Specific Details
Data Sharing Agreement between Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine
Intended results
To respond to the draft Data Sharing Agreement between Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine for the purpose of identifying herds/flocks participating in the Bord Bia and Quality Assurance Scheme where a legal notice has been issued under Section 42 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 and communicating the details of the notice to inform the audit program.
To highlight that IFA is of the view that there should be no requirement to establish a formal data sharing agreement in this case as the primary objective must be the welfare of the animals, which is already dealt with in the aforementioned legislation.
To insist that the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine (DAFM) are the competent authority to enforce this legislation and ensure adherence with this Act, which does not allow for or require the sharing of any data with a Quality Assurance Certification body.
To highlight that the welfare of the farmer is not mentioned within this Digital Services Act (DSA) but is of utmost importance too. It is important to note that in some cases, the trigger behind the issuing of a legal notice under section 42 can be associated with or on the back of a human welfare issue. The issuing of legal notices under section 42 of the Animal Welfare Act are thankfully rare occurrences and ordinarily there is something more complex behind the situation.
To ensure that the objective must be to resolve the issue on the farm while being cognisant of the strong correlation between these cases and the sometimes-difficult individual personal circumstances which may arise. There must also be a recognition for the potential difficulties for the farmer being associated with these situations and the additional stress and pressure that a spot audit can bring upon a farmer in an already difficult situation.
To emphasise that IFA is not in agreement with the sharing of a farmer's data with Bord Bia to determine whether the farm is Bord Bia Quality Assured or not. This would be notifying Bord Bia of the issuing of a legal notice on a farmer who may not have a farm that is Bord Bia Quality Assured.
To demonstrate that in table 9.2 it is stated “To ensure accuracy of information, it was determined that a minimum of three data fields (farmer and, address and herd/flock number) are necessary.” This is data sharing, and, in this case, it is the sharing of very sensitive data with Bord Bia. If the farmer is determined to be a member of a Bord Bia Scheme and an audit is to be conducted, there is every chance that the farmer may know the auditor either directly or indirectly.
These audits are carried out by personnel contracted by Bord Bia via an outside agency. Potentially, the auditor may be a local farmer doing audits on a part time contract basis. This data sharing could be effectively with neighbours of the farmers concerned who do not work directly for Bord Bia.
Given the extremely low number of additional spot audits that occur in the Bord Bia scheme and even if Bord Bia were to provide assurances that auditors would not receive the reason for the spot audit, it is unreasonable to believe that auditors will not identify the reason for it and therefore will be effectively provided albeit indirectly, by Bord Bia with extremely sensitive and personnel data that they have no right to or purpose in receiving.
To highlight the extremely low numbers of situations where these notices are issued while retaining accreditation under the QA Scheme, and the particularly complex nature of the issues that usually contribute to them provide the opportunity for a more practical and effective means of addressing the potential contradiction in terms of a herd/flock having such a notice issued while retaining the QA scheme accreditation.
To recognise that there is a long-established structure in place under the Farmer and Animal Welfare Network (FAWN) where, in every county there is a network of farmers, DAFM personnel and Animal Welfare organisations that work collectively to resolve these types of situations/cases in the majority of situations before they elevate to the serving of such a notice.
To highlight that the approach outlined recognises the complexities and sensitivities in these situations, is fully supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine (DAFM) and regularly referenced by the Minister for Agriculture in recognition of its success.
To emphasise that IFA does not believe the establishment of a formal data sharing agreement is the appropriate approach in these circumstances. The proposal to put in place a formal data sharing agreement with a third party is very much at odds with the long established and successful approach adopted by the Department of Agriculture, Food, and the Marine (DAFM) to-date.
To request the opportunity to meet and discuss this issue to identify a more practical and sensitive approach to addressing the concerns relating to the existence of a potential contradiction in terms of how the herd/flock is categorised/viewed.