Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 12 February 2013
148. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he supports the recent policy paper issued by the Irish Farmers' Association in relation to common agricultural policy reform; and if he will outline the specific proposals with which he does not agree; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6981/13]
View answerThe overall funding of the CAP, including the amounts to be made available for direct payments (Pillar 1) and rural development (Pillar 2), have now been decided in the context of the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014 to 2020. I am very pleased that we have managed to protect Irish farmers’ direct payments, given that there were substantial threats to this vital transfer to Ireland from those who wished to cut the CAP budget overall by a much larger amount and from the redistribution of these funds between member states.
On Rural Development, overall EU funding has been reduced from the previous financial period, and there has been some redistribution between Member States. However, we managed to negotiate a special additional allocation of €100 million for Ireland in the final stages of the talks.
The challenge for us now is to ensure that this money, which will be matched with Irish exchequer funding, is used as effectively as possible to support the aims and targets we have set ourselves in Food Harvest 2020. The agri-food sector has tremendous potential for further sustainable growth and we must use these funds to maximise that potential and deliver the jobs dividend that will come from it.
The policy paper produced by the Irish Farmers’ Association relates more particularly to the reform of the CAP for the period post-2013. As President of the European Council of Agriculture Ministers, my objective is to negotiate a Council position on the reform package by the end of March, with a view to securing an inter-institutional political agreement with the European Parliament and the Commission by the end of June. Bearing this in mind, the position is broadly as follows:
Two of the most difficult issues in the negotiations arise in relation to the administration of the single farm payment. These are internal convergence and greening. As regards internal convergence, the Commission’s proposal to move to a system of flat-rate national or regional payments would, in the case of several Member States (including Ireland), result in significant transfers between farmers. These Member States are seeking a solution that will mitigate this impact and this is an issue on which Ireland too played a leading role. Other Member States - such as the newer Member States who already implement an area-based system - are seeking alternative solutions, while still others are happy with the flat rate system. I hope to be able to navigate a course through these diverging positions in the coming weeks and settle on a compromise acceptable to all Member States.
As regards greening, most Member States (including Ireland), support further greening of the CAP, as it is consistent with the need to develop the agriculture sector in a sustainable manner. However, there are concerns about the separate and distinct nature of the greening payment, and the fact that it is to be paid on a flat-rate basis. Member States also have issues with the three greening criteria (crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grassland and ecological focus areas) and favour flexibility to implement these in a simpler manner that is also more relevant to local conditions. Again, I hope to bring forward proposals on these issues in the coming weeks that will strike a balance between the different approaches favoured by Member States.
On the other direct payments issues raised by the Deputy, the main point outstanding, according to the Cyprus Presidency’s Progress Report, is the question of the young farmers’ scheme, and whether it will be voluntary or mandatory for Member States. I have stated my preference for a mandatory scheme, but I recognise that a majority of Member States favours a voluntary approach.
On rural development, apart from the question of funding, the main issues in the context of the CAP reform package are the effect of the greening of direct payments on the baseline for rural development payments, the delimitation of areas with natural constraints and the structure of risk management and income stabilisation tools. In addition, the Commission is pressing for greater coherence between the different EU funds and to ensure that all objectives are consistent with EU 2020 strategy priorities, which raises administrative difficulties for Member States. Some of these issues will again prove difficult to resolve, but I hope to make rapid progress over the coming weeks.
As regards the common organisation of the market, I agree that adequate funding is an important prerequisite for the effective functioning of the various elements of the safety net mechanism. Particularly difficult issues in this dossier will be control measures in the form of sugar quotas and vine planting rights. Member States are divided on the question of whether sugar quotas should be abolished or extended, although the European Parliament generally favours extension. On vine planting rights, the report of the High Level Group will inform the next phase of the discussions, but again the question will be whether to extend the regime or allow the planned expiry in 2015 to proceed. Compensation for reduced milk supply, as proposed by the European Parliament, will also be a difficult issue as it too touches on the organisation of the market, on which there are contrasting views. On producer organisations, some progress has been achieved, with the Special Agriculture Committee last week reaching agreement on the issue of recognition. On exceptional measures and the crisis reserve, the key requirement is that funding is available to deal with whatever emergency situations might arise.
