Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2023

I wish to ask the Minister about his engagement with the forestry sector in respect of the new forestry programme. There are significant concerns regarding the restrictions and limitations in that programme which the sector believes will greatly limit the amount of ground that can actually be afforested in the first place.

I thank Deputy Kerrane for the question. The Forestry Programme 2023-2027 was approved by the Government on 6 September 2023 along with other non-programme actions under the forest strategy implementation plan. The new afforestation scheme also opened on this date. My Department is now in a position to grant afforestation licences and scheme approvals under this programme. The forestry programme operates pursuant to State aid approval. In accordance with Ireland's obligation to comply with both the latest EU state aid and environmental requirements, afforestation under the new programme will be avoided on environmentally unsuitable sites. This ensures that afforestation will be adapted to environmental sensitivities such as habitats and species, including Natura sites, freshwater pearl mussel and hen harrier, breeding curlew, open habitat birds, Annex I habitats, high-nature-value farmland, peat soils, hedgerows, water quality, including fisheries sensitive areas, water body status, acid-sensitive areas, archaeology, landscape and local sensitivities. While it is of the utmost importance to increase our afforestation rates substantially over the next decade, it is also crucial that this is completed in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner. It is my intention to work closely with the relevant stakeholders to realise this ambition.

Shortly after the adoption of the new Forestry Programme 2023-2027 my Department held in-person and online training sessions for registered foresters, ecologists and Coillte. This covered topics such as the changes to the requirements of the application process, peat survey techniques and habitat identification while also addressing queries from stakeholders. Further training will be provided as required over the duration of this programme. In addition, extensive engagement has taken place with other stakeholders. In October, I met directly with Forest Industries Ireland, FII, to discuss all aspects of the new forestry programme. In November, it was my pleasure to address the International Agroforestry Conference and highlight the revised agroforestry elements within the new programme. These include, for example, an increase in the premium period from five to ten years. To date, I have also spoken directly with various stakeholders including FII, the Social Economic Environmental Forestry Association, SEEFA, and the forestry nursery sector.

I thank the Minister of State. I welcome the fact that she has met with representatives from SEEFA. In the context of the extensive engagement she had, I presume those she met raised with her the concerns that exist regarding the significant area of land that is ineligible, particularly when it comes to peat soils. The latter removes a large chunk of the west of Ireland from consideration. We have obtained various maps from the Department to show where each of the restricted areas is located. I would like to see them all on one map. That is what is needed. In a reply to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that map will be published.

This year, we are again nowhere near the target of 8,000 ha. I welcome the funding for and the premiums relating to the forestry programme. If the land cannot be planted, then the money will not be much use. I am concerned that farmers and landowners in the areas to which I refer will have to go to huge expense to get studies done in order to ascertain whether their lands are eligible. That is a concern.

The Deputy will be aware that in the past we made mistakes in the context of where we planted. Unfortunately, we have planted trees in the wrong places. This has impacted on the environment, whether that be habitats, species or water quality. The Commission was strong on this matter and stated that we cannot in any way repeat any of those mistakes.

As the Deputy said, there are challenges in respect of environmental requirements and restrictions. That said, there is still a vast amount of land that is suitable for planting trees. Farmers have a vast array of options available to them. Some of the afforestation schemes are more invasive than others in terms of their impact on the environment. Others are less so. I refer, for example, to agroforestry, in which farmers are interested and which can be incorporated into farms. These are the elements we take into account. As already stated, we are committed to increasing our afforestation rate but it is essential that this is done in an environmentally sustainable manner.

In regard to the maps and restrictions, the Minister of State previously indicated that a full map of Ireland showing the restrictions layered on it will be published. We need to see that map. The response to a parliamentary question I tabled on the matter indicated that it will be published. I do not see how that map can show the vast areas of land that include peat soils. Did the restriction relating to peat soils originate here or was it insisted on by the European Commission? We need to know. This is going to lead to significant costs for farmers. If they have to spend money on studies, it will put them off engaging with the programme in the first place. One forestry company has said it had to walk away from six in ten farms due to these restrictions. This is much more concerning than people may be led to believe. We need to see the map.

We also need to see the licensing plan. Is it possible to get an update on that? We were told on 28 November that it was due within the following week. We still have not seen it. The remainder of this year is not much use now, but can we have it for next year? Where is that plan?

The map that we provide is indicative. Every site has to be walked by a forestry inspector and may be be the subject of a subsequent examination by an ecologist, hydrologist, specialist, scientist or ornithologist. These maps are indicative, and every site needs to be walked. Taking the map and ruling something in or out straight away might not necessarily be correct. As the Deputy knows, the licensing system is robust. It is onerous but it is better than it was. It is working much more effectively. However, those sites still need to be walked. That is what happens.

Peat depth was the subject of a strong ask from the Commission. The original ask was a 10 cm requirement, which rules out almost all of the land in Ireland. We reached an agreement to increase that to 30 cm. Previously, it was 50 cm. It is a change but the change is necessary for a number of reasons, particularly in terms of carbon emissions from soils that are greater than 30 cm in depth.

I wish to ask the Minister about the recent changes that the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, has made to the beef index and, in particular, the impact this will have on the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, for suckler farmers. He will be aware that significant concerns have been raised in regard to the manner in which this has been done and what it will mean for farmers, breeders and pedigree breeders. The ICBF was before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine yesterday. While it acknowledged the concerns that exist and that there will be a financial impact on some farmers, it is not willing to move or do anything to change it. Will the Minister intervene in regard to the outcome and consequences of these changes?

I am aware of the concerns among some farmers about the recent changes to the ICBF beef index, particularly farmers participating in the SCEP. I have been closely monitoring the impact of the changes on SCEP farmers. I remain confident that the amended indices will improve beef farm profitability and also beef farm sustainability, which is the overarching intention of the SCEP. The background to this among farmers is that the ICBF, which is the body approved in Ireland in accordance with relevant EU legislation to conduct testing as well as genetic evaluation and publication of breeding values for dairy and beef cattle, has recently updated beef breeding indices.

This was the first major update since 2015, based mainly on changing economic drivers such as feed costs and beef prices. A modest adjustment also took place based on earlier slaughter of animals, tuberculosis resistance, carcass specifications and lower methane output. 

Prior to the updates, continental breeds such as Charolais, Limousin and Belgian Blue were the most desirable terminal cattle breeds, and they continue to be the most desirable breeds after the changes. With regard to the replacement index, the top three most desirable replacement breeds were Aberdeen Angus, Limousin and Simmental and they remain as the top three after the changes.

The ICBF recently committed to convening an industry stakeholder forum to address issues and concerns raised by suckler farmers and pedigree breeders. I welcome that it is taking on this engagement.

As regards the SCEP specifically, this scheme aims to provide support to suckler farmers to improve the profitability and environmental sustainability of the national beef herd. I understand from ICBF that 84% of animals that were 4-star or 5-star prior to the changes will retain their 4-star or 5-star status after the changes.  Animals in SCEP herds whose index falls will not be impacted by the changes unless the SCEP participant sells an animal that has gone down in rating.  It is only when this animal moves out of this herd, that its 3-star rating will become applicable and it will no longer meet the 4-star and 5-star eligibility criteria.

Has the Minister engaged with the ICBF, particularly in the past week when much of this has come to the fore? Some farmers bought 5-star bulls because they followed what the ICBF told them but those bulls are now 2-star or 3-star. This will have a significant impact on those farmers. I spoke to a farmer who lost more than €100,000 overnight. He had to tell his daughter she will not be able to go to college as the family will not be able to afford to send her there. That is the real-life impact of this decision. While 84% might sound good, 16% are at sea in the context of these changes. The cross-party committee was unanimous and united yesterday in its ask of the ICBF to pause the changes it has made to the index and to engage, as it ought to have done in the first place. There is little point setting up a stakeholder forum after the decision has been made. This is having real financial impacts on farmers. What specific engagement has the ICBF had with the Minister in the past two weeks?

I welcome the engagement with the agriculture committee on this issue and the discussion in respect of it. I am sure the ICBF will welcome and consider any proposals or suggestions arising from that. It is set up with a board, which includes very strong farmer representation, and is considering the matter.

The aspect I am considering is the impact on the SCEP scheme in the context of the data and scientific evidence showing an alteration to star ratings. As I stated, 84% of animals that were deemed to be 4-star or 5-star prior to the changes have retained that status. If the data and evidence in respect of profitability and breeding merits of animals change, however, and the science and data show that, there is no changing that. What I am doing is making sure those who are engaging with SCEP in good faith and doing all the right things do not lose out financially in the context of that programme. If a farmer owns one of the 16% of cows that were 4-star or 5-star but dropped, the farmer will still get paid the SCEP money as long as the cow remains in the herd.

That, in itself, is not really following the science. If a farmer has a 5-star cow and is in SCEP, the cow will remain 5-star, but if the farmer sells the cow, it is not 5-star. That does not make sense. There has been a lack of engagement in respect of these changes. For the third time, what engagement has the Minister had with the ICBF? Has it contacted him? Its representatives were clear at the committee yesterday in saying there has been an impact on farmers. The Minister keeps referring to the 84%. I am talking about the 16% of farmers who have done everything, including signing up to SCEP, in good faith. The rug has been pulled from under them and they need to be heard. It is reasonable to ask for this to be paused for a short time to allow engagement to happen and a solution to be found. On anything relating to data, science and the environment, we have to bring farmers with us. That has not been done in the context of these changes. It will not work if that does not happen. I again ask the Minister to consider the proposal for the ICBF to pause the changes and, at least, bring that to its board. It is not willing to do so, but I believe it should.

There is ongoing engagement between my team and the ICBF in respect of the changes it is making and, in particular, any impacts on SCEP. It is up to the ICBF and the board, on which all the farm organisations are represented, to do their businesses, deal with the data coming in and make the changes and adjustments they are making.

As regards the SCEP programme, I have paused any impact relating to the payments for 4-star or 5-star cows that drop. If a cow was 5-star and drops to 3-star, the farmer will not be penalised so long as the cow is in SCEP. Recognising that it started off as 5-star, the cow will continue to be paid on for the duration of SCEP in order that it does not impact on the percentage of 4-star and 5-star cows in the herd. I have already moved to do that because I want to have that stability within SCEP. Of course, it is important that people pay attention to what the data shows. When the facts change, there must be an adjustment to reflect that. I am continuing to issue payments, but people should factor it into their breeding policy going forward.

There has been significant buy-in from farmers for the ACRES scheme. It is great to see such engagement with environmental schemes. It was announced last week, however, that payments due in November will only begin to be rolled out next week. Some farmers will not receive payments under the ACRES co-operation scheme until late February. That will put them under significant financial pressure through the Christmas period. Will the Minister consider administering advance payments? How many farmers are affected by the delays?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I have received many queries in the ten days since, unfortunately, we had to announce we would not be able to pay the farmers we had been working hard to pay in December. ACRES has been a great success, with significant uptake. It is working well in terms of getting farmers to participate in it. It is on course to make significant and expected payments to farmers. There was massive uptake of the scheme. We expected 30,000 farmers to apply this year but 46,000 applied. For the first time, I stepped in to accept all those 46,0000 applicants. Everybody who applied this year got into the scheme, participated in it and is due a payment. They will not be without a year where they are due a payment.

As 46,000 applicants were accepted, there was significant pressure on the advisers to administer the scheme. They did great work in terms of getting the scoring done. I extended the dates for scoring to be completed, given the numbers involved. The Department worked very hard to pay the farmers in the co-operation scheme and those in the general scheme by the end of November or in December. Unfortunately, we ran out of road in that regard and have not been able to make payments. In the context of systems development, checks and having it developed and in place in an effective way, it will not be possible to make all the payments that were due at the end of November or in December in time, despite everybody's best efforts. That is a source of great disappointment to me as Minister and to the team working on that.

We will be able to pay 18,000 farmers, namely, those in the general scheme, next week. As the co-operation scheme is more complicated in terms of system development, it will be early February before those in that scheme will begin receiving payments. Everybody is working hard to get this done I grew up on a farm and know the importance of payments coming in. I know this is a blow to farming families before Christmas. I have done everything I can to try to get the payments made. The team is working hard to get the payments out in the best timeframe possible.

I thank the Minister. As he is aware, farmers operate like any other business and structure their finances around payment dates. Farmers have spent significant amounts of money to introduce environmental measures on the basis of the assumption that they would receive payments in November to cover those costs. Given the delays, they are unable to pay their bills and interest can then accrue.

We cannot have a situation where people are left worse off when they sign up for a scheme to try to make a positive environmental impact. It is really important to try to instil confidence in these schemes. A way to potentially restore that trust in the scheme would be to ensure that farmers receive payments as soon as possible. I hear what the Minister is saying, but advance payments are common practice. Can the Minister consider administering some proportion of the ACRES payments to all the applicants before Christmas?

I examined whether there was some way that could be done. However, the ACRES payment is a blend. It comes within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, scheme and is co-funded nationally and with European money. We have to have an audit trail as to how we make those payments. Some 18,000 farmers will receive an 85% payment this month. Two thirds of the farmers in the general scheme will get their 85% advance. I wanted to be able to do it for everyone, but that is not possible. The team is working to try to deliver that as quickly as possible. Because it is a scheme under the CAP, we are required to follow certain processes. We cannot step out of that. If we did, we would not be able to draw down the European funding. I can take a different and more flexible approach in respect of nationally funded schemes. For the liming scheme, for example, which only involves national funding, I am making an advance payment to all those by the end of this year because I have more discretion. With the CAP programme, we have to have it very clearly laid out and administered and auditable so that we actually draw down that funding. Every effort is being made. As I said, we wanted to be able to pay this year. Everybody was working massively hard to try to deliver it in December. Despite all those efforts, however, we have run out of road in terms of getting it done. We will be going into February as regards the co-operation stream measures. Others will continue to be paid in the meantime, however.

When the ACRES programme was expanded from 30,000 to 46,000 earlier this year, farmers obviously signed up on the assumption that if the Government was allowing 16,000 extra applications, there would be capacity in the system to deal with the increase. Clearly, that is not the case. The Department controls the scoring of the scheme and how many people can apply, but between the number of applicants and the complications of processing the new scheme, somehow, obviously, the Department was overwhelmed.

The payments were supposed to be administered in November. How many people were affected by this? At what point did it become clear to the Department that it would be impossible to process every application before the scheduled date? Had a capacity review been conducted within the Department before the scheme was expanded? Why, when it became clear the payments would not be made on time, were farmers not made aware immediately?

First, we did make it clear immediately whenever it was clear that it could not be done and that we had run out of road. That was approximately a week and a half ago. Up to that point, we were working on the basis of trying to move heaven and earth to see if we could get both the co-operation and general scheme paid by the end of this year. Then, we made clear and outlined what was going to be possible and where we were despite everyone's best efforts.

The Deputy is right. My decision to accept all 46,000 put massive pressure on the entire system. It put massive pressure on the advisers. We gave them extra time in the context of facilitating the scoring up to end of September. They really stepped up and worked massively hard to do that. It also put massive pressure on my staff in the Department. It was the right decision to make, and I stand by it. Had I not made that decision, there would only be 30,000 farmers in ACRES this year, not 46,000. All 46,000 have been able to participate and they will all get a payment. I put massive pressure on the staff to get that payment delivered by the end of December. That is not going to be possible for a number of applicants. As a result, the payment will not arrive for many of those in the co-operation scheme until the end of February. However, that is much better than getting no payment at all.

The Minister and I have debated and discussed this issue on numerous occasions. I refer to the continued outrageous blocking by the British and Scottish Governments of our Irish fishermen from fishing in their traditional grounds around Rockall. Rockall is an uninhabited rock. A six- or 12-mile zone cannot be put in place around an uninhabited rock. It could not be more clear in international law. Therefore, when will this debacle finally end and the millions of euro that have been lost to our fishermen reinstated?

This is an important issue to fishermen in north Donegal, particularly those in Greencastle who fish for haddock off the Rockall bank. It is a really important fishing ground for them. It is an issue the Deputy and I have discussed on a number of occasions.

As I have explained before, Rockall has always been within the 200-mile zone of UK waters. It was never within the 200-mile zone of Irish waters. We had frank discussions on that before when I called the Deputy up on comments he made that might have indicated that somehow it was within the Irish 200-mile zone at some stage, which was never the case. It has always been within the UK's 200-mile zone. Therefore, the UK would have those waters around it. As the Deputy rightly said, the issue here is that because it is an uninhabitable rock, it should not be able to impose a six- or 12-mile exclusion zone on our fleet around that rock, which is what can be done with a habitable island, for example, Tory or any of our islands. The exclusive zone can go within 12 miles around those.

This is one of the outworkings of Brexit, unfortunately, whereby there is now more capacity for the UK Government to put licences and restrictions on the licences for Irish boats going into its waters. It put this restriction on licences for any Irish boat that goes into UK waters in terms of not being able to access the 12 miles around Rockall. We do not agree with that. We have a traditional fishing right there, which we have always had and should continue to be able to have. I have been engaging diplomatically, through the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and his predecessor, Deputy Coveney, with the Scottish and UK authorities to try to find a resolution to this. We have not been able to make the progress we would like on that yet. It is a really important fishing ground. We will continue to do that. The way to resolve this is diplomatically, if we can, because any legal approach around it will likely take many years and see us locked out for a long time. We will, therefore, continue to engage. It is disappointing that we have not been able to find an outcome to it, but we will continue to work to get it.

The Minister may know that a recent report in The Guardian newspaper covered this issue. I actually spoke to the journalist who covered it, namely, Mr. Rory Carroll. He has been advised that this issue may be moving towards a solution and that people in previous positions wanted to resolve it. I am going to say "Who?". Ms Nicola Sturgeon, the former Scottish First Minister, apparently wanted to resolve it. It is remarkable that the British Government has been outside the equation because this is a jurisdictional issue first and foremost. The Scottish Government merely implements the laws in terms of the marine space around Scotland. This is, therefore, a British Government issue. It is absolutely outrageous. How did this get beyond the Brexit negotiations and the EU–UK trade and co-operation agreement? How was the British Government allowed to neglect this whole issue and then just sit back and let the Scottish Government take the heat over it? That is really something we need to be very clear about. This is a jurisdictional issue. It is an outrageous overreach by the British Government. It has to stop.

Obviously, I have to be measured in what I say because there are diplomatic efforts under way to try to resolve this issue. The newspaper coverage to which the Deputy referred will show there are genuine efforts being made by the Irish Government to try to find a way forward on this. We want to try to resolve this. It is really important for Greencastle fishermen in particular, but also in terms of the squid fishery for fishermen from many different parts of the country. It is particularly challenging from the point of view of fishing haddock because much of the best haddock from that fishery is sometimes between the six- and 12-mile zone, which, as things stand, our fishermen cannot access because the licences we have for entry into British waters restrict access to those 12 miles.

We will continue to work hard on this. I met with the Greencastle fishermen co-operative and the fishermen who are affected by this again recently to discuss it. We will continue to engage and try to find a way to restore what would have been a traditional fishing right there. There is no doubt that Brexit has made this much more challenging, but the work is continuing.

The Minister referred to the 2013 agreement. The difficulty was that agreement was made in the context of all waters beyond the 12-mile limit being under the jurisdiction of the Common Fisheries Policy. Rockall was under the Common Fisheries Policy. Both Governments had an interest in allowing fair access. It is extraordinary the trade and co-operation agreement allowed the British Government to take advantage of the new reality and to put this arbitrary limit around Rockall.

Unfortunately, the Government passed legislation, the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, that implemented the 2013 agreement. That agreement never came through these Houses. It would be questionable under the Supreme Court, given the voisinage agreement precedent. It would have been questionable if that 2013 agreement was legal under Irish law but we made it legal at a time when Britain was behaving so badly.

We have made mistakes, from the Irish Government's perspective, but I accept that the Minister has been engaging. It is clear from The Guardian and from freedom of information, that the Irish Government has been repeatedly raising this. This is extreme bad faith on the part of the British Government and we need to call it out. It has to end. It has to stop.

We are working to try to take every step possible. I am aware how important it is to both Greencastle fishermen regarding haddock and access within the 12-mile zone and to fishermen in the squid fishery. As I have said to the Deputy, the 2013 agreement has no bearing whatsoever on the status of Rockall. I stated earlier to the Deputy what the 2013 agreement did. I think he accepts this. Rockall has always been within the 200-mile zone of British waters. What we contest is that they should have a 12-mile exclusion zone, which is acceptable under international standards where there is an inhabited island owned by a country, but this is not inhabited. We dispute totally the fact they should have a 12-mile zone.

What happened in 2013 was simply there was a grey area that ran from north of Inishowen out into the sea along the 200-miles line between ourselves and the UK and there were a few miles in that which both navies managed and oversaw. They simply drew a line up the middle of that in the 2013 agreement to remove the grey area. Rockall is many miles north of that. It was not relevant to that piece at all.

We have been working hard on this. It means a lot for our Greencastle fishermen and for the squid fishermen. We continue to engage to get access again to that traditional fishery that we would have fished.