I would prefer to avoid direct comment on a leaked document. It is at most a draft and may change as it goes through the inter-services consultation process within the Commission. That said, in so far as the draft communication reflects the main issues that have been under discussion in the CAP debate over recent months, I can outline the following.
My overarching view is that we need a strong and adequately resourced CAP after 2013 to ensure security of food supply, to maintain family farming in Europe and, above all, to promote competitiveness and innovation. I support continuation of the current two-pillar structure. I also remain committed to full decoupling. It has been a success for Ireland and is the best way of underpinning the incomes of small family farms, while allowing them respond to market opportunities.
With regard to funding, I note the Commissioner's intention to achieve a more equitable distribution of funds between member states, as expressed during his recent visit to Ireland. I am prepared to look at the various options but all member states must be realistic on this. I am opposed to an EU-wide flat-rate payment because of the wide variations in the type and cost of farming across the EU. Instead we need to start with the current distribution mechanism and work from there. In so doing it is vital that we use the most accurate basis for comparing funding levels, that is to say eligible area.
Ultimately I want a distribution mechanism that is fair, that underpins competitiveness and sustainability and supports the viability of Irish farming and that takes into account the wide diversity and differing costs of farming across the EU. This argument applies equally to distribution of the direct payment funds in pillar 1 of the CAP and the rural development funds in pillar 2.
With regard to any proposals for redesign of direct payment models, I favour allowing member states considerable flexibility in this area, as is currently the case. The agri-ecological and social conditions of farming vary hugely within the Union and Ireland needs to have the flexibility to apply the payment model that best suits our conditions. In that regard, while there may be positives for Ireland in the increased emphasis on delivery of public goods from farming, we must bear in mind that, under cross-compliance, EU farmers are obliged to comply with the statutory management requirements of 18 EU regulations to qualify for payment. These requirements cover the broad spectrum of animal health and welfare, respect for the environment and the sustainable management of our natural resources and contribute substantially to the production of public goods from farming.
There are suggestions that payments in respect of less favoured areas should move from pillar 2 to pillar 1. The key issue is whether the funding moves with the measure. I have a strong preference for retaining LFA payments in pillar 2 where they can be targeted at those most in need. Not all member states utilise the option to pay LFA payments and it is difficult to understand in those circumstances the move from discretionary payments in pillar 2 to obligatory payments in pillar 1.
As to the market support measures for the future, I favour the continuation of market support measures at safety-net level, together with some flexibility to adapt or enhance them as needs arise. We will also need to examine additional measures to address the much increased volatility of markets.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
On rural development policy, we need to focus on the twin goals of competitiveness and sustainability. Measures that are directed at investment and which promote competitiveness perform a key role in encouraging efficiency and innovation in farming. They should be maintained and enhanced so that farmers can improve their performance and deal with structural issues arising for example from the ending of milk quotas. Consistent with our green growth objectives we must also have a strong agri-environment actions in our rural development policy including targeted payments for public goods, support for the development of bio-energy on farms, and for innovative actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Our off–farm rural development actions should be consistent with this while focusing on genuinely rural areas and emphasising job creation.
As to building up strategic alliances in relation to the CAP reform process, there has been a high level of activity and debate regarding the future CAP among member states over the past two years. My Department and I have participated actively in all of these discussions with a view to building up alliances and pressing the Irish viewpoint. In addition to representing the Irish view at formal and informal meetings of EU Agriculture Ministers, I have had bilateral meetings with the Commissioner and with colleagues from a number of other member states. For instance, I travelled to Poland and Hungary last July to meet my Ministerial counterparts and earlier to Finland. I had discussions in Dublin last month with my German ministerial colleague and with Commissioner Ciolos and I have arranged meetings with my French and UK colleagues for the coming months. These contacts are proving very productive in deepening our understanding of each others positions and in establishing support for the Irish position in the negotiations.
At official level, too, we have engaged actively with our colleagues in other member states, the Commission and the European Parliament, with bilateral meetings, contacts, sharing of information and analysis and discussion of policy positions. This work has proved very effective in explaining the Irish context and viewpoint and in gaining understanding and acceptance of the Irish position. It will continue as the negotiations progress.