9. ICSA (Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners 
Association)

The vision is realistic except for the fact that it should include a commitment to the retention of the optimum number of farm families in farming, with a special reference to the need for preserving an optimum number of full time farmers. This is critical to the overall goal of a rural development philosophy, which envisages a broad range of sustainable economic activities in rural areas firmly rooted to the resources of those areas.

Although this points to the reality that ‘not by agriculture alone is rural Ireland to be saved’, it also hinges on a realisation that the social development of rural areas is hindered by sudden and cataclysmic changes in the economic structure of those areas. In other words, if substantial numbers of farmers give up full time farming in a short period of time, what hope is there of all of these people gaining new employment in their own locality?

Moreover, the fabric of rural society will not be well served if the primary function of rural communities is, at best, merely as picturesque dormer villages to urban centres, and, at worst, as in the case of much of rural Ireland, as suppliers of personnel to the human resource demands of the large urban centres, on a permanent footing through migration.

Although the ability of agriculture to provide valuable and worthwhile employment in rural areas is in self-evident decline, the fact remains that farming is an intrinsic part of the rural economy as it is of the rural landscape. It has a permanence that is not as of yet proven in many of the industries of the Celtic Tiger. Furthermore, although under threat from many sources, the well-being of agriculture is critical because it is linked to the resources of the rural area but also critical to the development of many other rural resources such as tourism

In relation to the food industry, the reference to the need for ‘scale and efficiency’ should be counterbalanced by reference to the important role of small scale, mainly indigenous specialist food producers focusing on high return niche markets. In this category, everything from farmhouse cheeses to vegetables, both organic and natural, should be encouraged and supported.

A strange contradiction seems to emerge at times in relation to the future of the food industry. On the one hand, people such as Denis Brosnan have openly admitted to an agenda, which sees the margins of the multi-national food giants remaining high, partially because the margin of the primary producer will be kept minuscule. This will be achieved, according to the Brosnan vision, because food raw materials will be produced wherever on the planet it is cheapest to do so. The only condition is that the food has to be safe. This however, must be set against the higher spec that the European consumer apparently aspires to which has the consequence of pushing up the production costs of the primary producer.

Examples of this include the favouring of animal welfare codes of practice, which, in the most spectacular case, have resulted in the forthcoming ban on battery-produced eggs. Another key example is the hormone ban on beef production, which almost two decades after its introduction has remained specific to the EU. Additional concerns likely to emerge include a distaste for exploitative labour practices (see EU directive on Minimum wage) and antipathy to GMOs.

In other words there seems to be a growing dichotomy between the conditions imposed on some of the world’s primary producers and the reality, that in post-industrial countries, eating has become characterised by an unwillingness to spend time preparing to eat. It is also argued that the consumer wants food at a reasonable price but much evidence can be advanced to demonstrate that the lower the margin for the primary or commodity producer, the higher the margin for the secondary processor and retailer, without any discernible benefit accruing to the consumer.

15.1: ENSURING FOOD SAFETY

The role of labelling is fundamental. ICSA believes that Ireland should be proactive in favour of labelling which provides appropriate information to the consumer. In the absence of labels, there seems little point in imposing any restriction or conditions, which are not global. Moreover, the labelling of food creates the imperative that we market out advantages vigorously, and use this as a unique selling point for products such as beef.

15.2: ASSURING FOOD QUALITY

Beef Quality:
The pursuit of the highest standards in food quality must be paramount, but where success is achieved this information must be rapidly and widely communicated to the consumer. For example, the research, which has showed the beneficial effects of grass fed beef in counteracting cancer and heart disease, has been surprisingly under-utilised to date, whereas in actual fact, it offers the potential to rejuvenate Irish beef.

Recommendations that favour further investment into consumer perceptions of Irish beef are correct.

Carcass Quality:
ICSA are very supportive of the notion that a production quality incentive should be built into direct payments wherever possible.

Fertility synchronisation is vitally important to improving the standard of Irish beef cattle and further research into refining the success of these methods is urgent. The cost of herd fertility treatments should be kept competitive

The current pricing system for cattle still continues to exploit the producer of the highest grades of cattle.

15.3: ACHIEVING THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF ANIMAL HEALTH

The ongoing blight of TB and Brucellosis is a national disgrace. In simple terms, to continue as is, is not an option.

15.4: ACHIEVING THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF ANIMAL WELFARE

Irish animal welfare standards compare favourably with the rest of the world. Cattle spend the majority of the year grazing in pasture and as such, Irish beef production can be described as free range. Again, the key issue is can we utilise this as a marketing tool?

15.5: DEVELOPING ORGANIC PRODUCTION

Organic production as exists in Ireland suffers from a lack of critical mass. This gives rise to the critical problem of being unable to meet demand with a steady and consistent supply. It is evident that much greater levels of research and training will have to be put in place before significant numbers of farmers change to organic systems. The one question, which remains critical to the production of organic beef in significant quantities, relates to the role of slatted housing. Current organic regulations virtually exclude most farmyards currently used for finishing of beef, and until a workable solution is found, developing a year round supply of organic beef will be an intractable problem.

16.1: ADOPTING A MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH TO MARKETING
16.2: IMPROVING THE LEVEL OF CONSUMER FOCUSED INNOVATION
16.3: DEVELOPING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS ALONG THE FOOD CHAIN
16.4: RATIONALISING PRIMARY PROCESSING
16.5: FACING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR THE BEEF INDUSTRY

As a nation, we have failed to reach our potential in the marketing of beef. But because we are so utterly reliant on the export of beef, this is a critical problem.

The difficulty in marketing beef is inbuilt in the structures that have emerged through which we market beef. In simple terms, the body charged with marketing beef is not actually selling it, and the companies selling beef are not actually marketing it. In addition, the problem is exacerbated by the mismatch of resources to the scale of effort required to achieve the desired results. Finally, the marketing of beef has not been a policy priority and the outcome has been at best an indifference to the monitoring, quantifying and evaluation of the marketing spend. In such a vacuum, the marketing of beef has drifted along aimlessly. Marketing of beef has in reality become a combination of promotion and fighting rearguard actions against disasters rather than building a proactive, long-term strategy.

This was best exemplified by the recent confusion in relation to the labelling of beef. The Minister for Agriculture went to Brussels to alone oppose country of origin labelling but on return, having got no support, described the new rules as ‘providing an opportunity to embark on a new marketing drive for Irish beef’. He stated that the ‘rules would work to Ireland’s advantage’. ICSA argued that to oppose country of origin labelling actually facilitated those who would like to create the perception that we had something to hide, that we would not stand over our own beef. But worse than that is that the whole episode exposed a lack of a clear long-term vision for the promotion and marketing of Irish beef.

There is a wealth of material emerging, which provides a very solid basis for the marketing of Irish beef. Examples include the research on the health inducing properties of grass fed beef and the fact that we will be the first EU state to have a National Beef Assurance scheme. A long-term strategy for the marketing of beef should be based on these attributes where we seek to sell beef, not on the lowest common denominator of price, but as a premium product for a premium and affluent marketplace.

ICSA welcomes the points outlined in 2010 but would add the following recommendations:
The overall performance of Irish meat promotion and marketing must be subject to intense scrutiny and review
Targets, which are quantifiable and open to evaluation must be set, and the results must be measured
A time frame of three years should be allowed to make substantial improvements in our performance in the European marketplace
In relation to specific processors, in addition to the support of Bord Bia to offer them support, each individual processor should be encouraged to be proactive and innovative in accessing European markets
All grant aids and public supports available to processors should be dependent on a clear programme of market development which is designed to deliver increased penetration of premium markets
Those processors who fail to develop such programmes or those who remain content with their existing share of premium marketplace penetration should not be eligible for any public funding

Any such programme of market development should incorporate an integrated supply chain strategy as outlined in the McKinsey report (and this would also be a condition of eligibility for public support)
The role of Bord Bia should be reviewed at the end of a three year period and evaluated against their success in increasing the share and the quality of European market penetration

As pointed out elsewhere, the need for direct income supports to be linked to quality should be tackled. Also, the effect of the Agenda 2000 changes cannot be ignored in any examination of how to develop a competitive food industry, particularly in relation to their impact on the trade and marketplace.

ICSA rejects the contention of the report that by 2010 there will be only 20,000 full time farmers.  
It is not at all clear that adequate thought has been given to putting in place the structures that will readily facilitate the transfer of land from the 63,000 farmers in transition to the 20,000 full time farmers projected.
The cost of land, quota etc. is not related to the potential agricultural earnings of the land, and the market for land is now dominated by the hunger for land from non-agricultural sources.
Proposals to encourage leasing and or partnership arrangements are appropriate, but the price of any such arrangements is inevitably affected by the filtering through of the property boom
Accordingly, it is difficult to envisage how such a major rationalisation can occur in the short to medium term.
Insufficient thought has been given to the fate of those who do not remain in full-time farming. There seems to be a complacency that there are plenty of jobs available and that this will solve all problems.
It is absolutely vital that a monitoring committee is set up, with widespread representation, to examine the effects of the Agenda 2000 changes on the viability of all the different farming sectors. This should be done immediately, with a view to formulating a position in advance of a possible mid-term review of Agenda 2000 and developments in the WTO negotiations.

17.1: IMPROVING COST COMPETITIVENESS IN MAJOR ENTERPRISES

ICSA supports the recommendations under this heading but would add the comment that the beef and sheep sectors, in particular, are in need of vast improvement in cost control and technical efficiency and should therefore be prioritised.

17.2: ENCOURAGING LAND MOBILITY AND EARLY TRANSFER

ICSA would suggest that any attempts to take entitlements to headage, premia etc. away from older farmers would be politically very difficult. However, the key problem is that the transfer of land from the farmers in transition sector to full time farmers is rendered very difficult by the distortions caused by the influence of the booming property market.

17.3: IMPROVING SCALE IN DAIRY FARMING

Dairying is the only enterprise that can ensure that full time farming is a realistic option on the vast majority of Irish farms. Therefore:
The goal must be maximise the number of farmers in dairying with the potential to compete even in a post quota situation.
People who have demonstrated high levels of performance should be encouraged to remain in milking.
Free quota should be targeted at young, committed and smaller dairy farmers.
Farmers between 25,000 and 35,000 gallons would be better off with extra milk quota instead of entitlement to suckler quota.
The focus should be on low costs of production per gallon.
In this regard, there is much convincing evidence to show that cost of production does not vary significantly between medium and large-scale producers.
The conclusion is that economies of scale can bring major benefits as producers expand from small scale to medium scale but that there is a sharp decrease in return to scale as one moves beyond a medium size.
The biggest suppliers should have the biggest income due to turnover, but factors such as labour costs and land limitations (especially with its current value) reduce the cost efficiency of such farms in many cases.

The best return will accordingly be achieved by attempting to optimise the number of viable dairy farms. The focus should be on bringing small and medium producers up to a scale where they can make a decent living. For as long as quotas continue in their present from, that threshold should not exceed 55,000 gallons.

Creating a free market in quotas in advance of the abolition of quotas would result in a much higher price per gallon. This would be paid, not necessarily by the most efficient, but by those with the largest scale and surplus.

A better policy would be to retain a controlled market in quotas but to raise the threshold for priority as the demise of quotas becomes more imminent. If a free market in quotas was to be introduced in Ireland, it should only be in the context of a pan European free trade in quotas, including the new EU member states.

17.4: ENCOURAGING PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT
17.5: CHANGING AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The principle of life long learning and of continuous retraining and up-skilling should become a feature of agriculture as it is already an accepted feature of other industries and education
There is an urgent need to broaden the scope of agricultural education and training to take account of the training needs of farmers other than young farmers.
The cohort of farmers who will not remain viable in full time farming have a specific and urgent need of retraining which will enable them to compete for decent off-farm jobs.
Agricultural education will have to become more challenging to the more able of students, if it is to remain attractive.

17.6: PROVIDING EQUAL ACCESS TO SCHEMES

Assessing eligibility for schemes based on total income from all sources will be problematic. Would spouses incomes be included? If so, would this interfere with the right of a wife to have employment in her own right for example? Or would it just relate to the person principally engaged in farming? A risk also attaches to the fact that mixed signals could be generated from a vision which condemns all but 20,000 to part time farming and then discriminates against those who get any employment which pays more than the minimum wage. (see Section 18)

18.1: ADDRESSING FARM HOUSEHOLD VIABILITY
18.2: DEVELOPING NEW APPROACHES TO FARM INCOME SUPPORT
18.3: TACKLING FARM POVERTY
18.4: ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
18.5: CONTRIBUTING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The key point is that a report which envisages the drastic reduction in the number of full time farmers to 20,000 by the year 2010 directly contradicts the goal of sustainable rural development. A useful, and as of yet unchallenged, contention is that part-time farming is for one generation only.

There is a danger that complacency will set in that in the presence of off-farm income any income or none at all is acceptable for the farming enterprise. However, such an extraordinary premise would be unacceptable to almost any other sector. It is as if the Minister for Education, in negotiating with the teachers, suggested that pay rises would only apply to those whose total household income did not exceed a particular benchmark level. What would the reaction be if those teachers married to doctors, accountant or lawyers were told that they would be excluded from pay rises because the real issue is not what a teacher’s salary should be but what total household income should be?

Moreover, if people are to be forced to seek off-farm income, then realistic off-farm income opportunities must be available in the area. The free availability of employment in the major urban centres is of little use to those in rural areas who are being exhorted to become part time farmers. In some parts of rural Ireland, the unemployment rates remain substantially above the average. Farmers chasing scarce employment opportunities will further exacerbate such problems.

Encouraging the development of off-farm employment opportunities is dependent on a National Spatial Strategy. In relation to the decentralisation of the public sector it is unacceptable to ‘dump’ the low-grade civil service positions in rural areas while retaining the vast majority of promotional opportunities in Dublin. A proper decentralisation would relocate entire departments to rural locations preferably each decentralised Department being located in the one area so that the ration of low grade to top grade civil service positions is not distorted at local level.

It is important that if farm incomes are to rapidly become uncompetitive, then off-farm income opportunities must be competitive in rural areas. Accordingly, policies must keep pace with change to ensure that there are adequate numbers of skilled jobs. Moreover, the overall employment profile of rural areas must be comparable with urban areas, both in terms of quantity but also quality of employment opportunities.

This is also a critical solution to the issue of rural poverty. Farm Assist has been help, but in the long-term, its contribution to the financial and personal well being of farm families is limited, and it risks fostering a dependency culture in rural families.

Of much greater benefit has been the work of partnership and LEADER companies. The weakness of the LEADER programme was that it failed to give adequate support to farm and disadvantaged families, specifically in reference to enterprise development. However, both the LEADER and ADM funded programmes made immense contributions to rural areas, in a diverse number of ways, ranging from confidence building and training to community development and tackling disadvantage. The key now is to reinvigorate these programmes which are currently suffering from appallingly short-sighted interim arrangements and harness them to specifically address the issue of the rapidly increasing number of farmers who are becoming unable to make a decent living from full time farming.

19.1: RESPONDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

Scare mongering and witch-hunts should not hinder scientific enquiry into the benefit of biotechnology. However, it is imperative that clear labelling of GMO foods is facilitated to allow consumers to be the final arbiters of GMOs.

19.2: DEVELOPING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (ICT) IN THE AGRI-FOOD SECTOR

Information technology can benefit rural areas. However, this will only happen if there is an immediate commitment that rural areas will not be disadvantaged in relation to infrastructure. Secondly, it can only happen if there are sufficient social, economic and environmental incentives for those with technological expertise to locate in rural areas. Finally, there is greater need for a better dispersal of hi-tech companies throughout Ireland rather than just close to the main urban centres.

20.1: SUPPORT SCHEMES AND SERVICES OF DAFRD

The entire Department should be decentralised. It is likely that the most efficient and desirable means would involve relocating to a town where the Department already has a significant presence. Any new facilities should be located in the chosen town.

20.2: RESEARCH, ADVISORY AND TRAINING SERVICES OF TEAGASC

All Teagasc personnel, facilities and resources should be decentralised. It is likely that the most cost effective and desirable way of achieving this will be to relocate to existing Teagasc research centres or training facilities.

ICSA supports the critical role of Teagasc in research, advice and training.
The Teagasc role in training and education will have to re-focus in two directions. One is to ensure that the focus becomes more oriented towards lifelong learning and the need for continuous upskilling. In this way, the role of the training colleges can be rejuvenated to include not only young farmers at the ‘Green Cert’ phase, but a much wider group of farmers of differing ages and with a wider array of needs in the training arena. Particular emphasis will be required in relation to that cohort of farmers identified as moving towards part-time farming. Clearly, such people have an urgent and complex requirement for retraining and upskilling.

Teagasc research will need to urgently focus on rapid improvements in the standards of efficiency and productivity on drystock farms. It is clear that the drystock sector has fallen behind the diary sector very badly, in terms of new innovative farming practices. It is also essential that the current work at the National Food Centre in relation to the health aspects linked to eating grass fed beef is pursued aggressively.

20.3: MARKETING AND PROMOTION SERVICES OF AN BORD BIA

Bord Bia urgently requires additional resources to do a proper job of marketing Irish beef
Given the limited mandate of Bord Bia, as effectively a promotional agency rather than as a seller of beef, can it logistically achieve the objectives necessary to achieve the appropriate sales of Irish beef on European markets at appropriate prices?
Is there a role for contracts to be offered to private marketing agencies to carry out specific clearly defined marketing tasks in selected markets?
ICSA would recommend that the success of Bord Bia over the next three years in developing premium retail markets in Europe would be closely monitored and at the end of the three year period that the means of marketing Irish beef would be re-evaluated in the light of Bord Bia performance.

20.4: FOOD INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OF ENTERPRISE IRELAND

ICSA supports the role of EI as outlined in the report, and would urge that they consult widely.

Home