Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Feb 2024

I thank Deputy Kerrane for her question. The new forestry programme for the period 2023 to 2027 was launched in September 2023 following receipt of state aid approval from the European Commission. Since then, a total of 2,154 ha have been approved for planting under the new programme. This is in addition to 1,293 ha paid for and planted under the interim de minimis scheme in 2023, with this planting carried out in accordance with the new programme.

The new forestry programme aims to encourage a substantial increase in afforestation by offering attractive and diverse options for planting, especially for farmers. The Government has committed €1.3 billion to the programme in order to support our national ambition of 8,000 ha of afforestation per year. The new afforestation scheme offers landowners a choice of 12 forest types which cover a broad range of planting options including native woodland, continuous cover forestry and emergent forests. It provides generous incentives to farmers, in particular, to re-engage with forestry. These include increases in premium rates ranging from between 46% to 66%, along with a longer premium term of 20 years for farmers, compared to 15 years for non-farmers, across most forest types. Afforestation is a voluntary land use choice for landowners and building confidence among landowners and farmers of the benefits of forestry will be key to increasing afforestation rates in the years ahead. In order to encourage uptake, we have engaged in extensive promotion of the forestry options available including funding 42 stakeholder projects. These projects will promote the forestry programme through a wide variety of approaches and will engage with the wider community to highlight the benefits of forests as a source of biodiversity, enjoyment and inspiration. A targeted campaign has been under way across all media. This will continue throughout 2024. In addition, more than 1,000 people attended 20 Teagasc-led in-person meetings for the public on the new afforestation scheme throughout the country and Teagasc will continue to promote forestry.

The Minister of State will be well aware that there are significant concerns regarding the many limitations of the new forestry programme. I have engaged across the board in relation to forestry and have not met a single farmer, forester, organisation representing those involved in forestry, private forestry company or mill that has any confidence in the forestry programme. They have raised significant concerns, particularly around the limitations. They cannot all be wrong. While the Minister of State has moved to assure us that the capacity is there within the system to issue licences for the 8,000 ha target, I am not convinced the applications will be there. The forestry dashboard shows that just 152 ha out of the required 667 for the month have been achieved and just two forestry licences were issued in the past week.

Is the Minister of State aware of people's concerns? I presume they have been put to her. Is she convinced that this forestry programme is going to work and we will meet our target of 8,000 ha annually?

I am aware of some concerns. The Deputy may be meeting different people from those I have met, because the programme was warmly welcomed. After a long period, it was great to get the programme across the line last September. It has been warmly welcomed and there has been great engagement at the many forestry promotion events across the country that Teagasc, private forestry owners and private forestry companies have been running. There is engagement there and a desire among people to plant trees.

There are some legacy confidence issues that we still need to address. We have established an afforestation technical working group in the Department to tease out some of the teething problems that have arisen. As the Deputy knows, we worked really hard to get the forestry programme across the line. It took longer than I, the officials in my Department and those in the sector would have liked. We had to go to great lengths to get the forestry programme across the line and to get Commission approval, which was much needed. We would not have a forestry programme at all had we not put that effort into it.

I presume that the Minister of State and I are meeting the same groups. She has met SEEFA and I have met that association many times. I am sure she is aware of the concerns raised by many of the farm organisations, particularly the forestry section of the IFA. They are all saying the same thing. The maps speak for themselves in showing the very large swathes of land across the island of Ireland that are subject to limitations and restrictions. The mapping shows huge tracts of land that are likely to be ineligible for forestry. The Minister of State has said that it may appear that way but that farmers should go ahead and apply. However, farmers would have to do so at a cost to themselves because they would have to pay for reports. We need farmers if we are going to achieve the 8,000 ha target but I have not met any farmers who not be put off by the idea of having to get reports done at a cost to themselves in order to have their forestry licence applications approved.

There are significant concerns but it does not sound like the Minister of State has heard them. I presume representatives of SEEFA put them to her when they met her. I would be very concerned if the Minister of State was not aware of very serious concerns relating to the future of the forestry programme. The Minister of State needs to review the new programme, particularly the limitations that are set out in it. When will she look again at where we are going in relation to this? We are only two months into the programme, more or less, because it started so late. When will the Minister of State be reviewing it?

I have met with SEEFA and the IFA and am aware of their concerns. Both organisations, along with other stakeholders, sit on the afforestation working group which is teasing out some of the issues and looking for opportunities to take a slightly different approach while remaining within the confines of the regulations from the European Commission. I am not sure if the Deputy is condoning planting on special protection areas, SPAs, on deep peat or in pearl mussel areas. These are the areas that have been removed for absolutely genuine and proper reasons. We cannot reverse out of where we have moved to. We have seen the legacy issues in relation to forestry and we cannot go back to that. I am not sure whether the Deputy is proposing that we can plant anywhere we like. That is why the maps are there. They are there to guide and to protect our nature but there are vast swathes of the country that are not on those maps. There are vast swathes of the country that can be planted with trees.

We put together a large funding package for farmers throughout the country in order to allow them to engage in that. There are so many options available. I encourage any farmer who is in any way remotely interested in planting trees to look at the money on offer.

I thank Deputy Kerrane. Payments to farmers are particularly important. I place a big emphasis on them in the context of the role played by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. That is why last year, which was the first year of the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, we put a massive effort into making sure that we would set dates at the start of the year that could be delivered upon. In the context of the adjusted dates we used last year, for example, for the pillar 1 schemes, we succeeded in delivering on those dates and in paying 90% of farmers on the dates we set. This rate is very high by any standards in the first year of a new CAP.

The same has been the case for the vast majority of other schemes. One significant exemption has been ACRES, which has proved particularly challenging. We managed to pay between 17,000 to 18,000 of those farmers in the general stream, back in December. However, the Department and the team have been working hard to try to ensure all are paid. The target was to pay both the co-operation project scheme and general scheme in that month. That was not possible. A new date of February was set in the hope that everything would be in place to allow payments to be made, but this has proved complicated. The Department was not in a position to meet the February date. I intervened and directed that an interim payment be made. I did so because I had made a commitment to farmers. I know how important this payment is to farmers. ACRES is a significant scheme, with 50% extra funding in it compared with the previous green low-carbon agri-environment, GLAS, scheme. It is important to many farmers who had hoped to have that before Christmas.

I have directed that an interim payment of €4,000 be made to every farmer in the general stream who has not yet been paid and €5,000 to every farmer in the co-operation project stream. Farmers in the latter stream have not been paid yet. Overall, this means that 26,000 farmers will now get either €4,000 or €5,000. Every farmer who participated in ACRES will receive that payment if they have not been paid already. The Department is on track to have this money paid into farmers' accounts by the end of the month. This will mean that it will land in farmers' accounts in the days thereafter. It will be issued by the end of the month in accordance with the direction I have givens. The Department is working hard to resolve the remaining issues and to put in place the structures to make sure that the balancing payments can be paid by June.

I thank the Minister. That confirmation of payment at the end of the month is very welcome. As I said, we welcomed the interim payments. All the farm organisations welcomed them as well. This is a scheme that we all want to see work. It is, as the Minister described it, the flagship environmental scheme. There was huge demand for the scheme, and it was welcome that all 46,000 applicants were allowed in. I acknowledge that. However, when farmers are so willing to take part in something like ACRES and doing the work sometimes at a cost to themselves, the Department really needs to keep its side of the bargain. It is extremely regrettable that these payments are being made so late. We need definitive confirmation regarding the payments that were supposed to be made in full by May. We need to know whether that timeline is going to be adhered to in the context of the remaining payments.

The Minister will be aware that concerns have been raised in relation to tax complications because farmers will now receive two payments in 2024. Has the Minister looked at that? This is a significant concern for farmers and is happening through no fault of their own. Obviously, these payments are taxable.

Tax averaging is available to farmers to even out what can be uneven incomes that come from farming, particularly in terms of prices and sales. It is also available in the context of the two payments farmers are due to receive.

This is the first time a decision to offer an interim payment has been made by a Minister. I am taking this approach because I understand the importance of ensuring that farmers are paid. By the end of the month, every farmer who participated in ACRES last year will have been paid. Some will receive €4,000 and others will receive €5,000. A number will be paid more than their due because we are paying this as a standard payment. I wanted to make sure the payment was as high as possible for farmers in order to ensure that they would get a good sum of money into their accounts early, and by February. In some instances, it will have to be balanced out earlier. However, it will be a unique situation whereby farmers will be paid too early and will have to pay some money back, rather than, as normally is the case, waiting for payments to come into their accounts. Every farmer will get a payment. In some cases, farmers will get more of the payment than they otherwise would have been due earlier.

It is important to clarify that the Minister is saying that, aside from the five-year averaging option that just over 5,000 farmers avail of, which is a very small amount, that this is the only option available when they will receive these two payments. The five-year averaging option is the only option for farmers to try to reduce the tax they have to pay this year. If that is the case, the averaging option needs to be communicated to farmers and to ACRES participants because it is not their fault that the payments are coming late and that they are going to be paying more tax this year because the two payments will come this year rather than one last year and one this year.

The Minister and his Department were obviously generous in allowing the 46,000 in. The target was 30,000, that was what was supposed to go in. Approximately 9,000 have applied. Is the ceiling being kept to just allow 4,000 in? Will the Minister tell us how he will determine how those 4,000 will be chosen to come into ACRES? It is a real pity that when we have such a good scheme and farmers are willing to do it, and we are encouraging environmental practices on our farms, that a number of those who apply and who want to join the scheme will not be able to do so.

I was glad to hear the announcement earlier this month that an interim payment will be paid to tranche 1 participants in the ACRES scheme. This was something that I and Members of other Opposition groups had been calling for since the delays in payments were announced. Many people who rely on those payments were in touch with us.

Commitments were made to farmers to support them when they signed up for a scheme to try to make a positive environmental impact. It is essential that farmers have confidence in the scheme in order for it to continue and expand year on year. Reliable payment schedules are essential to instil that confidence. Will the Minister provide clarity around the payment schedules for tranche 2 of the scheme? What is he doing to ensure delays are not repeated in future years?

In reply to Deputy Kerrane, as I say, the income averaging which is available to farmers is available in this case. The objective has been to make sure that farmers get paid as early as possible. That was not possible in December, but we are making sure that everyone will be paid by the end of this month.

As matters stand, I only have funding for 4,000 farmers this year. As the Deputy knows, I accepted all 46,000 in last year. That had not happened before, but it was important that we made that step to make sure everybody who applied could get in. That put pressure on the system and made for a great deal of extra working for the team as well. The ranking and selection was published as part of the application process. That will be used to select the 4,000 for which we have funding.

In reply to Deputy Cairns, work is being finalised in terms of the agreement dates with the farmers' charter of rights. I expect that to conclude soon. I have committed to move back to the previous dates that were in place under the previous CAP. We are now into a rinse-and-repeat process in the context of most of our schemes. However, as I say, last year we adjusted the those dates and had stuck to what some farm organisations had been advising, we would not have been able to pay the same high percentage on the date we set out. That would have been very problematic for those who would not have paid. Achieving 90% payment rates on those schemes was important. We will soon be announcing the payment schedule for all of the various schemes and working again to deliver on that. My team worked very hard last year to make sure we could deliver on the dates that were set out earlier in the year.

Small-scale fishers operate on very tight margins. The ongoing rise in fuel costs over the past few years has impacted these boats significantly. Other countries such as France and Spain have supported small scale fishers with high fuel costs through the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. Will the Minister introduce a similar scheme to assist small scale fishers with fuel costs?

I continue to be particularly aware of the challenges being faced by the seafood sector and by fishing families and particularly the challenge we have had over the past couple of years around the increased costs of marine fuel. As previously stated in a response to this issue, I met with the industry’s representative groups a number of times to discuss this as well as other matters.

I also reported on the development of support schemes in line with the recommendations of the seafood task force, which I established. Members were primarily from fishing organisations. We created a number of schemes out of that, totalling an overall contribution of €305 million to the fishing sector across many schemes, including, importantly, the inshore sector, last year and the year before. We are finalising the next European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, which will see €258 million spent over the next number of years on several programmes and schemes to support the sector.

On fuel, marine gas oil is unlike most other fuels in that there is no Revenue charge on it at all other than VAT, which can be reclaimed. It is different from home heating oil or car or farm fuel in that there is no Revenue charge by the State on it other than VAT, which can be reclaimed. That can be more of an issue for smaller fishers because they may not be registered for VAT, which I accept. Particularly for the whitefish fleet, the second tie-up scheme I put in place had the objective of supporting the fuel pressures. There has been some easing although it is high by historical standards. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, marine gas oil reached 62 cent per litre on the Rotterdam index, the international benchmark used to assess that. It then went as high as €1.11 per litre over the past few years at particular points during the war. It is now back to around 61 cent per litre. As of today, it is about 67 cent per litre, I think, on that index. It is a couple of cents higher than it was the week before the invasion. Prices have been higher. It is putting pressure on but the key point is, from a State point of view, we do not apply Revenue on it. Other than that, you are getting into a subsidy situation which brings significant condensations of its own account when you subsidise fuel, as opposed to removing Revenue charges the State might imposed, which we do not.

The Minister indicated that supports have been made available by the Government to fleets in the form of tax rebates. As he said, it is not accessible for the owners of smaller boats that do not operate on big enough margins to register for VAT. That is a support only in place for larger players. Small boats generally operate using petrol engines as opposed to diesel. There are no supports available to those fishers. The Minister says he accepts that, but what is his response? Rising fuel costs over the past few years have eaten into the marginal profits of small-scale fishers. If this is not addressed, it will drive inshore fishers out of business. In 2022, the European Commission activated crisis measures under the European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund to support the sector in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Other EU countries, as I said, like France, are using that fund to support small-scale fishers using petrol engines. I ask the Minister for Agriculture to do the same. The sector has been crying out for these supports for years. Will the Minister outline how much European funding to fisheries and the marine remains unallocated?

I do not know offhand. I can ask my team to revert to the Deputy on that matter. It will all be used. In the coming weeks, I will announce about €258 million in different schemes that will come in over the next few years to support the sector, particularly inshore fishers. The price on 12 February for marine gas oil was 64 cent per litre. Just before the invasion of Ukraine two years ago, it was 62 cent per litre. It is back to the level it was before the invasion of Ukraine albeit prices then were a bit higher than what they would normally have been. We already do not apply any Revenue charges to the fishery sector other than VAT, which, for most fishers, is reclaimable. What the Deputy proposes is that we subsidise and pay for fuel and not only not charge tax but actually pay towards the cost of that fuel. That is a different space altogether. It opens up a set of new considerations, for example, once you start paying for and subsiding something, at what point is that withdrawn? Does it lead to uneconomical fishing and a situation that is less sustainable in the long term? The Deputy is free to put forward a specific proposal in this regard. It would be an entirely different space for the State to go into to subsidise fuel. I am open to hearing what proposals the Deputy would come forward with as to how that would work and the implications in the future.

It is just not good enough that larger boats are supported by Government in so many ways and that inshore fishers tend to be ignored. They pay a higher cost for fuel in the first place. Fuel costs in bigger ports are lower due to demand and supply for bigger vessels. Small boats operating from small piers and harbours have to buy it at local petrol stations at much higher costs. The small-scale fleet crucially accounts for the vast majority - more than half - of employment in the sector. It cannot continue to be excluded from all the schemes and fuel supports. All of these things are designed for the bigger players. Of course the Department can look for ways to support the inshore fishers and smaller boats in the sector as well. It does not have to be a case of saying that we are entering new territory and asking how we could possibly look at it. Generally, in the way schemes are designed, smaller players are excluded. This is a continuing trend. Something must be done about the disregard for vessels under 8 m in west Cork and other areas. As the Minister knows, salaries for small-scale fishers are low. They cannot be allowed to drop further. Other countries have introduced fuel supports for smaller boats. I ask the Minister to look at doing the same.

The Deputy is welcome to put forward a policy suggestion in this regard as to what such a scheme would look like. It would entail paying for and subsidising the cost of buying fuel because the State does not apply any Revenue charges. Her party does not have any policy in this area at the moment. Should she wish to develop a policy, I will look at it and see what she proposes. The State does not apply any Revenue charges except for VAT, which is reclaimable by many fishers but not all. VAT, as the Deputy knows, applies across the Common Market. What it is and is not applied to is standard and uniform across the European Union, so we cannot adjust that. There is no Revenue charge whatsoever on marine gas oil. We also oppose any moves at international level, of which there are a number, to insist that there should be a Revenue charge on marine gas oil. In World Trade Organization negotiations at the moment there is a push for that, for example. I am resisting that because I do not want to see any Revenue charge applied because it is important to the profit lines of fishers. Should the Deputy's party wish to develop a policy on this matter, we could consider but it would be getting into the space of not only not applying Revenue charges and tax on fuel but paying people and subsiding the buying of fuel.

Will the Minister provide an update on the Shannon Callows flood scheme and the ongoing issues raised by farmers there and, in particular, the Save Our Shannon Organisation, which has corresponded with the Minister about these issues? He will be well aware that from Athlone to Meelick, farmland has been destroyed by flooding and farmers are under huge pressure concerning fodder, which is costly and scarce. Will the Minister provide an update on the scheme?

The Government fully recognises that there was an exceptional flooding incident and event in the Shannon Callows late last summer which prevented some farmers from completing normal traditional harvesting of silage and or hay. This left affected farmers in a serious situation requiring them to purchase fodder to maintain animal health and welfare during the winter months. It was the first time there was any intervention to support flooding on the callows. No Government had ever done this prior to my announcing, on 7 November last, a new scheme - the Shannon Callows flood scheme - to support affected farmers in the Shannon Callows. I allocated funding of approximately €800,000 for the scheme. This allowed for a payment rate of up to €325 per hectare to this scheme.

The Shannon Callows flood scheme is operated from within my own Department. Given the urgent nature of the assistance required, payments commenced issuing to farmers last December. The expression of interest letters, which included the application form, issued on 17 November to approximately 230 farmers. A further 47 expression of interest letters issued on 7 December. As of 19 February, 268 of the 277 were paid.

This scheme was for farmers with LPIS parcels in the Shannon Callows special area of conservation that were impacted, as determined by the Department's observation team utilising the area monitoring system, and which were claimed by farmers on their basic income support for sustainability, BISS, application last year. Farmers were identified as being impacted by fodder loss on dates between 2 July 2023 and 29 September 2023.

For those who did not receive an expression of interest form, it is possible for the herdowner to make use of a procedure for seeking an internal review. To date, we have received 64 requests for review from farmers who were not identified by the Department as having lands in the Shannon Callows SAC that were flooded in late summer 2023. My officials are processing these requests and a decision on the outcome of these reviews will issue to the herdowners concerned as the reviews are processed.

I thank the Minister for the update. Along with many others, including many of the farmers concerned, I welcomed that funding, which I acknowledge. Does the Minister have any idea of the timeline for dealing with the 64 requests for review that have been made? Farmers are obviously under great pressure. I refer to financial pressure in particular but this has also had a substantial impact on their mental health and that of their families. They have been put under great pressure. Some have got some bit of compensation but others have not. Issues with the area monitoring system have been raised repeatedly. In some cases, it has failed to identify land with 2 ft or 3 ft of water on it. I came across this. A number of farmers have come to me with cases of a farmer on one side of a drain getting an expression of interest form and compensation while a farmer with land on the other side did not. That tells me there is an issue with the AMS. That really needs to be looked at and I ask the Minister to do so. A large number of farmers have received some small payment but another large number have received nothing at all. Will the Minister look at the failure of the AMS in respect of this scheme? It needs to be looked at.

Each of those who have given an expression of interest having not originally been identified is having their submission looked at. The AMS is being used to verify those appeals. In any scheme like this, there have to be boundaries and conditions attached to make it possible to administer. This particular scheme has been confined to farmers who have land within the Shannon Callows SAC area. As I have said, 268 out of 277 who have applied have been paid. As I outlined earlier, another 64 requests have been received from farmers who were not identified as having lands that were flooded in the Shannon Callows SAC. Each of those requests is being considered and worked through. I expect answers within the coming weeks as the requests are all processed. The vast majority, 95%, of the others have received a payment.

A farmer whose land was separated from another farmer's land got an expression of interest form, his land having been identified by the AMS, and got compensation. The farmer whose land was separated from that first farmer's land by a drain did not. That tells me there is an issue with the monitoring system. I again ask the Minister to look at that because it is not fair to farmers to have to rely on a system that clearly has not worked. The Minister could visit the area given the concerns that have been put to him by the Save Our Shannon Organisation.

The scheme was first announced as the "Shannon Callows Flood Scheme", which is still the wording used on the Government website. It then very quickly became the Shannon Callows SAC flood scheme. Who determined that a change was to be made and that compensation was only to be paid to people within the SAC? Whether land that is flooded is within the SAC or just outside of it, it is still flooded by the Shannon. The impact is no different. One set of farmers will get the compensation while another will not because of the SAC condition. That is deeply unfair and should be looked at.

This scheme was particular to the Shannon Callows SAC. There are obviously instances of flooding in areas across the country where there is no flood scheme. This is the first time we have ever done this. It has never happened before. The challenge in any scheme like this is determining where to draw the boundaries and the lines. The issue raised by the Deputy and others related to the Shannon Callows in particular. There is a Shannon Callows SAC. With regard to the administration of the scheme, it is those within that SAC who get the payment. People often make the case that there is no benefit to an SAC designation. In this instance, there certainly is because it is the basis of the terms and conditions for applications. I accept that there are always issues as regards where the boundaries are and where the line is drawn. That is always challenging. However, in this instance, 268 of 277 applicants have been paid while another 64 are being assessed. I have no doubt that some of these will get payments where they can show they were within the SAC and met the criteria and where any issues with the initial assessment are clarified. However, it is restricted to the SAC area.