Fiona O'Malley (Independent)

Like the previous speaker, I am glad we are having this debate because it is very timely that we examine the future of Irish agriculture. It is also very important that people who have no vested interest contribute to the debate. In that sense, I count myself as one such contributor as I do not represent a rural constituency but, as a Senator, the nation as a whole. Given that agriculture is such a vital part of our community, a point to which the Minister referred in his speech, and the importance of the network and community level involvement which agriculture represents, it is incumbent on all of us to be interested in the future for Irish agriculture.

We need to have a very broad overview as to what will happen. I attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security today, at which the Minister, Deputy Smith, is giving a presentation. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to ask him a few questions, in particular on new departures in agriculture, such as forestry. I was very conscious of how farming today will not be the same as it was previously as a result of advances in practices. We need to be honest and real about this. The money which was previously available will not be available again. We need to develop sustainable ways of farming and agricultural practice. What I mean by the term "agricultural practice" is something that is all-encompassing.

We are agreed on the social importance of agriculture to the economic and social community. Therefore, we need to determine how we will keep people occupied on the land in rural areas, in particular, in an industry which is sustainable. It is never a good idea to have people dependent on subsidies, but we need subsidies which will allow us to kick-start a viable and growing industry. The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security discussed the issue of agriculture, in particular the new departures in our transport system, for which farmers can provide opportunities through growing bio-gas or miscanthus. It is something about which we need to get real.

In the Minister's presentation to the committee he was quite adamant in saying he is not interested in dealing with the responsibility the agricultural sector has for our carbon footprint in the world. He said cutting down the herd is not an option, which I was glad to hear. Agriculture is universal and global, as is our carbon problem. What is the point in cutting the herd here because it suits our figures when we are importing beef or whatever from halfway around the world? We need joined-up thinking on the matter.

The major opportunity for the agricultural sector in Ireland centres on green energies. As I said, we need to have a system which provides a playing field for farmers to invest in long-term projects such as planting trees and forestry. I can imagine a farmer would be reluctant to begin a project which may not yield any income for many years. Naturally, there must be a stimulus package for farmers which must be based on a sustainable system, in terms of its environmental potential and, more importantly, its economic potential.

I read the IFA's briefing, which stated farmers cannot be asked to produce products at a rate which is lower than the cost of production. When I read that, my response was that nobody is forcing them to do that. Clearly, the normal parameters of a market economy do not operate in agriculture. One would not continue to produce something at a loss to oneself. I am slightly confused as to why farmers continue to operate in that way. Why would they not diversify into an area in which there is more money to be made?

I heard an earlier speaker refer to the fact that in Ireland we can have a cachet for quality. We can produce products at a very high standard. We supply the gourmet market in France, in particular. However, we are not very good at selling the quality things ourselves and recognising and appreciating the value added we can get on the bare minium cost of a product.

On beef quality, about which I do not know a great deal, one knows basic facts, such as that while Brazilian beef may be very good to taste, it is a different product to what we have in Ireland. Rearing cattle in the open is much more beneficial than keeping livestock indoors, which is the case for a lot of the meat which is produced. We need to add value. If one knows one is buying an Irish product, one is getting added value. Therefore, we should encourage farmers into the high end of the agricultural sector.

Many years ago I heard a farming programme on the radio early one morning at a time when there was a problem with Brazilian beef and the IFA was exercised about stopping it coming into Ireland. A man made a very interesting point; he wrote a piece comparing the situation to the Olympics. He said we should imagine cattle and markets were like the Olympics. In the Olympics, everyone is of the one standard; one is not allowed to take growth hormones or performance enhancing products. It is not the case for cows. If one is at the Olympics, that is, the market, a Brazilian cow could be pumped up for performance without a problem, but an Irish cow is not allowed to enhance its performance in the same way because we have higher standards. Yet, both were able to go to the same Olympics, that is, the market.

That piece explained a lot to me. It is deeply unfair. If one is operating in a market, everyone should operate to the same standards. I have a great deal of interest in the developing world and sustainable agriculture within it, but to a certain extent markets in Africa, Brazil or whatever need to be developed in a major way. I can understand why the IFA became very exercised about not allowing beef with hormones or growth promoters into Ireland. People were operating to a different standard. I do not like protectionism of any kind, but I understand we need to keep a level playing field.

We need to be careful about what we allow into Europe, in terms of standards and quality. We are in a good position regarding our reputation, which we do not exploit enough in terms of the quality added value an Irish product can have. We should promote that in a major way through labelling. The European Union might take a dim view of this because we are meant to be in the one market together and cannot promote Irish products above others. However, at the end of the day we must protect our own interests at home and where we have an advantage over others we must use it.

We must not interfere with food production units or where and how food is produced. That is where we have, in some ways, gone too far in terms of land use, in particular in the European Union. We have moved in a big way into the green economy area. There are opportunities for people but we must keep firmly in view the fact Europe must feed itself. I have listened to many people who were involved in agriculture for many years, including when we joined the EU. What they have said is very interesting in that one of the goals of the Common Agricultural Policy should be that Europe can continue to feed itself and that we should not lose sight of that. It could be said that somehow we let that slip with globalisation and with many food products, which are cheaper to produce, coming into Europe from all over the world.

Part of the talks on the review of the Common Agricultural Policy will be about ensuring Europe can continue to feed itself. This should be the beginning of talks about the future of Irish agriculture. So often, it is all about the next few years, the next round of talks or the next round of funding and not about the long term. We should focus on what the future of Irish agriculture will be in ten years' and 20 years' time. We should keep our eye on that as well because there is no doubt that agriculture will continue to be an important part of Irish social and economic life. It is important we get it right and build a sustainable agricultural sector.