excluded. That takes 200,000 acres of carbon out of it. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am no expert, but questions have to be asked and answered in a way that reassures small farmers who clearly think they will be disproportionately affected compared with the larger intensive farms.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened carefully to the Minister's answer to my colleague Deputy Kenny. The principal issue of the categorisation of the land parcels still stands. The measure aims to protect peat but the classification of all parcels of land with more than 50% peat soils being subject to GAEC will severely disadvantage farmers across Mayo and the western seaboard. I heard the Minister deny that but 100,000 ha of mineral soils are being wrongly classified. Commission officials whom the INHFA met last week confirmed that this type of classification is not legally required. Will the Minister and his Department find a solution to this major issue? The Commission said it could be redlined and managed differently. Will the Minister submit an amendment to address these well-founded concerns? Will he commit that the Department will create an appeals process?

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

The Minister made a point to Deputy Connolly about farmers making applications and splitting parcels of land. If a parcel is more than 50% peatland, can a farmer split it and section it off at application stage? Is that what the Minister said? Is that part of a solution he is offering? Will there be an appeals process such that if a person feels their land parcel is unduly designated, they can appeal the decision? Will the Minister provide clarity on that matter?

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

I cannot do this in a minute. I will start by taking grave exception to the phrase Deputy Conway-Walsh. She stated that what is proposed will "severely disadvantage" farmers in Mayo or anywhere else in the context of GAEC 2. That is not the case. Day-to-day farming and agricultural activity will continue.

On the basic point made by Deputy Connolly, and following on from Deputy Kenny's point about splitting parcels of land, I have dealt with the INHFA. It proposed alternative wording in a footnote. It asked me to include that in the proposal to the Commission, which I have done. I am working with it. The Commission requires us to put it in. It then audits it afterwards. If we are wrong and if we cannot control it, that is when the disallowance arises. We could be in breach of up to a €100 million of a fine recurring on the single farm payment if we get this wrong. We have to have a small controllable area. The alternative to having 50% peat is having 100% in the land parcel. That would bring in 880,000 ha of mineral soils. I am striking the balance right while also saying that farmers' activity will not change. Their day-to-day activity can continue. This is not a designation like some people outside of this House are scaremongering about. I reassure farmers that their day-to-day activity will continue.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no intention of scaremongering.

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

I was not suggesting that.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think the Minister was. I do not think the farmers who were up here protesting were scaremongering either. They were clearly setting out their concerns. I have set them out as best I can in the context of the two percentages being used. The percentage for mineral soils and the percentage for wetlands and peatlands could be clarified in simple terms. I accept the Minister's bona fides in the context of what he said, but farmers tell us in serious representations that they are worried they will particularly affected on the west coast - Galway, Mayo, Donegal and so on. I can only listen to them and do my best to understand. It seems that there is huge scope and flexibility for the Department to comply with the regulation to protect wetlands and peatlands while not including the mineral soils that have been included. The Minister met those involved. Is another meeting scheduled that will clarify this to avoid continuous misunderstandings?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want to work with the Minister on this matter, but he must understand that there is a legacy of mistrust. I come from a severely designated area where people now cannot get planning permissions. It is getting worse with planning permission refusals these days because something is an NHA or an SAC. Parts of Mayo, including lands around Carrowteige and the Mullet Peninsula, for example, are being actively depopulated. I do not want the same thing to happen again.

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

Will the Minister clarify that the parcels can be split on applications?

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

No wonder farmers are concerned. Deputy Conway-Walsh can only raise those concerns and I can only answer back on numerous occasions in this House, in the media and , at farming organisations' public and private meetings to reassure farmers that this is not a designation. When words like "designation" are used and references to planning are used, as was used earlier, that sets farmers' fear off. The only people who will know a land parcel is GAEC 2 is the farmer and the Department of agriculture. A local planning authority will have no idea of that. It will have no access to that map and will not know that. This does not impact planning. I cannot be any clearer than that in terms of reassurances.

Farmers can split parcels. A natural boundary is needed. It can be done as part of the BISS. An appeal is not needed to do it, but a natural boundary, such as a hedge, ditch, river course or whatever, is needed.

On to Deputy Connolly's point about the impact on small farmers, conditionality is applicable to all farmers regardless of size. However, those with farms of less than 10 ha in total area already exempt from controls and the penalties of conditionality. There will be an appeals mechanism through my Department which farmers can avail of.