Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 2021

CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Our second session will involve a discussion of Ireland's proposed Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategic plan 2023-2027. We are joined by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I welcome Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary, Ms Corina Roe, head of rural development division, Mr. David Buckley, head of direct payments operations division, and Mr. Francis Morrin, head of CAP entitlements and financial controls division, all joining remotely. They will have ten minutes to make their opening statements before we move to questions and answers.

I have an important notice on parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected to the subject matter in these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the meeting who are outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which their participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee in relation to the development of Ireland's CAP strategic plan for the period 2023 to 2027.

As the Chair mentioned, I am joined by my colleagues, Corina Roe, who is head of the Department's rural development division, David Buckley, who heads some elements of the Department's direct payments division in Portlaoise, including the new eco-schemes, and Francis Morrin, who is head of the Department's CAP entitlements and financial control division, which is also based in Portlaoise. The development of Ireland's CAP strategic plan for the period from 2023 to 2027 is now at an advanced stage.

There has been more than two years of work by colleagues here and many others throughout the Department. It has included the preparation of an extensive strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, SWOT, analysis, drawing on empirical analysis from a range of sources, as well as on feedback from stakeholders. It has also included the completion of a needs assessment that identified and prioritised the high-level needs of the agriculture sector and rural areas based on evidence from the SWOT analysis, feedback from stakeholders and recommendations from the European Commission. It has also included the design of interventions, which are the individual measures or schemes that are proposed to address the needs identified in the needs assessment. All of this work essentially took us to early September this year, when a five-week period of public consultation on the draft interventions closed. The Department then commenced assessment of more than 1,000 submissions that had been received, as well as the feedback from three town hall-style webinars attended by about 1,000 people.

It is worth noting the scale of engagement with stakeholders and the wider public that the Department has undertaken in developing the CAP strategic plan. The first phase of consultations began as far back as 2018, even before the publication of the Commission's original legislative proposals. Feedback was received via six town hall meetings in Mayo, Leitrim, Westmeath, Meath, Carlow and Cork, a stakeholder workshop and more than 160 written submissions. These core elements have, to varying degrees, characterised all of the engagement since then. That has included a public consultation on the draft SWOT analysis in September and October 2019, which included town hall meetings in Mitchelstown, Sligo and Portlaoise, and a stakeholder workshop in Tullamore. It included a public consultation on the draft scoping report for the environmental assessment of the CAP strategic plan, which ran from February to April 2021. There was the public consultation on the proposed draft interventions that I just mentioned, which ran in August and early September 2021. There is also the current public consultation on the draft environmental assessment of the CAP strategic plan, which will conclude on 8 December 2021.

All of this public consultation has been augmented by the establishment, in May 2019, of a national stakeholder consultative committee, comprised of representatives from all of the main farming organisations, environmental groups, industry, academia and other relevant Government Departments and agencies. This committee has met on 25 occasions, an average of almost once per month over the entire period, and has been very effective in providing an overarching framework for engagement with stakeholders; facilitating robust but constructive exchanges of different views; enabling discussion based on expert input; allowing dialogue to take place in different formats, including workshops on topics such as the so-called green architecture of the CAP; and providing continuity throughout the entire process, including the negotiations on the new legislative framework at EU level, the decisions made at national level and the development of our CAP strategic plan.

There is regular ongoing bilateral engagement with stakeholders, at both ministerial and official levels, which has been significantly stepped up in recent months following the political agreement on the CAP reform package, which has allowed attention to focus more intensely on progressing the development of the strategic plan. In September and October alone, more than 30 meetings were held with farming and environmental organisations by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and the Ministers of State, Senator Hackett and Deputy Heydon, or senior officials. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, has also undertaken an extensive engagement, in person, with farmers in every county in the country through the mart network. That process will conclude in Castlerea mart in County Roscommon tomorrow. Ministers and officials have made themselves available to this committee regularly to provide updates on the CAP reform process and we are happy to do so again this evening. The committee can be assured that the Department will continue to consult and make itself available as this process evolves over the coming months and beyond.

The public consultation in August and September of this year set out the individual interventions or measures proposed for the CAP strategic plan. In the case of Pillar I, or direct payments, respondents were asked for their views on interventions such as conditionality, capping and degressivity, convergence, payments for young farmers, redistribution through the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, and eco-schemes.

Proposed interventions under Pillar II included a new and ambitious agri-environment climate measure to replace and build on the achievements of the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. Another is a suckler carbon efficiency programme to build on the progress made in the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. Dairy beef welfare and sheep improvement schemes and an organic farming scheme are proposed. Continuation of the areas of natural constraint, ANC, measure is proposed. Another proposal is early stage support for producer organisations in the beef and sheep sectors. There is also the on-farm capital investment scheme and the knowledge transfer and LEADER programmes. All of this will be supported by a training and research infrastructure, for example, through dedicated agri-environment and climate training for farmers, a continuous professional development programme for advisers and the provision of support for European innovation partnership operational groups.

As I mentioned, further engagement with stakeholders on these interventions continued through September and October. At the same time, discussions between the Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform were taking place about national co-financing of the Pillar II elements of the plan. On 20 October, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, announced that he had reached agreement on this issue with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath. A total of €2.3 billion in national co-financing will be made available over the five-year period of the CAP strategic plan. When combined with Ireland’s €1.56 billion in Pillar II funding arising from last year’s agreement on the EU budget, this will bring the allocation for rural development measures to a total of €3.86 billion. This represents a significant increase in Pillar II funding, from a number of perspectives. For example, using a five-year comparison, it is €600 million higher than the €3.26 billion initially allocated for the final five years, from 2016 to 2020, of the previous rural development programme, and more than €900 million higher than the actual spend over that period. The funding provided for this five-year programme is also very close to the €3.92 billion initially allocated for the entire seven-year period of the 2014 to 2020 programme.

On the balance between EU and national Exchequer funding, 40% of the €3.86 billion allocated for the 2023 to 2027 period will be EU funded, while national co-financing will come to 60%. This represents a significant increase on the national co-financing rate of 47% under the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. Even when carbon tax funding is excluded, the national co-financing rate remains higher than in the previous programme, at just above 50%. Using a seven-year comparison, the total of €5.34 billion allocated for the period 2021 to 2027 is more than €1.2 billion higher than for the 2014 to 2020 period. Both EU and national funding levels are higher than in the 2014 to 2020 period. In addition, national co-financing over the 2021 to 2027 period will come to 54%, which is a significant increase on the 47% seen between 2014 and 2020. When Pillar I, which is direct payments and sectoral interventions, spending of €5.97 billion is included, total expenditure under the plan will come to €9.83 billion. This compares favourably with the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020, which, on a pro rata basis, saw five-year spending of approximately €8.9 billion.

On the distribution of that funding, indicative allocations show a significant increase in spending on the flagship agri-environment climate measure. A total allocation of €1.5 billion is envisaged here, which represents an increase of around €100 million per year on GLAS funding. This will support a new approach, which will include results-based payments and co-operation projects aimed at achieving landscape-scale environmental benefits. Spending on areas of natural constraint will remain at €250 million per annum. A total of €260 million is provided for the suckler carbon efficiency programme. Some €25 million is provided for the dairy beef welfare scheme and €100 million is provided for the sheep improvement scheme. The Minister is also honouring the commitment in the programme for Government to increase the land area for organic farming and has allocated €256 million for this purpose over the period of the plan. This represents a significant increase on current funding levels for organic farming.

In addition to these indicative Pillar II funding allocations, the Minister indicated that, following stakeholder feedback, he was considering the following approach in relation to Pillar I. Convergence of payment entitlement values is to reach a minimum of 85% of the average national value by 2026, in equal steps from 2023. This is the minimum required by the regulations. Capping of payments in accordance with the full scope provided for in the regulations would result in an effective cap of €66,000. The option to deduct salary costs would not be availed of. The CRISS is to be set at 10% of the direct payments ceiling and paid on the first 30 ha. This would yield a total of approximately €118 million and result in a per hectare payment of €43, benefiting 75% of farmers. Some 3% of the direct payments ceiling would be allocated to the young farmers scheme, augmented by national reserve allocations. That is a 50% increase on the amount available last time. Protein aid would be allocated €7 million per annum, increased from €3 million, and would include an increased rate of support. This increase of more than 130% in funding will provide critical support and import substitution opportunities for tillage farmers and have a positive climate impact. Some 25% of the direct payments ceiling, €297 million annually, will be allocated to eco-schemes, with farmers to choose from two out of five proposed farming practices and payments to be made to all active farmers and on all eligible hectares.

In the context of active farmers, a minimum level of agricultural activity would be required, equivalent to 0.15 licensed units per hectare, LU/ha, on grassland farms, with a range of options for other activities. There was broad consensus among stakeholders about the need for a definition, and this deals with that concern.

The eligible hectare will be any agricultural area used, or predominantly used, for an agricultural activity, with up to 30% of individual parcels allowed to contain landscape features or non-productive or nature- and habitat-rich areas. This is intended to address some of the tensions between the current definition of "eligible land" and the ecological and biodiversity objectives of the CAP.

The latest step in the process, which members will have seen in the announcement on Monday, is the launch of the public consultation on the draft environmental report on the proposed CAP strategic plan. This consultation will run for a thirty-day period and will close on 8 December. It provides stakeholders with a further opportunity to express their views on the draft plan and on the draft environmental report, which contains a strategic environmental assessment and an appropriate assessment.

In announcing the public consultation, the Minister also announced that he had reflected on stakeholder feedback and was making some changes to the draft plan. This includes: changing the approach to the suckler carbon efficiency programme by removing the proposed restriction preventing any increase in participants’ herd size; removing the proposed eligibility requirement for beneficiaries of the sheep improvement scheme to be participants in a Bord Bia sustainable lamb assurance scheme; expanding early stage support for producer organisations to cover other sectors, including cereals, potatoes and the amenity sector; improving gender balance and support for qualified female farmers through higher investment support rates under the on-farm capital investment measure and targeted knowledge transfer support; and adding two new interventions in the form of a straw incorporation measure to encourage tillage farmers to increase soil organic carbon content and a collaborative farming grant to provide parallel support for older farmers and encourage earlier succession planning. The Minister also indicated that he is continuing to reflect on calls made by stakeholders for a wider range of eco-scheme farming practices to be made available beyond the proposed five measures.

The timeline for the submission of Ireland’s draft CAP strategic plan to the European Commission is very tight. Any changes arising from the current public consultation will have to be made very quickly in December before Government approval is obtained and the plan submitted by the deadline of 1 January 2022. We will be working intensively over the coming number of weeks to ensure that this deadline is met and that we submit a plan that will underpin the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the agriculture sector in line with national and EU objectives.

I hope that this opening statement has given members of the committee a good sense of where we stand regarding the CAP strategic plan. I and my colleagues are happy to answer any questions that they may have.

I thank Mr. Savage for a very comprehensive overview of where we stand. As he said, the time is tight to make our views known before the CAP strategic plan is presented to officials in Brussels.

I am glad the Minister is considering extending the number of measures under the eco-schemes. It is hard to understand why a country like Holland can have more than 20 measures under these schemes and we are restricted to just five. This is farmers' money. If a high percentage of farmers are unable to qualify, it would be a disaster similar to the beef exceptional aid measure scheme, where we left money unspent and it ended up going back to Brussels. It is essential that there are more than five choices under the eco-schemes. As I said, when we see contemporary countries like Holland having more than 20 measures, to have five is extremely restrictive.

I welcome our guests. I will raise the issues of organics and the LEADER programme. I see that €256 million has been allocated to organic farming. What is the Government's plan to increase the number of organic farmers, considering that we are starting from an incredibly low base of 2% of all agricultural land being under organic production? It is also worth noting that our current target of 7.5% by 2025 is way below that of the EU. Over the past couple of months, we have talked to representatives of different farming organisations about organics. There is some concern that the current approach does not make it attractive for farmers to get into the organic side of things. For example, we were asked recently what proportion of beef on the market is organic. Do the officials have figures for that? I raise that matter because the Irish Organic Association representatives told the committee that our targets can only be met if the Irish beef agrifood policy capitalises on the organic market and the demand for organic food.

There will be an awful lot riding on the LEADER programme in times to come. Rural communities are facing challenges in environment action and energy generation. Every one of us knows that LEADER groups do massive work in each of our communities. We also know about the changes and consequences of the pandemic and the need to enable people to work and support small businesses in rural areas, yet the allocation announced last month has been described by members of some of the LEADER groups we have met as the most negative blow for rural Ireland in the 30-year history of the programme. It seems that when it comes to the funding, we are stuck back in the era before the pandemic struck. Let us be clear, efforts to represent the latest allocation as amounting to €250 million are disingenuous because €70 million of that was previously announced to cover the transitional period, at which stage the funding for many of the projects will be depleted. We are now being told by partnerships throughout the State that they have run out of funding. It is only 2021. Is it not the case that the ball has been dropped in the context of ensuring that the LEADER programme can operate as effectively as possible, particularly in view of the additional demands and challenges it faces in the years to come?

Mr. Paul Savage

I will address the points raised by the Chairman before responding to the Deputy. The Chairman compared the situation in Ireland regarding the proposal for five measures under the eco-schemes with that in Holland. We have spoken to colleagues in other member states about their plans and thinking on what they are doing in respect of eco-schemes. We are all facing the same challenge in trying to make eco-schemes simple and effective for farmers to take part in so they achieve an environmental ambition but are also attractive for people to participate in. As the Chairman mentioned, we want to make sure there is no danger of any unspent funds arising from people's participation. We tried to strike the right balance between trying to keep the options simple and not too high in number because we need to be able to manage the complexity of the process. We need to be able to administer these schemes, get people into them, control them and get the payments out within a period of 12 months so they are run in conjunction with the direct payment system. It is a real challenge if you try to make things too complicated.

I know from talking to colleagues in other member states that quite a variety of approaches are being adopted. The Chairman used the example of Holland and its 20 schemes. I have spoken to Dutch colleagues about their plans and they admit that they are taking a very complex approach and are already seeing challenges with how they administer it. They are trying to grapple with the complexities of that approach. Early in this process, we also considered taking a different approach and making a much wider range of options available, but we believed it made more sense for us to be able to put options on the table that would be implementable and would ensure that payments would go out to farmers every year. That is why we set out the five measures we indicated in the earlier consultation.

As the Chairman stated, we have had strong feedback that we need more options and that we should consider adding other measures to that list in order to ensure we get the maximum number participating. We are reflecting on that feedback, which I mentioned in my opening statement. The Minister has indicated that he is also doing so. That feedback has not gone unnoted. There are different approaches across member states. France, for instance, is looking at a range of three eco-schemes. Others have a range of between five and seven, similar to us, and then others, as the Chairman said, like the Dutch, are thinking in terms of 20 or 25, as are the Finns. There is a difference in approach, but we hope to strike the right balance and we are reflecting on that feedback from stakeholders.

On Deputy Browne's comments on funding for organics, I am not sure it is fair to call it disingenuous. The question was on plans to increase the number of organic farmers and the fact that we were starting from a very low base, which we are. Our current figures are at approximately 2.5% or so in Ireland, but a number of things have to be put in place.

We are developing an organics strategy which will lead on that process. We need to look at the different elements that have to comprise that strategy but we will need industry to play a strong role in this. We need to be able to ensure we have the processing capacity to facilitate the production of organic products. If we have more consistent availability of products, it will help in developing the market for organic products.

A number of elements will be addressed in the upcoming organics strategy, which will lead on that process. It is quite ambitious. As the Deputy noted, we are coming from a low base. Even reaching 7.5% by 2027 is a very ambitious target. The funding allocated honours the programme for Government commitment on moving in that direction. There is a commitment to do that.

The Deputy indicated that the 7.5% figure is below the EU target. It is below the EU target over the next period but we are looking to reach the current EU average. If we could achieve that, it would be a major step in the right direction and would give us a very solid foundation to build on into the future.

Before we leave that issue, even with an additional €4 million for organics, only 317 farmers were convinced to apply. There is no guarantee that those 317 applicants will go into organic farming. The scheme needs to be made more attractive. Even 317 is a small number. What guarantees can Mr. Savage give farmers that if they go into organics, they will be supported?

Mr. Paul Savage

That is very clear. The indication is here to support and to try to encourage farmers into organic production. We are setting clear targets and making clear commitments to reaching them. In the design of the organic farming scheme and its incorporation into the broad direction of the strategy, we will do everything we can to encourage people into the scheme and we will make it available to as many farmers as possible. It is an option that is available for people and one we want to encourage. The Deputy can be assured we will do what we can to facilitate farmers' participation in the scheme.

I do not have figures to hand on organic beef and the amount of it currently on the market. If it is okay with the Deputy, I will follow up and revert to him directly after the meeting. I can certainly supply that information to him.

Mr. Paul Savage

On the Deputy's point in relation to the allocation and amount of funding for LEADER, he described as disingenuous the fact that we are maintaining funding at €250 million. That is, in fact, the plan. We are talking about maintenance of funding for LEADER over the period. The funding for the 2021-27 period essentially remains the same as for the 2014-20 period. In reality, €70 million of the €250 million allocation over the next seven years will have been spent in 2021 and 2022. Therefore, within the CAP strategic plan, we are seeking to have an allocation of €180 million to bring that overall expenditure up to €250 million. That would maintain the current funding level. It is a continuation of the commitment to LEADER that we and our colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development have demonstrated.

As the Deputy will be aware, the Department of Rural and Community Development also has other measures in place. These include the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, the town and village renewal scheme, the rural social scheme, RSS, and CLÁR, which have been implemented in recent years with approved expenditure of €450 million over that period. There is a general recognition that we need to continue that support, continue with the bottom-up involvement that typifies the LEADER approach and encourage the involvement of community groups and members of society in putting those measures in place. The funding we have allocated demonstrates commitment to that process.

The €70 million figure was previously announced to cover the transitional period. All the projects will tell Mr. Savage that they have spent that funding at this stage. It is not me or any of the other members saying this. As I said, the projects have said this is the most negative blow to rural Ireland in the 30-year history of the LEADER programme. That view is coming from the LEADER projects, not politicians at this committee. Someone needs to start listening to the projects, which are running out of funds. In every one of our parishes, towns and villages, we see the work being done under the LEADER programme and other scheme. They need to be supported or the whole country will come to a standstill.

Mr. Paul Savage

I note the Deputy's point and that the projects need to be supported. In fairness, the experience has been that they have been well supported over the last period. In terms of our stakeholder engagement, the fact that we are maintaining funding for the next period was, I believe, acceptable in general to stakeholders, certainly from the feedback I have received.

Just to make the point, in the context of the announcement for the period from 2023 to 2027 and the figures accompanying the environmental report as well, we made it clear that we are talking about a €180 million expenditure over the 2023-27 period. We have not presented it as €250 million funding over the period. It is clear that, altogether, in the period from 2021 to 2027, it comes to €250 million when we add the €70 million being spent this year and next year. However, we have been clear in the commitment over the 2023-27 period of the CAP strategic plan that the expenditure will be €180 million. We have been transparent and clear on how that expenditure profile will come into play over the next seven years.

I thank Mr. Savage and his colleagues for joining us this evening. How does the €260 million being provided for the suckler carbon efficiency programme compare with current spending on equivalent schemes, for want of a better phrase, such as the basic payment scheme and the BDGP? There has been talk of a reference period for the scheme. Can Mr. Savage clarify when the reference may be taken?

On the additions, what does Mr. Savage have in mind when he speak of "a collaborative farming grant to provide parallel support for older farmers and encourage earlier succession planning"?

With regard to the targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS, is the possibility of increasing the percentage of grant aid or increasing the ceilings or capping limits on the basis of the current exorbitant building material costs? People are not getting the same bang for their buck. Will any consideration be given to that?

On forestry, will Mr. Savage comment on the fact that no one from the forestry sector was appointed to the national stakeholders consultative forum? Will forestry be given any consideration under CAP this time? The issue on the previous occasion was that anyone in GLAS was eliminated from forestry, which hindered the progression of forestry and the potential to increase the acreage that could be sown. Many farmers who may have been interested in getting into forestry could not do so because they were in GLAS. Is that matter being given consideration?

The Department is going to the EU with the CAP strategic plan. The Department is probably in constant contact with the EU on this. Is it possible the EU will ask the Department to make changes to what it is proposing?

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Senator. On his first point in relation to the €260 million allocation for the suckler carbon efficiency programme compared with the beef data and genomics programme, off the top of my head, that is a €50 million increase over the period. We were spending €42 million per year on the BDGP, which would work out over a five-year period at €210 million. It is effectively a €50 million increase on what would have been spent, comparatively, on the beef data and genomics programme over a similar period. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of the increase in expenditure there.

The Senator mentioned the reference period in the suckler carbon efficiency programme. I am not sure if there has been any clarity on that but I can check with colleagues and revert to the Senator separately following the meeting if that is okay.

On the collaborative farming grant, that is essentially aimed at streamlining succession planning and encouraging earlier succession planning. It is essentially to maximise what we are doing on the support for the formation of farm partnerships. We are contributing 50% of the administrative costs, up to a limit of €1,500, that would be incurred in establishing farm partnerships. Provision has been made to support 260 or 270 new farm partnerships. That is part of the approach in terms of oiling the wheels of partnership formation but also helping to streamline, from an older person's perspective, succession planning by supporting the move to the younger generation.

In a general sense, that is the plan on the collaborative farming grant.

There is still work going on in regard to increasing the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, ceilings. I might come back to my colleague, Ms Corina Roe, who can fill in a little more detail on the overall profile of ceilings and limits.

On forestry and nobody being on the stakeholder consultative committee and whether it will be given consideration under the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, there are not any forestry representatives directly on the stakeholder consultative committee. We tried to get as wide of a representation as possible in the context of what the rural development programme would traditionally try to achieve and what the CAP strategic plan tries to achieve. We try to make sure that what we are doing is coherent with wider forestry policy, including in the context of the forestry strategy. There is an attempt to do that and there is separate engagement going on with the forestry sector on the strategy implementation.

We are aware of the requirements, but the focus within the CAP strategic plan is around how we can encourage tree planting across the various measures we have planned and how we can make sure it is coherent with the wider and separate forestry strategy in place. As members may have seen from the public consultation, we plan to encourage tree planting to a much greater degree in the future plan compared to previous programmes. We will be supporting it through the eco scheme measure that is proposed in terms of planting a number of trees per hectare. We will also be augmenting that with support for tree planting, agroforestry measures in Pillar 2 and through the agri-environment and climate measure, AECM, as well. We have to look at this in the wider context of what we are trying to achieve from a climate action point of view, such as carbon sequestration and the offsetting of carbon emissions. One of the key things from our perspective is that we try to maximise the leverage that we can bring to bear from the CAP strategic plan in making progress there. We are talking about combining our efforts on eco schemes and through the AECM to increase the amount of tree planting that is going on, which will be done in the context of ensuring we are coherent with the forestry strategy. As mentioned, there were problems in that regard on the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, side previously. That is something we are acutely aware of as we work ahead on our tree planting options in the CAP strategic plan.

It is difficult to say if the Commission will ask for changes to the plan. There are two elements to that. First of all, we are towards the end of a process where we have been trying to strike a balance between various stakeholder views at home. We have been looking at how we can maximise flexibility in the regulations in order to try to satisfy as many concerns as we can, but we have to be consistent with the EU objectives on sustainability and environmental and climate ambition that we have to achieve. The first part is the domestic piece, getting consultation done, getting feedback from stakeholders and trying to strike a balance between the different concerns. However, at the end of the day, it is the case that we have to get approval from the Commission for what we are doing. We always keep in mind what we are going to present to the Commission so we can make sure the plan is approved. That is no straightforward matter. I do not know what kind of changes or what kind of things the Commission will or will not have concerns about at this point in time. There are certain areas of the plan it may focus on. In particular, and in every respect, it will look at the contribution of a scheme towards the environmental and climate ambitions of the CAP because there is an increasingly important factor in terms of the value for money from the expenditure we are getting out of CAP funding. There will be a massive focus on that. The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG AGRI, which might traditionally have been the body to oversee and evaluate member states' rural development programmes will not be the only one this time around. There will be strong input, as we had already, from DG CLIMA, DG ENV and other elements of the Commission's services. They will have their own expectations around what member states' strategic plans should achieve. We should be under no illusions about the challenge we face in getting the plan approved by the Commission, which is why we have had to try to strike that balance between trying to meet farmer concerns but also meeting environmental concerns and trying to make sure that we are achieving ambitions. We have to be able to demonstrate that if we are going to get the plan approved. Nobody should underestimate the challenge that is involved and understate the extent to which we are going to have to convince the Commission that is the case.

I will not give any hostages to fortune about precisely what areas it might seek changes in. All of our efforts over the next number of weeks will be in trying to present a package to the Commission that we hope will be sufficient to get approval and hit all of those European objectives.

Does Ms Roe want to add anything to what I have said on the increase of the TAMS ceilings?

Ms Corina Roe

The TAMS ceiling issue has been raised in discussions and in the town hall meetings. A review of costings of the current TAMS programme has been carried out. We are well aware of the increase in the inflation that has taken place in the building area and that will obviously impact farmers as well. There will be further review of those costings as we go along, as has been the case over the current programme. No decision has been taken on the ceilings yet, but we are mindful of that in the context of the current pilot. Both of those issues are under consideration and review and we will come back with any update when we have it.

Currently, collaborative farming is supporting the registered farm partnerships and the refund of that cost is available now under the current rural development programme. In addition, we are hoping to make advice available to older farmers on succession and retirement. We have to go further on that and it is subject to Commission approval. The idea is that we would also operate a straightforward method where we would have a 50% grant available to farmers thinking of seeking that advice, up to a limit of €1,500. This follows the model that we have available currently for farm partnership support.

There may be some misunderstanding about GLAS and how it operated. In terms of forestry planting for GLAS and the impact that might have had, only 3% of farmers who entered into the GLAS put all their land into GLAS. GLAS is a target measure, so what they did was they carried out actions on certain parcels on their land. To clarify, not all land went into GLAS and even the farmers who went into GLAS did not put their entire farms into it.

Could I get further clarification on my question on the €260 million for the suckler carbon efficiency programme? You gave me the figure for BEEP, but you did not include BEEP-S, or BDGP. If you combine BDGP and BEEP-S, how does it compare to the €260 million? A suckler farmer can avail of both the BDGP and BEEP-S at the moment, so I am trying to compare like with like.

Mr. Paul Savage

I apologise to the Senator. I thought he was just asking the comparison with the BDGP. On BDGP alone, as I said, it was €42 million per year, so it is an increase in relation to the suckler carbon efficiency programme. On BEEP and BEEP-S, if you combine those with the BDGP expenditure, it was at about €80 million per year. What we have is effectively an increase on the BDGP equivalent. When the previous rural development programme was put in place in terms of this efficiency programme, €42 million per year was programmed for that measure. We are now programming essentially €52 million per year for this measure under the CAP strategic plan for suckler carbon efficiency. BEEP and BEEP-S were nationally funded measures that came along subsequently and were there in response particular issues that arose, in a Brexit and other contexts. They were put in place to support the response to those developments. What we are doing within the CAP strategic plan is essentially building on the experience of the BDGP and increasing funding. The Minister indicated that any other kinds of supports that may or may not be necessary for the beef sector would be considered in the context of the annual budgetary process in the future.

I thank our guests. I listened to what they had to say, and much of it sounded very positive. However, I am very worried and maybe they can allay that worry. The devil might be in the detail. Down through the years many people said to me that anyone who was in the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, saw the value of the scheme for ordinary farm families.

That was a very good environmental scheme too. There was tree-planting, hedge-planting and a whole range of other jobs to be carried out during the year that had a positive impact on the environment in the locality. The Department is now talking about an environmental scheme similar to the GLAS. Will the witnesses elaborate on what kind of scheme this will be and what kind of payments will be rolled out to farmers?

I will ask all of my questions while I am already going. Those who are in the organic sector are in it for the love of it. I have a conflict of interest here in that I am an organic farmer, although my son runs the farm now. The farm is organic but we did not get involved in organic farming for the funding or the monetary aspect of things. It was for the love of that type of farming. If young people are to take over farms and run them as organic farms, we have to look at existing organic farmers and new ones who have come in. A large amount of money was set aside previously but the criteria were such that no farmer could get onto the scheme in any case. I worry that we will announce a scheme worth millions but that criteria such as those seen previously will be set, meaning that others will not be able to get onto the scheme.

Will those already on the scheme get a decent payment per hectare as opposed to what they have been getting to date? They pay their membership fees once a year. These are steep enough and have to be paid every December or January. That is fair enough but I can tell the witnesses that it is easy enough to count the few bob of grant aid that comes to the farmer that is left afterwards. All of the efforts on the ecological side should have been pushed into the area of organics because that is what such farmers are involved in. Perhaps the witnesses will elaborate on that.

I concur with Deputy Martin Browne in respect of the LEADER programme. It is no longer what it was and there is no point in anybody saying anything different. When I was taking my first steps in politics, before the LEADER programme became too political, if a private individual or community came to me with some fabulous plan, perhaps for a tourism project, I would send them on to the LEADER programme. That is now the last place I would send them. I do not even know who the contacts for the programme are because it is of no benefit in my locality. It was wrong of me to say it is of no benefit, but it is of little or no benefit. There is rumour out there that there will be less funding for the programme in the years ahead. The whole layout and roll-out of the LEADER programme are a disaster. Brussels should look at it again from start to finish. It should be driven and delivered by the community and it would then deliver for the community. At the moment, it is gone. If there is less money, it will all be soaked up by administration and very little will get back to the people on the ground who have the projects.

I have discussed GLAS, the LEADER programme and the organic sector. While do not want to hold up the discussion because others want to speak, I ask the witnesses for a little more information on the delivery of the ecological schemes. What is proposed in that regard? That would be interesting to hear because many farmers, especially smaller farmers, are on the breadline and are desperately trying to find a way forward in difficult times. I am worried about the dairy man who has 50, 60 or 70 cows. He is finding it very difficult to survive. I am not saying that fellow who has 150 cows is thriving. I am only saying that the smaller farmers are finding it more difficult. There are regulations coming in on top of them. They are astonished. One farmer who has 50 cows and is out working every day told me that it looked to him like he would have to cut 50% of his cows if he is to meet the targets being set for him. There are many changes on the way and I would like to see what is available to help those farmers survive.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank Deputy Michael Collins. He mentioned that the devil is in the detail. There is a lot of detail in respect of the AECM, on which the Deputy asked us to elaborate. There is a reasonable amount of detail in the public consultation document but, for the moment, I will summarise some of the main elements. If the Deputy wants to come back with further questions on the matter, I will be happy to take them. It needs to be reinforced that we are planning a significant step-up in environmental ambition under the AECM, which is our flagship environmental measure. It is effectively the replacement for GLAS. We are trying to build on the experience of GLAS while also increasing the environmental ambition we can achieve through the scheme. It is probably fair to say that the amount of funding allocated to the scheme reflects that commitment and determination to increase the ambition. We are talking about €1.5 billion over the five-year period from 2023 to 2027 to be spent on this agri-environment climate measure.

There are essentially two elements to the scheme. One is what is known as the AECM general option, which is the general scheme and effectively builds on the GLAS experience. It has a similar structure with regard to how it is run. There are tier 1 priority environmental assets that people have to put actions in place to address should they be present on their holdings. There are also tier 2 priority environmental actions that have to be undertaken, as appropriate to the particular production that people are involved in and the landscape issues they are experiencing. Tier 3 involves a suite of general actions covering a whole range of actions suitable for different kinds of lands, including arable land, temporary grassland and grassland more generally. The actions relate to the likes of intensive grassland, field boundaries, tree-planting and resource protection or the protection of riparian margins. This tier also covers certain species-specific actions such as the protection or support of barn owls. These are the more general requirements. The priority environmental actions relate to particular stocking rates and particular sizes of holdings where it is desired to carry out actions relating to matters such as minimum tillage, cash crops, winter bird food, planting trees or creating riparian buffers. Those are priority environmental actions.

There are also priority environmental assets. Where people have these on their farms, they will get first priority in accessing the scheme. These include private Natura land, commonage land, geese and swan areas and areas designated a priority for action by the Environmental Protection Agency. These are known as priority action areas, PAAs. People who have these priority assets on their lands will get priority access to the scheme. Registered organic farmers also qualify for priority access under that tier. Again, we are building on the GLAS experience but with more tailoring in respect of certain actions, particularly the planting of trees. There is also a slight change in the sense that we are moving away from the species-specific focus that characterised GLAS and towards a more holistic approach to maintaining and improving habitats. The idea is that, if we look at the habitat, we can support the species that occupy and use that habitat. Rather than purely looking at a species-specific approach, we are trying to take a more rounded view and look to improve the habitat generally.

This all relates to the AECM general scheme. We hope and expect that approximately 30,000 people will be able to participate in the general scheme. We are hoping that 50,000 people in total will participate in the agri-environment climate measure, including 30,000 on the general scheme. We expect average payments of approximately €5,000 per hectare up to a possible maximum of €7,000 per hectare where applicants undertake particular priority actions.

The second part of the scheme is what we call our co-operation project option. This is essentially an attempt to achieve environmental benefits on a much wider and much larger landscape scale. We are taking the lessons learned from the European innovation partnerships, EIP, projects we have run over recent years to try to run co-operative arrangements, getting farmers together to try to achieve landscape benefits. This is similar to what we have done in respect of the hen harrier and freshwater pearl mussel projects and the Burren programme. We are trying to learn those lessons and expand that to a much wider audience.

We hope to have approximately 20,000 farmers participating in these co-operation projects in specified geographic areas around the country. Again, the idea is that if farmers in one of these geographic areas want to take part in the AECM, they would participate in one of these co-operation projects. There will be a set of standard measures they would have to carry out at farm level but there would also be a landscape or river catchment area element on which local action or co-operation groups will engage with farmers. These groups will talk to farmers about the kind of things they need to do to address the biodiversity and environmental challenges in their areas and put in place a plan to support the achievement of those targets, working in collaboration with large numbers of farmers in those areas.

We hope to have approximately 20,000 people participating in that. Due to the fact that there is a much greater element to the participation in that scheme - there is the co-operate element and a results-based approach is increasingly being adopted - we are looking at 20,000 farmers participating and average payments of approximately €7,000 rising to a maximum of €10,000 in cases where people are at the higher point of the scale in the context of the measures being implemented.

In a general sense, we are taking a much more results-orientated approach to the operation of our agri-environment scheme. Previously, it was action-based in that one was paid for carrying out a particular action in respect of farming. Now, there is much more of a focus on results. One gets paid for the results and the improvements we see on the ground on foot of the measures one introduces. The results-based approach will form an element of the general scheme and an integral part of the co-operation projects as well. It is designed to make sure that we can measure and achieve the benefits and impacts on a much wider scale than has been the case under previous environmental programmes. The results-based approach and the co-operative element of bringing people together are important. I hope that gives the Deputy a flavour of what we are talking about on the AECMs, but I am happy to come back to answer any other questions he may have.

The Deputy mentioned the challenges of getting people into organic farming. We are very much aware of these challenges and will be trying to deal with them in the context of implementing the scheme. We have an ambitious target. We are trying to make sure that what we do is consistent with the organic strategy as well. I do not have specific information on grant aids. That question is still under review in terms of the more detailed design of the scheme. That will follow in the context of putting together terms and conditions and then the practical arrangements around the operation of the scheme. Colleagues on the organic side in the Department continue to work on that. I can come back to the Deputy after the meeting with an update on where we stand regarding the development of payment rates. I will contact colleagues on that side to get the information for the Deputy.

The Deputy made the point about LEADER not being what it was or there being a perception of it being of little or not benefit. I have to say that is not coming across strongly in the stakeholder engagement in which we have been involved. The Deputy talked about less funding and maybe we need to look at that again. As I said, we are not talking about less funding. We are talking about a €180 million allocation for the five-year period from 2023-27, while still maintaining a €250 million funding arrangement over the seven-year period from 2021-27. That is the same level of funding as has been the case in the outgoing programme. We are maintaining funding for LEADER. It is just that €180 million of it falls into the period of the CAP strategic plan.

My colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development are keenly aware of and in constant touch with local action groups. They have to respond to what comes from that bottom-up approach. They do not want to be too prescriptive about what happens and the kinds of projects that will be supported. They want to leave it up to local action groups to come up with measures and supports that support and address the challenges in those local areas. It is a case of waiting to see what comes out of those local action groups, before deciding what projects to support. The nature or breadth of the support is very much a reflection of what is coming to the Department through the local action groups. We take the Deputy's comments and can pass those on to our colleagues in rural and community development and ask them to consider that in the context of what they are thinking about for structuring the programme for the period from 2023 to 2037. We are happy to pass that on.

The Deputy asked about eco-schemes and what we are planning. The consultation document outlines the five practices I mentioned in my opening statement. Eco-schemes are the vehicle by which we are trying to achieve additional environmental ambition in Pillar 1. We have talked about the green architecture of the CAP. There are basic conditionality elements and statutory management requirements and good agriculture and environmental criteria people have to meet. Those basic requirements have to be met in order to get direct payments. Under the new strategic plan, we will slightly increase the ambition of those requirements. This includes the cases of space for nature or non-productive areas, where we are talking about 4% of all agricultural area having to be set aside for those areas and not just arable area, as set out in the regulations.

We are looking at trying to increase the ambition in conditionality, but build on that through eco-schemes. The practice we have laid out in the document talks about increasing the amount of land put aside for this space for nature. If people can increase that space from 4% to 7%, they will get an additional eco-scheme payment under Pillar 1. That will help us achieve much higher environmental ambition, through the direct payments, as will the other four practices we have outlined. That would be extensive livestock production, promoting traditional grassland farming and using extensive animal stocking rates, limiting chemical nitrogen usage, which is a key target in trying to meet climate action, and wider EU strategic targets. Reducing and limiting chemical nitrogen usage is essential. The measure is aimed at promoting that reduction. With regard to planting native trees, if people can plant three trees per hectare, it will go towards an eco-scheme payment. The final measure is the use of GPS-controlled fertiliser spreader. The idea is that farmers will select two of those five options and once they implement those, they will qualify for a full eco-scheme payment. That will help us to increase the level of ambition in the context of the direct payments system. My colleague, Mr. Buckley, in Portlaoise is on the call and may want to come in and fill in a bit more detail on eco-schemes. Perhaps Ms Roe might want to add to anything I have said.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I will ask fairly quick questions and I do not want essays; I just want quick, sharp answers because other people want to get in. I welcome the opportunity to ask the witnesses questions. The previous BDGP was €300 million over six years. That was for 300,000 cows. This one is €260 million for 400,000 cows. Is that not a cut?

Mr. Paul Savage

I mentioned earlier that the spending on the BDGP was-----

I ask Mr. Savage to be careful of the spend in respect of the cows taken up on it and of the budget. When the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, announced the budget, it was €300 million for six years. I have just googled it.

Mr. Paul Savage

I am just looking at figures. The original allocation for BDGP from 2014 to 2020 was €280 million-----

I am looking at €300 million on Google.

Mr. Paul Savage

-----and the average spend was just under €36 million over the period 2014 to 2020, so average spending-----

Will there be a beef spend on top of that?

Mr. Paul Savage

Within the context of the CAP strategic plan, we are talking about purely the suckler carbon efficiency programme. If there will be any further support for beef outside of the CAP strategic plan, that will have to be considered in the context of the annual budgetary process.

On convergence of 85%, I know this has been coming for years and I welcome convergence, because I do not agree with some of the outlandish payments, such those of more than €100,000 going to some farmers and other farmers getting damn all. Has an analysis been done on the convergence? Where is the tipping edge on the balance? From a graph I have seen already, approximately €300 is where the person will not gain or lose much per entitlement or hectare. Can Mr. Savage explain where he sees that? There will be front-loading under the CRISS. Where is the amount of money and has an analysis been done on where it will go or move?

Mr. Paul Savage

Can I respond to those points now?

Mr. Paul Savage

I will hand over shortly to Mr. Morrin in Portlaoise. He has been working on the modelling side of things in terms of the convergence impacts and he might be able to give a bit more detail on the figures. I will ask him to comment on the convergence at 85%.

On CRISS and the front-loading, I mentioned earlier that in terms of setting CRISS at 10%, the amount of funding that would be released by that, which is around €118 million, will result in a payment of €43 per hectare, which would essentially benefit 75% of farmers.

It will benefit them.

Mr. Paul Savage

It will be paid on the first 30 ha because of the limit that is set with regard to the area where it is applied. I will ask Mr. Morrin to respond to the Deputy’s question on convergence and he may wish to add to the point on CRISS.

Mr. Francis Morrin

As the Deputy rightly points out, the proposal is to move to a minimum rate of 85% convergence by 2026. That will be done in equal steps over the four years that are ahead of us. The Deputy asked about a tipping point. That is quite a complex thing to explain and I am mindful of what the Deputy said about short, snappy answers. It is very much dependent on the allocations that are made throughout all of the direct payments ceiling. Many things feed into that. However, it is safe to say that those who are below the average payment per hectare, in other words, the average entitlement value, will receive money under the convergence process and those who are above will contribute.

Are there many below the average? What percentage in Ireland are below the average?

Mr. Francis Morrin

It is not quite half-and-half. There is a category in the middle which lies between 90% and 100% of the average that is essentially static and sees very little change. Outside of that, it is roughly 50:50 but, as we move forward from 85%, and if we were to go beyond that, the number who gain or receive under further convergence increases more, the higher it goes, while the number above tend to have to contribute more.

Has the Department done some sort of analysis of that?

Mr. Francis Morrin

Yes, there is some information that we published back in August on the redistribution. The Deputy should have that already.

Would it be possible to send it to the committee so we could analyse it?

Mr. Francis Morrin

That is no problem. It is also on our website.

Thank you. In regard to the eco-schemes, we are hearing from many farmers about the five different categories, one of which is GPS. GPS is grand and there are GPS systems around the country for people to get fertiliser spread. However, for a small farmer with his Wagtail spreader, going around spreading a bit of fertiliser, it is not going to be used, to be frank.

There is the issue of the trees, which I ask the witnesses to bear in mind. The Chairman, Deputy Cahill, and I met the sector in the last few days. We talked to some in the nursery sector who have a concern that the volume of trees the Department is talking about, which is three or five trees per hectare, first, will not be good enough with regard to counting emissions because people need to have 0.1 hectares, or that is what Deputy Cahill and I were told. Second, they do not envisage the nursery sector will have the trees ready at the heights required for that measure.

There is talk out there at the moment which the witnesses should be aware of. It is said that Holland has 20 schemes and France has whatever number. We need to look at what Holland has because it is way more complicated and the eco-schemes are nearly like going into GLAS. We need to be honest with farmers as well. Why do we not put in things like lime spreading, which keeps down carbon as well as doing the soil good? It is all talk about the soil at the moment. Why do we not give three or four more suites of options to make it workable? That is one question.

The second question concerns trees in the context of the new environmental scheme. I was at an appeal lately under GLAS where a farmer had gone into planting. When a farmer goes into planting under GLAS, even though there is a big spiel about how good planting is and how great it is for the environment, there is then a line saying the farmer will give all the money back under GLAS. Is the Department going to interlink this so that if a farmer, whether in year two, three or four of the environmental scheme that the Department brings out, decides to plant a portion or a part of the land, they are not paying back the full REAP scheme payment? We still call it GLAS but it is the new REAP scheme. Is the Department going to make sure that happens to encourage forestry, given the Department has never attained the 8,000 ha target that has been in place since 2015?

On top of that, the witnesses might be able to explain this point on the eco-scheme. If I have a bit of ground and an inspector comes out to me, 20% of a parcel can be rough ground, or whatever we want to call it, and it will get through. However, that is changing to 30% in 2023. Next year, for the sake of argument, are we going to root out 10% of a field to make it perfect looking for the following year so the 30% will pass? Why is there not a roll-over between now and then so a farmer would not go pulling scrub or bushes for next year because we have a transition coming? People left out bits of ground because they said the Department would screw them and would not pay them for it. Can people put that new ground back in now, along with the area they always put in? Can they put it into the eco-scheme or is that forbidden?

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Deputy. I might invite my colleague in Portlaoise, Mr. Buckley, who is overseeing the design of the eco-schemes, to comment shortly. I will make a couple of preliminary comments. I take the Deputy’s point in regard to the concern in the nursery sector about the supply of trees, for example, and it is something we are aware of. Obviously, we are looking to increase the ambition here and to radically increase the number of trees being planted in the country. We are aware of this and we have been in touch with the nursery sector with regard to looking at any potential supply issues that we might come across. There is a sense that we want to make sure that what we are doing both in Pillar I of the eco-schemes and in Pillar II in terms of tree planting means they are coherent and that they do not put too much pressure on the system, particularly in the early years, when we are just getting off the ground in terms of tree planting. That transition into the new plan will have to be carefully managed but it is certainly something we are aware of.

The Deputy mentioned the very complicated approach they are taking in Holland, which is a fair point. I mentioned earlier that we are trying to strike the right balance between making things simple and getting as many people as possible into the scheme and getting an environmental benefit. The Deputy mentioned adding further measures such as lime spreading and other things. We have had a lot of feedback from people around the possibilities that we should think about, and a number of different ideas have come our way over the last while about expanding the list of practices. I mentioned earlier that we are reflecting on those and while no decision has been made yet, work is going on in the background looking at whether it would be possible to do that. We will, hopefully, be able to comment further on that shortly.

I will ask Mr. Buckley to comment in more detail on the Deputy’s last point in regard to the 20% versus 30% and what kind of overlap that has with eco-scheme participation, given he might be in a better position to answer that.

There is one thing I need to be clear on. If someone has a piece of ground that was not used for years and is not on the mapping, what we would call a rough piece of ground, can they put that in for sowing trees? If a farmer has 100 acres, or 40 ha, in for the last ten years and has a rough piece of ground they were not putting in because they knew well the Department was going to peg it out and the farmer would get nothing on it, can that ground now be put in if the farmer wants to plant trees on it for the eco-scheme?

Mr. Paul Savage

I might ask Mr. Buckley to comment on that because it is an overlap between the measure in the eco-schemes and the question of eligibility. Before I do, on the earlier BDGP point, I want to clarify that the amount allocated for BDGP over the seven-year period from 2014 to 2020 was €280 million, as I mentioned earlier, which gives an average of €40 million per year allocated for that programme.

I wanted to clarify that in case I was not clear earlier. Does Mr. Buckley want to address the eco-scheme?

Mr. David Buckley

Good evening. I will address the Deputy's points briefly. He is correct that sometimes the devil is in the detail. The proposal of the Netherlands has a number of differences to ours. It is putting in 30% while we are putting in 25%. There is a range of up to 25 actions. It may not be possible to pay for some within the calendar year. We want to make sure that we can pay them. The planned uptake for all farmers in the Netherlands at the moment is 70%, so 70% of all farmers might join. Our ambition is to get 100% of farmers to join.

The Deputy is right about the GPS fertiliser spreader. Someone using a Wagtail may be spreading a couple of tonnes of 18-6-12 or 10-10-20 fertiliser. This is not an action that he or she is likely to participate in. It is likely that it will be aimed at larger users of fertiliser, such as more intensive dairy or beef farmers, which is not to say that it will not be open to them.

The Deputy referred to a piece of ground. There is an important distinction about eco-schemes. They are mandatory for member states but it is voluntary for farmers to join them. We expect that most farmers will want to join, because they will want to get their money back. We want to make it administratively simple. The farmer should not need to employ an adviser, unlike the AECM, in order to apply for this scheme. We want to make sure that the measures are straightforward and practical, and easy for both farmers and advisers to understand and implement, and equally for us to be able to pay farmers within the year.

The other important point to make relates to the five actions, which Mr. Savage referred to. The Minister and the Department are reflecting on them, including the one that the Deputy mentioned about liming and soil sampling.

The point about the eligible hectares is important. The Deputy is correct that our proposal is to allow up to 30% of a parcel to consist of features that are beneficial to the climate that we have outlined over the years, for example, scrub. That is our proposal, which will ultimately go to the Commission. It may or may not accept the proposal. We like to think that it would because that is the direction of travel and these features can contribute to both biodiversity and the environment. Before I come to the point about new ground, payment for eco-schemes is for eligible hectares, regardless of whether a person has entitlements or not. For example, a person could have a 30 ha holding, such as a young lad who might be starting with no entitlements, or somebody who might have had them and sold them. That person can get an eco-scheme payment regardless of whether he or she has any entitlements. If a person has 30 ha and only entitlements for 20 ha, he or she can get an eco-payment for all 30 ha.

Can Mr. Buckley go back over that? We need to get our heads around this because many of us are trying to explain it to people. If a person has entitlements for 20 ha every year and there is another 10 ha that was never involved before, can that be put in for the eco-scheme as well as the 20 ha?

Mr. David Buckley

Yes. To be clear, the 30 ha has to be eligible. In order for a hectare to be eligible, it has to be an agricultural area and an agricultural activity has to be taking place on that parcel. To keep the maths simple, if there is a 1 ha parcel within the 10 parcel the Deputy referred to, we will allow up to 30% of that 1 ha parcel to consist of scrub, as long as there is agricultural activity on the other 70%, such as a couple of sucklers grazing. It has to be an agricultural area with an agricultural activity on it. Once it is an eligible hectare, as the Deputy asked earlier, people can plant trees and can receive a payment on all 30 ha, once they are claimed within the basic payment scheme and are eligible hectares.

I have a number of questions and will try to make them as succinct as possible. I was interested in the page of the witnesses' opening statement dedicated to stating that this is a fantastic deal financially. Is it Mr. Savage's contention that each year, on average, more money will come from the EU as part of the CAP than in the previous round?

Mr. Paul Savage

Is there more money coming from CAP compared with the previous round?

Yes. Each year, will the average amount of EU funding be increased or reduced from what it was in the previous round? That is probably an easier way to put it.

Mr. Paul Savage

To be clear, what I have in the document and have referred to previously is the overall EU funding for the 2021 to 2027 period and from 2023 to 2027.

Does Mr. Savage know, from EU sources, if Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 EU funding for the Irish envelope will increase or decrease each year?

Mr. Paul Savage

It will be increased, using both the seven-year and five-year comparisons.

Is it Mr. Savage's contention that there will be more EU funding on average, per year, in the next round of CAP compared with the previous round? I want to be clear about where the Department's head is with this.

Mr. Paul Savage

On average, yes. If Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are taken together, with the fact that there is more money over the seven-year period, if it was averaged-----

Will the EU funding for the Irish envelope across Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 go up or down year on year? I want to know why Mr. Savage has a difficulty in saying that there will be less EU money coming to his Department. It is crazy that an official would not just be able to acknowledge that fact as a starting point.

Mr. Paul Savage

When the Deputy says that less EU money will come to Ireland compared with the previous period, I am not sure what point he is trying to make. I made clear earlier that our overall funding, on foot of the EU budget negotiations last year, when we look at the combination of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 funding for Ireland, has increased if compared on the basis of five-year and seven-year periods.

We heard Mr. Savage's opening statement. To put it on the record, there will be less EU funding. I could go through each of the figures in Mr. Savage's opening statement, but I will not do that. Will he acknowledge that if we take inflation into account, there will be less funding for the next round of the CAP, on average per year, than in the previous round?

Mr. Paul Savage

The figures are adjusted. Figures can be presented in different ways depending on how one wants to incorporate inflation or fix a particular set of figures. When the negotiations were taking place, it was done on the basis of fixed 2018 prices. When communicating with people and talking about what that means when the money is spent, remember that we were negotiating based on 2018 prices, which will have a different value when those moneys are paid in 2026 and 2027. In order to compare like with like, current prices have to be compared, which is what we have done. It is clear from that comparison, when looking at the price allocation over the previous period, that we got a total of €10.68 billion from EU funds and this time we will get €10.75 billion from EU funds for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 from 2021 to 2027. That will increase. If that is averaged over the period, it results in an average annual increase.

Those are actual figures. Does Mr. Savage accept that, using actual figures, in real terms, considering inflation, that it is less money? Would Mr. Savage be happy if he was earning the same salary as he did in 2014 and would he consider that to be an increase or a decrease in real terms?

That is not a fair question.

It is a fair question.

That is a personal question.

I will move on to the next point. I will read part of the programme for Government, namely, part 3 in the carbon tax section, which states:

Allocate €1.5 billion to a REPS-2 programme to encourage and incentivise farmers to farm in a greener and more sustainable way. This funding will be additional to funding from the Common Agricultural Policy.

The opening statement indicated that this was an agreement reached between the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Marine and Public Expenditure and Reform.

The funding will be additional to funding from the Common Agricultural Policy. The opening statement indicated that this was an agreement reached between the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Did the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine highlight to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform the programme for Government commitment that the carbon budget allocation to the agri-environment scheme would be separate from the CAP budget?

Mr. Paul Savage

The programme for Government commitments are clear to everybody, both here and in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. In our discussion with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, we were very clear and the Minister was very clear that we want to honour that programme for Government commitment and secure funding accordingly. It is very clear that the programme for Government commitment is being satisfied.

We need to bear in mind two things. First, carbon tax will obviously only become available as it accrues over the period between now and 2030. We can only spend money and allocate money in accordance with how we expect to receive it. In our case and in the case of other Departments that will get carbon tax money, we need to be aware that we can only spend it when it arises. The receipt of carbon tax funding has been clearly mapped out over the period. Effectively, we will receive about half of the total, €750 million, by the end of 2027 and the remainder will come on stream in accordance with carbon tax revenues from 2028 to 2030. All that €750 million carbon tax money available to us over the CAP strategic plan will go into our environmental programme. It is being added to our other national funding and incorporated into the overall expenditure. We are incorporating that because, as the Deputy knows, all schemes put in place by member states are subject to EU state aid rules and by programming it into the-----

Regarding this agri-environment scheme package, is the carbon tax fund part of the Pillar 2 co-financing package that was announced?

Mr. Paul Savage

In an overall sense, it is part of the overall-----

That is all I wanted to know. Is the Pillar 2 co-financing package part of the Common Agricultural Programme strategic plan?

Mr. Paul Savage

There is a distinction between the money that is being made available in the CAP strategic plan and the period after that. Just to explain-----

No, I am talking about the period and the funding of the CAP strategic plan. Is the agri-environment scheme part of the CAP strategic plan? I require a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Mr. Paul Savage

Yes, the agri-environment scheme is, of course, part of the CAP strategic plan.

Is it, therefore, being funded partly by the carbon tax fund?

Mr. Paul Savage

It is being funded partly by the carbon tax fund.

Therefore, the carbon tax fund is making up part of the Common Agricultural Policy which is separate. Considering that in real terms the CAP budget is being reduced, considering that in real terms farmers are being asked to do much more over the course of the next CAP and considering that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine had this tool of the commitment in the programme for Government, did it at least make the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that this funding would be distinct from the co-financing funding that was announced in the CAP strategic plan?

Mr. Paul Savage

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has made a very clear distinction between what would be considered regular or normal national CAP funding and what is being provided in addition through the carbon tax fund. I would be happy to provide the figures to the Deputy outside this forum.

It is very simple. Did the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine ask that the carbon tax element be distinct from the overall co-financing element?

Mr. Paul Savage

Yes, it is distinct from the overall CAP. What would normally have been allocated to us as co-financing for the CAP strategic plan is much lower than what was allocated to us on foot of the additional money that we got for carbon tax.

Why then did Mr. Savage say that this represents a significant increase in Pillar 2 funding from a number of perspectives? Essentially Mr. Savage is doing a three-card trick. He is trying to convince people we have an increase in EU funding, which we do not. He is then trying to say we have an increase in Pillar 2 co-financing, as if that is a good thing when in fact we are only partly meeting the reduction in CAP funding. He is then trying to say we have an agri-environment fund, funded through the carbon tax budget when in fact it is part of the same co-financing measure. Does Mr. Savage understand why people are frustrated by this game being played out as opposed to acknowledging that we will be operating under very difficult circumstances over the next CAP term?

Mr. Paul Savage

With respect, I do not believe any game is being played here and I am not sure that people are frustrated at the figures we have given. The way the figures are represented is presenting it effectively in a very simple overarching way to try to explain to people the amount of national funding that is helping the CAP strategic plan to be delivered. There are technicalities relating to what would normally be considered national co-financing and the extent to which carbon tax funding is being added to that on this occasion.

In very straightforward terms we are saying that overall national co-funding for the strategic plan is of a particular order and that includes approximately €720 million coming in from the carbon tax. Even if the carbon tax is excluded and we just consider the rest of the national funding that is being used to co-fund the CAP strategic plan, we would still be at a co-funding rate of 50%, which is higher than the 47% co-funding rate under the previous plan.

Of course, we need to do that to meet some of the shortfall in the EU budget.

I have some other quick questions. Will the 3% allocated to young farmers from the Pillar 1 fund address the issue of the so-called forgotten farmers, the old-young farmers, for want of a better term? Will we be able to address their issues in the next CAP?

Mr. Paul Savage

Separate consideration is being given to the question of forgotten farmers. I will ask Mr. Morrin to comment on what we plan to do there, both in the context of the CAP strategic plan and outside that.

Mr. Francis Morrin

The issue of the forgotten farmers is to be addressed outside the 3% the Deputy mentioned. The Minister has committed to examine that and try to reach a resolution on it.

This is the difficulty. For the past two years, I have asked several officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and the Minister directly about the forgotten farmers. On each occasion, I was told that this will need to be addressed through the next CAP strategic plan. Where will it be addressed?

Mr. Francis Morrin

As I said, that is still being worked on.

Will it be addressed as part of the strategic plan to be submitted in December?

Mr. Francis Morrin

The Minister is committed to doing that.

I am glad to hear that. Perhaps we can get an update when that happens.

There is an age limit of 55 on the 60% TAMS rate that is available to women. How did the Department come up with that age? Why is it not 56 or higher? Is there scope to review that? Older women who might be active farmers might not be registered as such but they should be able to draw down that funding if necessary.

Mr. Paul Savage

I will ask Ms Roe to respond on that. It has been the subject of some discussion here. She may be able to fill in some of the detail on that.

Ms Corina Roe

I thank the Deputy for his very pertinent question. In the CAP strategic plan, we are trying to address gender inequality in the farming sector which is predominantly male. Regarding the age limit, much of the discussion with the Commission about young farmers centres on the fact that if we are paying an additional percentage, the Commission insists that over a period of time the investment must have a chance to realise full value for money.

This is uncharted territory for us. For the public consultation process, we suggested that we would introduce an age limit of 55. We felt we could probably make an argument to the Commission that at that age there would still be an opportunity for that investment to be realised. I am very aware that the average retirement age of farmers in Ireland is well past the normal retirement age of 65. We are looking at that. We have opened discussions with the Commission on this topic and we will keep it under review.

These are proposals. We will come back to the matter. We are very keen to address this. There are other measures we have included in the CAP plan, including generational renewal, that we believe support gender balance in the sector.

I have about a dozen questions on organic farming, but I will ask only one. Will the next CAP allow those farmers who are in the organic farming scheme to engage in the agri-environmental scheme? The current arrangement is the single biggest barrier to encouraging farmers to enter the sector.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Deputy. That is an issue that we are aware of. We are trying to be accommodating to the greatest extent and to ensure coherence across the various schemes regarding how people participate. We are considering how participation in the organic farming scheme could be additional or complementary to the other scheme, but in a way that would not result in a suggestion of double counting or double payment. We need to have discrete differences between what we might allow within the organic farming scheme itself and what we might allow people to do within the AECM. We are considering that. We are doing so in the wider context of trying to ensure where we are making payments to people under particular schemes, no issue arises over duplication of effort as a result of people participating in more than one measure. We will try to ensure coherence as best we can in the CSP.

Would it be possible for Mr. Morrin, Mr. Buckley and Ms Roe to send their contact numbers directly to us? We are getting many queries on the eco-schemes and all the various measures. Would it be possible for the committee to have the numbers so we could be made familiar with various scenarios that are coming up?

Mr. Paul Savage

We remain available at all times to respond to any comments members want to pass on to us. Maybe we could set up a central email address for members to send comments or queries from people so we can distribute them, as appropriate, to the relevant people rather than having them coming in piecemeal to various places. If it would help, we could consider setting up some sort of central email address that could act as a collection point for queries members might want to send to us, and we could filter them from there if that suits.

That would be helpful.

Is the term of an eco-scheme one year only? Given the need to wait for inspectors and advisers, how long will it take to complete the assessments? Will a farmer be able to apply each year over the five years? If he has not complied or if there is some hold-up, what happens? Is he then held up? Can he apply for the second year if the first year is not finalised?

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Deputy. There are a couple of points to make on eco-schemes. Mr. Buckley will comment in more detail in a moment. On the role of advisers, it is probably fair to say straightforwardly that we do not envisage a huge role for advisers in the context of eco-schemes. We are trying to keep them simple and straightforward for farmers to participate in. We will have extensive advisory engagement in other schemes that we are running under the CSP, including, for instance, the AECM, the bigger environmental measure. Again, we are envisaging direct farmer participation in that regard, which is why we are trying to keep things simple.

The eco-scheme is an annual one. People must apply from year to year. The question was whether a farmer can apply for each year of the five years of the scheme. "Yes" is the short answer to that. As we go, we intend to review progress on the implementation of the scheme. One or two criteria may change over the relevant period, depending on how we believe we need to respond to the implementation, but it will certainly be open to farmers to participate in all five years of the scheme. I do not know whether Mr. Buckley wants to add anything to that.

If the first year is not finalised, can a farmer apply for the second year?

Mr. Paul Savage

I think "Yes" is the short answer to that, but Mr. Buckley might clarify it.

Mr. David Buckley

The straight answer is "Yes". Each year stands on its own. If for some reason a farmer who has applied in year one does not get paid or there is a particular issue, it will not stop him or her from applying the following year for the same actions or different actions. There is no mandatory requirement for an adviser. The farmer is free to get an adviser if he or she so wishes, but the Department will not make it mandatory for a farmer to have one.

We want to be able to pay farmers before the end of the year. When the farmer opens the application form in spring 2023 with a view to making an application, we want to present him or her with the most appropriate information. We want to work on this over the next 12 months. One of the actions concerns places for nature. We have to map all the hedgerows, drains and buffer strips in the country and present the information to the farmer. Mr. Savage said that if a farmer is over 7%, he or she will be eligible for one of his or her two eco-actions. We want it in bright red for farmers, when they open their applications, that they are at 6%, 8%, 10% or otherwise.

Has the Department enough inspectors and the wherewithal to vet or assess all the farmers in schemes, at the end of the year or whenever it decides? Is it going to employ more staff? Do we have enough staff to assess the compliance of each farmer? There is a massive amount of work involved in this. I can see farmers being held up when trying to apply for the second round because the first round will not have been completed. Why can there not be a five-year scheme rather than one that must be applied for annually? I do not believe the Department has enough personnel to assess every farmer in the country.

Could Mr. Savage explain the inspection process? I presume there will be random inspections.

Mr. Paul Savage

I will let Mr. Buckley go into the detail on that. We are acutely aware of the practicalities and the control burden in making sure the schemes are implemented and that we can pay people over the course of the year. That is very much informing our approach to the overall scheme, which involves trying to keep it as simple as possible for farmers and ourselves while getting an environmental benefit from it. Admittedly, it will be a challenge. The scheme will have to be controlled in each year to allow payments to go out.

Mr. David Buckley

The Chairman is right in that the process will be random, just as it is at the minute. However, we envisage making the process as easy as possible, for farmers in particular. Many of the cheques will be administrative. With regard to the space-for-nature measure, the Department will map all the features. Unless a farmer has sold a parcel that contains some of the features or, for argument's sake, has taken out a hedgerow, administratively we will check in respect of 100% of people. The same applies to the application of chemical nitrogen. There will be a fertiliser register in place in 2023. Once again, inasmuch as possible, we will be doing checks remotely at a rate of 100%. If the farmer meets the criteria, all things being equal, he or she will get paid. Although there is a resources challenge, we do not envisage recruiting a massive number of people to deliver the scheme. We are trying to keep the scheme straightforward and practicable for farmers, advisers and the Department.

On the question on why there is not a five-year scheme, the issue with a such a scheme, which would involve a multi-annual contract, as with GLAS, is that if a farmer does not carry out an action for some reason, there is a clawback from previous years. These are annual schemes, and each stands up in its own right.

These are annual schemes and stand in their own right. The farmer gets paid or does not but it does not prejudice him or her going into subsequent years for the same things, or for different actions if he or she so wishes.

I have a question about the changing and increasing land designations. Have they been finalised? Will farmers be paid for rendering their farms less valuable or will they be compensated for the designations being demanded of them? Their land might not be as valuable or they might not be able to do what they like with it. Will there be compensation for farmers in those scenarios?

Mr. Paul Savage

We might come back to the Deputy on that question. I am not sure it is within the Department's remit. It is probably a question for our colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, particularly as regards the designation of land and the process around that. From our point of view, there is no issue there and there is no plan to pay farmers for a particular designation. There are requirements that have to be met in the context of the legal requirements that are in place. Our colleagues in the NPWS would normally be responsible for the broad administration in this area. We will come back to the Deputy on that or we might make that point to our NPWS colleagues and respond later.

I wish I could be on this committee all the time. It is very interesting. I keep thinking of all my neighbours and my sister and the challenges they are facing in farming. I thank the witnesses for their time. I would like to ask about the compatibility of our proposed CAP strategic plan with EU directives. We are getting more and more carbon fines and other things from Europe. I have been told that the European Commission will specifically evaluate how our plan will contribute to and be consistent with a number of European directives under annex 13, like the birds directive, the habitats directive, the water framework directive and many more. Ireland's performance under many of these directives has historically been quite poor. Have we done enough to demonstrate that we have learned form the past? Given the level of intensification that has taken place in recent years, does the CAP strategic plan show that it is consistent with these directives? Maybe that is something that will come up when doing the mapping. That would be a worry of mine.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Senator. The Commission will try to ensure that member states' CAP strategic plans are compatible with EU directives. The Senator mentioned annex 13 in particular. There is a requirement on all of us in that regard. There are certain elements in the context of legislative requirements that are there in terms of statutory management requirements that have to be complied with for a direct payment under the conditionality framework. There are also other elements that have to be complied with more widely in EU legislation. Among the criteria that are part of the environmental assessment which is now out for public consultation is the contribution or impact of the CAP strategic plan on these areas, and if there is going to be any detrimental impact, what sort of mitigation measures will be put in place to address that. That is very much the focus.

More generally, we are very conscious that we need to improve performance all around in biodiversity and water quality. There is a regular stream of reports and assessments about the potential damage and actual damage that can be done to habitats and water quality if farming and other practices are not managed correctly. We want to encourage that practice and compliance with those directives and with all EU legislation as part of the CAP strategic plan. It is a focus and is part of the general framework we have in place, including through conditionality, but we will be asked that question and we will be challenged on that point by the environmental assessment that is being carried out and by the Commission itself when we come to the approval process.

It is not only for the birds and habitats and so on but also for the farmers themselves. Sometimes it is made out that farmers are all bad and all killing the birds or whatever when we know that is not true. It is always good to focus on the polluter or the person doing the damage rather than making sweeping statements about all farmers.

Mr. Savage said he hoped to focus on results-based payments. To that end, when this mapping is being done, it sounds like the Department will be able to inform the farmers as to what they currently have on the land with regard to valuable land for biodiversity and so on. Will the Department take that into account as well, so that it will vary depending on the types and variety of habitats and the quality and types of trees? It would be brilliant if all that information were handed to the farmer. How will the Department do results-based payments if it only does random checks on 5%? Will those results be based on the random 5% that is inspected? It would have to be more accurate than that to show we are complying with these directives.

Mr. Paul Savage

There is a distinction between the technical requirements that have to be met in terms of the controls we employ and the wider objectives we are trying to meet, to show that we are actually contributing to the overall objectives and being able to demonstrate our performance. As regards the results-based approach, yes, we will be doing that. On the co-operation project element, for instance, we will be allowing co-operation projects and the local teams which are putting them together to identify the requirements or challenges from a biodiversity, water quality or more general environmental perspective and to come up with the plans that are necessary to address those. There will be bespoke arrangements and they will differ depending on what part of the country people are in, what kind of land we are talking about and what kind of typography and climatic conditions and other conditions are prevailing on the ground. That is why we are leaving it to the local groups who have the expertise, know the areas and are in a position to recommend actions to farmers. There is also good experience there in the application of results-based approaches, including through our EIP programme, which we have had for the last number of years.

I live right beside all the farmers in the Burren who do the BurrenLife project. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae raised an interesting point. I do not see how we are going to do this right if we do not employ staff. I do not mean administrators but people who actually understand nature and can recognise the different biodiversity. It is not that straightforward. Having studied organic horticulture and all that, I would not want to be the one going out doing assessments. How is the Department going to show we are meeting the directives and that when farmers get payments it is because they have done a good job and deserve a payment? We need to make sure the farmers who have the best results are getting paid. If we are not going to have expertise, statistics and good ecology inspectors, I do not know how that will be done.

Mr. Paul Savage

It is probably a case of making the most of all the actors that are available to us and all the people who can participate in and contribute to the monitoring of the output from these schemes and their performance. Over the last couple of years, the Department has expanded its expertise internally. For instance, the number of ecologists we employ within the Department to provide us with expertise on this kind of results-based approach and how we should target what we are trying to achieve in biodiversity-----

How many new ecologists has the Department taken on to help roll this out?

Mr. Paul Savage

I am not sure off the top of my head. I will check that for the Senator. We certainly multiplied the number of ecologists several times. We probably have somewhere in the region of eight or ten times more ecologists now than we had a number of years ago.

There were two before now so there might be 20 now.

Mr. Paul Savage

As I said, I am not sure off the top of my head what the figure is but it is certainly in excess of 20. That is a recognition of the fact that there is increasing focus on this area and we are being held to a higher standard in terms of being able to target our measures, measure the actual impact and contribute to higher targets. That is certainly important. We are also building a kind of reservoir of data and expertise. It is in a transition period at the moment and we are running our results based environment agri pilot, REAP, project, from which we will draw lessons about results-based actions. That will inform the approach in the CAP strategic plan.

We are also carrying out our biodiversity study, our farm environment study and soil sampling studies over the course of the transition period, which will give us a very solid baseline or reference point. We can then apply that on a wider scale and measure the actual impact and performance of what we are doing on the ground. There are a number of elements there. We have to continue to use the expertise available to us as best we can and be a little more imaginative maybe in how we approach our general measurement of impacts in these areas. That is what we are doing.

We are taking quite a leap here in how we are administering the ANC measure this time around, and the local co-operation project as well. Not only are we moving to a results-based approach, we are also giving responsibility to these local groups to come up with the measures within an overall guidance provided by the Department. The local groups needs to come up with the overall measures best suited to their areas, so we are trying to leverage that expertise as best we can.

The thing is, we have had bad mistakes made in the past. It has never been more important than now to get this right. We do not want to be learning in a year or two that we have failed on the water framework directive or the habitats directive, which we have been doing miserably for years. Farmers want to get all this right. It is important everybody ensures we have a very strong CAP strategic plan that shows it is different to everything we have done before, because of the emergencies we are all facing.

Mr. Paul Savage

To finish on that point, I mentioned earlier the national calf stakeholder consultative committee has heard that message very strongly from environmental groups represented on it in terms of ensuring we have that prior ambition. The Senator made a very valid point at the end, and it was one I mentioned earlier, namely, that we will have to demonstrate our environmental credentials, if you like, in terms of the CAP strategic plan to the Commission when we submit it. The Commission will very seriously and carefully look at what we are proposing on environmental sustainability in the plan. It will expect a high standard. That will form a critical element of the engagement we get into with the Commission as part of the approval process next year.

I thank Mr. Savage.

We will have one final question from Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Under the new REAP scheme or the different ecological plans, we might be talking about, we keep looking into one field and wondering what we will make the farmer do. There are many farmers who might have a bit of cutaway bog or a little forest. I mean something that is ecologically good or good for biodiversity. We do not seem to ever want to look in that gate at all. We want to stay in the field we were always in and tell the farmer to do this, this and this. Why is there not a broader horizon or a suite of measures farmers can pick from? It would be more beneficial to the environment if we looked outside the box a bit more at what someone might have in the back pocket of his or her trousers rather than looking at the front pocket of the trousers all the time, to put it simply. Especially, with the REAP scheme and stuff like that. Do people remember the scheme before the GLAS? I think it was REPS.

It was the REPS.

Mr. Paul Savage

Yes.

There was at one time a huge suite of different opportunities under REPS. However, we seem to be putting people in a straightjacket since then, where the schemes are concerned.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the Deputy. I might let Ms Roe come in and comment in a moment. By way of introduction on it, we are trying to a wider approach with respect to, as the Deputy mentioned, ecology, biodiversity and looking at different and maybe more effective ways of managing that and getting a better outcome for ourselves. That is probably exemplified by the fact that we have, under GAEC 2, for instance, a focus on appropriate management of peatlands and wetlands this time around. This again is trying to address a particular issue there with greenhouse gas emissions. We are looking at that.

More generally, the more flexible approach we are taking to the co-operation projects will allow for a probably more integrated, if you like, consideration of all these things with respect to what might be possible in different areas to encourage that ecological development and biodiversity. It will very much depend on what is happening on the ground. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we are taking a bit of a leap here into a different area and putting responsibility on people locally to come up with the arrangements that will best suit biodiversity, water quality and climate as well. By doing that, there may be opportunities to develop into areas where, as the Deputy said, we are not just looking into one field but taking a wider view and looking at measures that might work in a more collective way. We are moving in that direction. We are trying to build a bit of expertise on that. We are trying to build experience on the schemes I mentioned that are in place in the transition period. We are only going to be moving further in that direction as we go through the CAP strategic plan. As we look beyond that plan into the next period, the pressure to do that will be even greater. Ms Roe might add to that very briefly, if that is okay.

Ms Corina Roe

It is an important point but to be very clear on REAP, its purpose was to test the scorecard for grassland but that is not the intention behind the CAP strategic plan. The intention behind the CAP strategic plan is that we will use the lessons learned from the testing of the scorecard relating to grassland. We also intend to have scorecards in respect of woodland and peatland. Again, we are looking at recognition. Members will have heard from Mr. Buckley on the eco-schemes, the eligible hectare and the definition. We are looking at recognising the benefits that accrue from other areas rather than just, as the Deputy says, the same field. This is a key focus of it so we have a complete integration from the beginning at Pillar 1 right the way up to the EIPs. On what we have learned, we are taking the lessons from the EIPs. We learned many lessons there which we will incorporate into it, like best practice developed with experts outside the Department but also developed with our own expertise and the new expertise of our ecologists. We feel this will be a big step-change.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae referred to Natura lands. Obviously, designation is a matter for the NPWS, but there will be priority access into the agri-environmental measures for those on Natura lands. It is important to note there is already recognition of that within the Department's design of those schemes for the CAP strategic plan.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Department officials for updating us on Ireland's CAP strategic plan. We have had a very extensive and intensive discussion. I thank Mr. Savage and his team for the update this evening. Our next public meeting will be on the topic of carbon sequestration and storage.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.56 p.m. until 5:30 p.m on Wednesday, 17 November 2021.
Top
Share