Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 6 November 2012
112. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the proposals that have been published by the EU Commission in relation to pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy; if proposals have not been published the dates on which he expects to publish same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48256/12]
View answerThe Commission published its proposals for pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy in October of last year as part of a package of seven legislative proposals for reform of the CAP after 2013. These proposals are linked to the EU 2020 Strategy and have three objectives of competitiveness, sustainable management of natural resources and wider rural economy, as under the current round. These objectives are to be met through 6 priorities of knowledge transfer, competitiveness, food chain organisation and risk management, preserving ecosystems, promoting resource efficiency and low carbon economy and realising jobs potential and development of rural areas.
Many of the proposed measures are similar to those in the current round. However there are new measures proposed for farm and business development, aimed at young farmers and small businesses and for cooperation, aimed at farm partnership type arrangements. Other new options include support for producer groups, organic farming and insurance premia and mutual funds to compensate farmers. Less Favoured Areas will become known as areas facing natural or other specific constraints and significant changes are proposed to this measure.
The axis balance provisions in the current programme are no longer a requirement and former Axis 3 measures now comprise one measure for basic services and village renewal in rural areas
A single co funding rate of 50% is envisaged but certain measures relating to knowledge transfer, producer groups, co operation and young farmers set up may be co funded at the rate of 80%. A specific provision is made for Leader funding (at least 5%) and Agri-Environment-Climate, Organic farming and Areas of Natural Constraint (at least 25%). A 100% co funding rate is envisaged for innovation projects.
The draft regulation proposes that funds will be distributed between Member States on the basis of objective criteria and past performance. However, the Commission has yet to publish concrete proposals on distribution or to provide full details of the criteria and weightings it is planning to use.
Decisions on funding and co-financing levels for pillar 2 will be taken by Heads of State and Government as part of the multiannual financial framework negotiations for the next EU budget and a special meeting of the European Council has been scheduled for 22/23 November to finalise this.
I have serious concerns that the envisaged use of a combination of past performance and objective criteria to determine distribution of Pillar 2 funds will reduce our allocation. I believe an objective criteria approach cannot provide a solution that will address the concerns of all Member States, and should be abandoned. Allocation of Pillar 2 funds should instead be based on past performance only, as measured over the entire 2007-2013 rural development programming period. Any adjustment beyond that should use the same methodology as the Commission has proposed for Pillar 1.
I am also pressing for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 funds to be considered together, and for the pragmatic approach being employed for direct payments to be used for rural development too. The latter would be consistent with the complementary nature of the two pillars within one common agricultural policy.
In addition, I believe that no Member State with below-average Pillar 2 payments per hectare should lose in any redistribution, and no Member State should lose under both pillars. Ireland receives lower than average payments per hectare for direct payment and rural development funds combined, and I therefore see no justification for any reduction.
In any event, it is imperative that we see proposals soon from the Commission on Pillar 2 distribution. It is unrealistic to expect Member States to sign up to proposals for the allocation of Pillar 1 funds without knowing the Commission’s intentions on the second pillar.
