V. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING TO
THE FUTURE
49. It is clear from the evidence we have taken that
the livestock industry in Northern Ireland is under considerable
pressure. Besides the sector-specific factors referred to earlier
in this Report, witnesses have mentioned the impact of higher
electricity and water costs, and the additional costs of transport
resulting from the peripheral location of Northern Ireland. These
financial penalties have to be absorbed unless they can be offset
by greater efficiency, and thus tend to reduce the returns to
Northern Ireland producers compared to those of their counterparts
in Great Britain.
50. We note that considerable emphasis is being
placed, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom,
on marketing home-produced agricultural products on quality grounds.
While we believe such an approach to be eminently reasonable,
we note with some concern the evidence given by NIAPA about consumer
perception in Northern Ireland of the relative importance of animal
welfare and source of origin. These are among the least important
issues for Northern Ireland consumers, who apparently place much
greater weight on convenience of location for purchase, the convenience
and quality of the product, and its value.[103]
It is therefore clear that a substantial publicity effort is likely
to be required before customers in the Province place greater
weight on aspects such as origin and welfare.
51. DANI commented that the CAP reform package agreed
last year was likely to be of overall benefit in Northern Ireland,
in contrast to the position in the United Kingdom as a whole.[104]
The benefits are not spread evenly across all sectors, however,
and will bring no direct benefits to the sheep sector or the beleaguered
pig sector. We hope therefore that the Government will ensure
that the needs of sectors other than those covered by the CAP
reform package are fully kept in mind.
52. A number of witnesses[105]
drew attention to the scope for enhancing product quality, particularly
in the beef industry, where there was alleged to be little incentive
at present to pay attention to the quality of the finished product.
This was also demonstrated to us on one of our farm visits. We
believe that the importance of the export trade to many sectors
of the Northern Ireland livestock industry should be an incentive
to improving product quality. We would like to see farmers and
processors working together where appropriate to enable full opportunity
to be taken of high value-added, high quality marketing opportunities.
There may also be benefits in more mundane quality improvements:
according to the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters' Association
there is at present a 2% better yield from cattle finished in
Great Britain.[106]
53. One factor that may have a crucial impact on
farming in Northern Ireland is the likely availability of successors
willing and able to take over from the present generation of farmers.
The reduced viability of many farms in Northern Ireland is likely
to impact on the ability of children to take over the family farm.
NIAPA told us[107]
that over 75% of farmers in Northern Ireland are over 45 years
of age and over 50% are over 55. In many cases, there is no younger
person waiting to take over the farm. Our attention has also been
drawn to the generous schemes available in the Republic of Ireland
to encourage both outgoers and new entrants to farming.[108]
We would like to see the Government bring forward ways of improving
farm succession. Although we received no evidence that there was
at present any harmful effect from succession difficulties, we
recognise the vital role played by farmers in preserving the countryside
and a healthy succession policy is one way of ensuring a continued
commitment to this vital activity.
54. One means of improving the viability of small
farms is diversification. Mr Stainer[109]
anticipated that the improved security situation might lead to
an increase in rural tourism, a view shared by the UFU.[110]
NIAPA[111]
drew attention to the contribution made by LEADER projects, but
was critical of the fact that uptake of diversification measures
promoted by DANI had been greater amongst "people who least
needed farm diversification for alternative income". UFU
also drew attention[112]
to the contribution made in the Republic of Ireland by the Rural
Environment Protection Scheme, which it described as "a reflection
of a farming family's multi-functional role in agriculture."
The Government, through the Northern Ireland Rural Development
Programme, which has been running since 1991, has been seeking
to provide new economic and social opportunities in disadvantaged
rural areas and, in the current phase, aims to create a flexible
strategy able to support a broad range of rural development projects.[113]
We welcome the contribution made by diversification, but recognise
that it does not by itself represent a solution to problems of
rural areas.
103 Q
124-5. See also Appendix 3, p. 80. Back
104 Ev.
p. 5-6. See also Q 73. Back
105 See,
for example, Appendix 2, p. 78 and Appendix 8, p. 88. Back
106 Appendix
2, p. 75. Back
107 Ev.
p. 24, See also Q 122 and 218. Back
108 Q
122 and 155. Back
109 Q
19. Back
110 Q
241. Back
111 Q
117. Back
112 Q
219-20. See also Q 226. Back
113 'Sharing
the Nation's Prosperity: Economic, social and environmental conditions
in the countryside' - a report to the Prime Minister by the Cabinet
Office, February 2000, p. 31. Back
| 
