kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Udvalget for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri 2011-12
KOM (2011) 0625 Bilag 3
Offentligt

An Comhchoiste um Chumarsáid,

Acmhainní Nádúrtha agus Talmhaíocht

An Cion maidir le hathchóiriú an

Chomhbheartais Talmhaíochta, 2014 - 2020

Meitheamh 2012

_______________________________

Joint Committee on Communications,

Natural Resources and Agriculture

Contribution on the Reform of the

Common Agricultural Policy, 2014 - 2020

June 2012

CNRA 014

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

OINT

OMMITTEE ON

OMMUNICATIONS

, N

ATURAL

ESOURCES AND

GRICULTURE

ONTENTS

ACKGROUND

……………………………………………………………………….2

ENERAL

OMMENT ON THE

SSUES

…………………………………..2

ECISION OF THE

OINT

OMMITTEE

………………………………………..10

PPENDICES

EMBERSHIP OF THE

OINT

OMMITTEE

…………………………………….11

RDERS OF

EFERENCE OF THE

OINT

OMMITTEE

……………………..12

RESENTATIONS

OPENING STATEMENTS BY WITNESSES

……………….16

INKS TO THE

RANSCRIPTS OF THE

EETINGS WITH WITNESSES

…56

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

OINT

OMMITTEE ON

OMMUNICATIONS

, N

ATURAL

ESOURCES AND

GRICULTURE

EFORM OF THE

OMMON

GRICULTURAL

OLICY

(CAP) 2014

2020

1. Background

The Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

has considered the European Commission‘s proposals regarding

the Reform of

the Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2014 to 2020 (COMS (2012) 625

to 629 inclusive). It has also had public hearings on the issue of CAP Reform

with the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development; Department

of Agriculture, Food and the

Marine Officials; 3 Irish MEP‘s

(Ms. Marian Harkin,

Ms.

Mairéad

McGuiness

and

Ms.

Phil

Prendergast);

the Irish Farmers

Association (IFA); the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers‘ Association (ICSA); the

Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) and Macra na Feirme.

Copies of the relevant presentations are contained at

Appendix 1.

Links to the

transcripts of the Committee meetings are contained at

Appendix 2.

Following its deliberations, the Committee has prepared this contribution which

seeks to address the key issues and asks that the Commission take into

account the views and positions set out in this contribution as part of the

negotiations.

2. General Comments on the key issues

The Committee supports the three objectives given by the EU Commission for

its reform proposals:



viable food production in the EU,

sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, and

balanced rural development,

and believes that it needs to be based on the historic family farm structure.

2.1 Overall CAP Budget

The future funding of CAP for the period 2014 to 2020 will be determined by

decisions made regarding the Multi Annual Financial Framework (MFF).

Decisions made regarding the MFF are fundamentally important as CAP

accounts for 26% of the overall MFF budget. Reductions in the MFF budget

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

would have adverse effects on allocations for agriculture through the CAP. It is

imperative that an early decision is reached on the MFF budget to dispel the

current uncertainty regarding the future CAP budget. Uncertainty will inevitably

lead to market instability and is disadvantageous to both producers and

consumers.

A strong CAP is fundamentally important for

food security, environmental

sustainability

and

indigenous job creation,

which impact on all EU citizens

to some degree. Moreover, the CAP can be seen to be engaged in ‗public goods‘

provision and this deserves a value such as is the case with carbon credits. The

2014 to 2020 CAP will need to be properly resourced if it is to continue to build

on the solid foundations laid by the previous CAP‘s and to ensure that it can

deliver on the 3 key areas stated above.

The Committee believes the retention of at least the existing levels of

budgetary expenditure on CAP is a prerequisite to achieving the objectives that

have been set out for the CAP in the 2014 to 2020 period. In that context,

Ireland will need to retain at the very least its existing share of the CAP if it can

deliver on the ambitious targets set out in the Proposals.

2.2 The distribution of Direct Payments.

The distribution of Direct Payments both between and within Member States is

a critical issue to get agreement on and will be a key determinant of how

effective the CAP will be in the coming years. The Committee accepts that there

is broad agreement that there would be a move towards convergence of Direct

Payments. It contends, however, that this should be done in a more gradual or

phased way than is envisaged in the current Proposals

–

both between and

within Member States.

Ireland‘s

historic production model is outdated as a means of entitlement

assessment, but the current proposal seeks to move to a flat rate at an

accelerated pace that would have severe negative consequences for Irish

farmers and other sectors of the Irish economy. Based on the criteria in the

Proposal, it is estimated 76,000 Irish farmers would gain 86% on their current

payments while 57,000 would lose 33%. More significantly, the figures indicate

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

that

productive

farmers

would

lose

out,

which

complete

contravention of the spirit of the CAP.

It is proposed, therefore, that there should be a

‘limit‘

on losses to any farmer

in the redistribution of funds by using the

approximation approach

where all

payments move towards, but not fully, to the average. A key principle would

be that it only applies when lands are in production. This is in effect the same

model as the ‗Pragmatic

Approach’

adopted by the Commission in the current

CAP. The approximation approach is a model that would promote equity, create

a level playing field and protect small farmers, particularly those farming in

areas of natural constraint.

Finally, it is envisaged that National Allocation Proposals will be based on Past

Performance and Objective Criteria. While this sounds good in theory, the

identification of Objective Criteria that fits all Member States is very

problematic. This underlines the need for greater

flexibility/autonomy

for

Member States to make decisions that reflect local conditions. A key principle is

that entitlements would activate only when land is in production.

2.3 Greening of Direct Payments

There are serious concerns that the greening of direct payments proposals as

they stand will create significant additional bureaucracy. This does not accord

with the simplification of the CAP, which is a key priority in the reform

proposals. In that context, it is proposed that the green payments should be

part of the Direct Payment rather than ‗decoupled‘ as a way of reducing the

administrative burden.

Furthermore, the CAP is already a ‗greened‘ programme as evidenced by

measures in both Pillars and by the implementation of the EU Water Framework

Directive (WFD), the Nitrates Directive et al. The proposal to allocate a full 30%

of the national envelope for greening measures may be misguided and needs to

be examined further.

It is recognised internationally that Ireland operates extremely high greening

standards as evidenced by the high demand for Irish agricultural products

worldwide and our enviable natural habitat throughout the Island. Greening

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

measures in a reformed CAP should recognise Member States such as Ireland

that have consistently operated a greening regime. This recognition should take

the form of giving Member States greater flexibility in the way payments are

made.

There is also considerable scope to incorporate greening into normal farming

practices and be included as part of the Cross Compliance and Good

Agricultural Environmental Conditions (GEAC) measures. Farmers should be

able to choose from a

menu of greening options

as a way of overcoming the

current limitations of the Proposal that seeks

to impose a ‗one size fits all‘

solution.

2.4 Definitions of a) an Active Farmer and b) Areas of Natural

Constraint (disadvantaged areas).

The definition of an Active Farmer is a key issue but also a very complex one

and needs careful consideration.

The Committee‘s opinion, and one shared by

the main stakeholders, is that an active farmer is one who is engaged in

productive work and who may be involved in reinvesting in their business or

creating employment. Part time farmers should also be recognised in this

definition given that a significant number of farmers, through necessity, have

another employment and the income from that employment is often reinvested

in their farm.

One suggestion would be that there be an ―exclusion lot‖ as

opposed to ―qualifying criteria‖.

The

definition

and

future

direction

Areas

Natural

Constraint

(disadvantaged areas) needs careful consideration in the ensuing negotiations.

Ireland has specific concerns over the criteria proposed to identify such areas

and has put forward an

additional ‗wet soil‘ criteria reflecting this country‘s

distinctive wet climate. Farmers who farm in natura and restricted areas need

special protection in any redefinition of these areas.

2.5 Attracting Young Farmers into the Industry.

There is universal agreement that encouraging young farmers to remain in the

industry or to become new entrants must be actively encouraged throughout

the European Union.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

At present, for instance, only 5% of Irish farmers are under 35 years of age, a

figure that is replicated throughout the EU. There are a number of specific

measures under CAP reform that should be utilised effectively to address this

problem as outlined below.

The Committee supports the proposed measure of a

Top-Up Payment of

25%

for young farmers, paid as part of their Single Farm Payment. In Ireland,

however, there is a need for greater flexibility to ensure Ireland can fully access

the support that is already provided in the CAP proposals (up to 2% of Pillar 1).

The restrictive criteria proposed would render it impossible to draw down the

full amount available.

The Committee fully supports a

Single Payment National Reserve

that

prioritises young farmers who are staring out in the farming industry.

Furthermore, it believes it is essential as a mechanism to ensure young farmers

have access to direct payments in an equitable way. It will be important to

manage the Reserve effectively so that adequate funds are available each year

for young farmers. It is also important that the 2011 reference year contained

in the Proposals does not act as a barrier to new entrants applying for

entitlements from 2014 onwards. In this regard, the Committee suggests that

consideration is given to introducing a ‗rolling‘ reference year where the

previous year is the reference year in a 3 year cycle and payments are not

made if farming activity ceases.

The Committee fully supports the proposed

Young Farmer Installation

Package

contained under the Rural Development proposals in Pillar 2 of CAP.

Farming is a capital intensive industry particularly in the early years. This

measure should prove a catalyst to deliver on increased new entrants into

farming and encourage young farmers to invest in dynamic and sustainable

family businesses. It should be mandatory on Member States to implement all

young farmer measures, such as this, that are ultimately agreed under the

Rural Development Programme.

The proposed co-funding of 80% at EU level and 20% at national level is also a

positive proposal.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

The Committee fully supports the measure regarding

Partnerships, Share

Farming and Joint Arrangements.

In particular, this measure should assist

young farmers who have no family farm to inherit and older farmers who have

no successor. It should go some way to address this serious structural deficit

that exists throughout the EU and threatens the future viability of the

agriculture industry.

In tandem with this, there is a need to develop proposals to encourage older

farmers to retire and thereby pass on their farms to a new generation. It is

perhaps a missed opportunity that the current Proposals do not contain an

Early Retirement Scheme

for EU farmers. Ireland has administered an Early

Retirement Scheme in recent years and the model used could be examined with

the possibility of developing a similar Scheme for inclusion in the current

proposals.

2.6. Rural Development Programme: Pillar 2.

It is fundamentally important that the Rural Development Programme (Pillar 2)

is adequately funded as a means of building on from the notable achievements

in previous Programmes. In Ireland, Rural Development Programmes have

played

pivotal

roles

regenerating

rural

communities

and

promoting

environmental sustainability. In that context, there are a number of key issues

that need to be considered in the ensuing negotiations.

Significant funds are needed to set up companies under the Rural Development

Programme that can have the potential to trade internationally and create

sustainable employment. Imposing a

€200,000 limit

on grant aid could

mitigate against a company achieving its full potential. The Committee believes

this limit should be increased very significantly and a more flexible approach

taken to co-funding.

In defining ‗rural areas‘, the Committee supports the definition used for rural

areas for the Leader Programme for 2007-2013 and believes that the same

definition should stay in place for the next Leader Programme for 2014-2020.

There should be a mechanism to

transfer funds

from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 if that

is where the funding is needed most. For example, there is a need to

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

determine, through further analysis, if 33% of total funding should be set aside

for greening measures. Again, this demonstrates the need for greater flexibility

to reflect local conditions in the Member States.

In Ireland, it is widely acknowledged that

LEADER Groups

have done valuable

work under the Rural Development Programme. The Proposal to bring these

groups under the aegis of Irish Local Authorities is not supported by the

Committee. The Committee believes such a move would undermine their

independence and spirit of community development and innovation.

2.7. Determining a Reference Year.

The determination of a fixed reference/base year (2014) is a serious issue of

concern. In Ireland, it is creating major distortions in the land leasing market

and it is active farmers renting land who are affected the worst. Ireland has

specific and unique difficulties in that the leasing arrangements are much

shorter than in many other Member States.

In this regard, the Committee suggests that consideration is again given to

introducing a ‗rolling‘ reference year where the previous year is the reference

year in a 3 year cycle. The fundamental objective here must be to move to a

situation where land is used by active farmers who have a progressive long

term plan that results in effective agricultural production.

2.8. Market Control/Emergency Market Support Mechanisms.

The Committee believes consideration should be given to the establishment of a

Statutory Monitoring Agency with the powers to implement Market Control

Mechanisms if necessary. There is a real danger in milk production, for

instance, that the absence of a ‗floor‘ on milk prices could have serious

consequences for otherwise viable farming businesses. In particular, young

farmers and those who have invested heavily in their businesses, would be

vulnerable to price fluctuations in the market place.

In addition, schemes such as private storage, export funds and intervention can

be effective in easing market difficulties in times of crisis. While the Committee

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

is fully cognisant of the competing demands on limited budgets, there needs to

be funds put aside for potential crisis situations.

2.9. Simplification of CAP.

The Committee views the simplification of CAP as the single most important

issue that should be taken into account at all stages of the negotiations.

Simplification of the CAP is an absolute imperative for all the key stakeholders

involved

from

the

farmers

the

Institutions

and

the

national

administrations. In this context, the Committee suggests that all CAP Proposals

are ‗simplification proofed‘

before final agreement is reached.

The Committee looks forward to receiving the Commission‘s response to its

observations and it hopes that the Committee‘s recommendations

can be taken

into account. The Committee also intends to directly contact our counterparts

other

national

parliaments

our

views

this

matter.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

ECISION OF THE

OMMITTEE

It was agreed that

–



the Contribution of the Committee will be laid before both Houses of the

Oireachtas, and published on the Oireachtas website;

a copy will be forwarded to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the

Marine to be taken into account as part of Ireland‘s negotiating position

on the proposal;

a copy will be sent to Mr. Dacian Ciolos, the European Commissioner for

Agriculture and Rural Development, as a considered response by the

Irish Parliament to the

proposed reform and seek the Commissioner‘s

views on the concerns raised;

a copy will be sent to Mr. Paolo de Castro, Chairperson of the European

Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as a

Contribution by the Irish Parliament to the proposed reform, for

information purposes; and

a copy will be sent to the Chairpersons of the relevant National

Parliamentary Committees, as a Contribution by the Irish Parliament to

the proposed reform, for information purposes.



___________________

Andrew Doyle T.D.

Chairman

6 June 2012

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Appendix 1

Membership of the Joint Committee on

Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Deputies:

Tom Barry (FG)

Michael Colreavy (SF)

Pat Deering (FG)

Andrew Doyle (FG) [Chairman]

Martin Ferris (SF)

Noel Harrington (FG)

Martin Heydon (FG)

Colm Keaveney (LAB)

Mattie McGrath (IND)

Michael McNamara (LAB)

Michael Moynihan (FF)

Eamon Ó Cuív (FF)

John O‘Mahony (FG) [Vice-Chairman]

Ann Phelan (LAB)

Thomas Pringle (IND)

Senators:

Michael Comiskey (FG)

Paschal Mooney (FF)

Mary Ann O‘Brien (IND)

Brian Ó Domhnaill (FF)

Pat O‘Neill (FG)

John Whelan (LAB)

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Appendix 2

Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee

Functions of the Committee

–

derived from Standing Orders (SO)

[Dáil SO 82A; Seanad SO 70A]

(1)

The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dáil on—

(a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of the

relevant Government Department or Departments and associated public

bodies as the Committee may select, and

(b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Department

or Departments.

(2)

The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointed by

Seanad Éireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of the functions

set out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to both

Houses of the Oireachtas.

Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committee

shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments, such—

(a) Bills,

(b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the

meaning of Standing Order 164,

(d) other matters

as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil, and

(e) Annual Output Statements, and

(f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee

may select.

(4)

The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of the

relevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, and

report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas:

(a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible,

(b) public affairs administered by the Department,

(3)

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

conducted or commissioned by the Department,

(d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of the

Department,

(e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by

the State or which are established or appointed by a member of the

Government or the Oireachtas,

(f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by the

Minister,

(g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft before

either House or both Houses and those made under the European

Communities Acts 1972 to 2009,

(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of the

Oireachtas pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997,

(i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, and

laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the

Department or bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and the

overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate

plans of such bodies, and

(j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dáil and/or Seanad

from time to time.

(5)

Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committee

shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments—

(a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committee

under Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts with

the principle of subsidiarity,

(b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including

programmes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission as

a basis of possible legislative action,

to EU policy matters, and

(d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of the

relevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.

(6)

A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Department within the

remit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlined in paragraph (3),

and the following arrangements apply to such sub-Committees:

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

(a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to the Select

Committee by the Dáil may be referred directly to such sub-Committees,

and

(b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1)

and (2) and may report directly to the Dáil, including by way of Message

under Standing Order 87.

(7)

The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil

Éireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of any sub-

Committee or Committees standing established in respect of the Select

Committee.

The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, for the

purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part in

proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and

amendments:

(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in

Ireland, including Northern Ireland,

(b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the

Council of Europe, and

Parliament.

b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees as derived from Standing Orders [DSO

82; SSO 70]

(1)

The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities,

exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorised

under its orders of reference and under Standing Orders.

Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall arise

only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dáil and/or Seanad.

It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred that

they shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet to

consider a Bill on any given day, unless the Dáil, after due notice given by the

Chairman of the Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by the

Taoiseach pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 26. The Chairmen of Select

Committees shall have responsibility for compliance with this instruction.

The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or

of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of

Public Accounts pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 163 and/or the Comptroller and

Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

(8)

(2)

(3)

(4)

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

(5)

The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session or

publishing confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, for

stated reasons given in writing, by—

(a)

(b)

a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or

the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department or

which is partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed by

a member of the Government or by the Oireachtas:

Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the Ceann

Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Appendix 3

CAP Reform: Discussion with EU Commissioner Dacian Ciolos

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Mr. Dacian Ciolos: I will be very happy to answer any questions members may

have following my brief introduction. I am here in Ireland for the second time

during my mandate as Commissioner in the context of the proposals set out in

October 2011 for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Members are no

doubt already aware of the objectives of this reform, but I wish to detail them

for the benefit of the committee.

For me, an essential element in encouraging this process of reform was the fact

that the Commission proposed a strong budget for the Common Agricultural

Policy. In other words, even in these difficult economic conditions, the

Commission considered that the European Union must maintain a strong budget

for agriculture, taking into account not only our ambitions in regard to food

production, but also, in the meantime, to ensure a better management of

natural resources. It is our view that agriculture and the agrifood sector can

create jobs and contribute to green and smart growth in the European Union.

The results the agrifood sector in Ireland is attaining are encouraging of the

ambition we have for all of the European Union in regard to the Common

Agricultural Policy.

We have decided to maintain a strong Common Agricultural Policy with a direct

payment system, albeit a new system of direct payments, and with a strong

rural development policy which is more open than in the past. The objective is

not only to preserve and develop economic activity in rural areas, but also to

stimulate the farming and agrifood sector to play a more important role in

economic development of rural areas. We are also seeking to maintain market

measures in order to be able to act very quickly in crisis situations and to

contribute to increased competitiveness in the agricultural sector, especially by

stimulating farmer organisations.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Regarding direct payments, I have said since the beginning of my mandate that

if we want to maintain direct payments, we must be credible in our attitude to

historical references. We cannot justify for the next period, 2014-2010, a

situation where farmers have a level of payment linked to the historical level

from ten or 15 years ago. I am aware of Ireland‘s specific difficulties in

implementing the flat payment at regional level. However, it is clear in our

proposal that member states already have a flexibility in regard to the definition

of the flat-rate payment. It is not the case, for example, that we have only one

level of payment for all hectares in Ireland. Rather, each member state has the

right and possibility to define regions, taking into account several types of

criteria or combinations of criteria. It will be up to member states to define the

level of a region, the number of regions and the criteria they wish to use,

including administrative or economic criteria, natural condition of production

criteria, and so on. We have also allowed for a transitional period whereby we

are not asking that the flat payment be implemented in a region from the very

beginning, that is, from 2014. Instead, we are offering a flexibility until the end

of the budgetary period to progress through the flat payment.

Together with the direct payment system to support basic income for farmers,

we are also introducing a green payment. The objective of this is not to affect

the competitiveness of our farmers; we have many instruments within the

Common Agricultural Policy to deal with competitiveness. When we talk about

30% of direct payments for the greening component, it should be clear that the

30% is for farmers, not for other stakeholders in rural areas. My objective in this

was to keep all of the budget in the CAP instead of moving it through other

policies such as environmental policy or climate change policy and to have other

instruments dealing eventually, perhaps, with farmers in order to attend to this

objective. The 30% remains for farmers but will be linked to some agricultural

practices enforced across the Union. This is the difference between greening

under the first pillar and agri-environmental issues under the second pillar.

Our objective under the first pillar is to use three simple measures which,

because they will be enforced in all member states, will have a mass effect. The

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

agri-environmental measures in the rural development programme will allow us

to deal with specific situations in an area and to pay farmers more for these

specific agri-environmental measures. We decided to propose three measures

and not a menu of measures in order to have the same treatment for all farmers

in the Union. If we proposed a menu of measures, we risked a situation where

one member state‘s measure is under the first pillar, that is, greening, while in

another member state the same measure would be under the second pillar, that

is, agri-environmental measures. Farmers might complain that their member

state had imposed a more complicated measure by which they were obliged to

abide.

Instead, we wanted a uniform system. As such, we proposed three simple

measures that could be easily enforced from Spain to Finland and from Ireland

to Poland. There was some argument that the measures were too simple, could

not obtain a result and that it would not be a great effort for some farmers - in

Ireland, for example - to maintain permanent pasture because permanent

pasture is already there. However, this is the very point. Our objective in using

these simple measures is to avoid influencing too much the decisions of farmers

in terms of structure of crops and so on. The intention is to obtain a mass effect

and to show that agriculture across the European Union can meet the common

economic objectives and encourage greater competitiveness on the market in a

sustainable manner.

This objective was one of the main points I put to the college of the Commission

when I asked it to maintain the budget for the Common Agricultural Policy. It

was not easy, but I succeeded because we could prove that the future CAP can

offer economic competitiveness in a sustainable way and allow us to introduce

new measures and elements in order to increase competitiveness, such as

research and innovation. I finally secured a strong majority in the college to

maintain the budget.

There has been a great deal of discussion on the question of maintaining 7% of

the overall area of farms as ecological focus areas. It has been stated this means

there would be 7% less land available for agricultural production, but that is not

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

the case because a certain proportion of agricultural land already does not

qualify for payment. This is owing to the fact that there may be vegetation -

trees, etc. - on the land and it is, therefore, not eligible to be considered for

payment. My proposal is to make this land eligible and support farmers in

maintaining it. This matter does not relate to the 7% of land set aside but rather

to land which is less fertile. Such land may be less important when it comes to

production, but it can be important in maintaining, for example, balanced

development in the context of biodiversity.

The three measures we have proposed will not create further administrative

bureaucracy because when completing application forms for direct payments,

farmers will be able to list matters relating to crop production, areas

permanently devoted to pasture, etc. The three measures can be checked when

the requirements relating to the rest of the payment are being examined. We

took a cautious approach in this regard when we made the decision to propose

these measures.

On entitlements, we proposed 2014 as the new reference year for eligibility

requirements relating to land. Owing to the fact that I was aware of the

problems to which this reference year could give rise in Ireland, just before the

adoption of the legislative package we gave a commitment to introduce a second

reference year - 2011 - for farmers. Only a farmer who was already involved

with the system of payments in 2011 could request a new entitlement in respect

of his land in 2014. We took this action in order to prevent people who might

use the new reference year of 2014 to claim entitlements, even if they were not

working as farmers in 2011. We tried to deal with the specific matters affecting

Ireland in this regard. I am aware that particular legislation applies in this

country in the context of the utilisation of land. However, the new reference year

is required because it cannot be the case that someone who was or is working as

a farmer in 2010, 2011 or 2012 and who will not have land in 2014 can request

a new entitlement in the latter year for a period of a further seven years. That is

why we need to take into account the position in 2014 in the context of land

being used for agricultural purposes.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

On the flat payment, I have explained that both regionalisation and the criteria

that will apply are the responsibility of individual member states. I took notes

yesterday during several discussions and meetings in which I was involved with

the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and farmers. I am aware that even in

homogenous areas there can be differences and that people do not want the

competitiveness of farms to be overly affected in a very short period as a result

of the redistribution. We will consider how we might deal with this matter next

month in the context of the negotiations due to take place.

We want to maintain a strong rural development policy. We have given more

flexibility to member states because under the system of axes, there is

compulsory utilisation of budgets in respect of axes or orders. Some member

states have encountered difficulties in the context of moving budgets from axes

to orders. We are now proposing only six priorities and each member state will

take these into account when defining its strategy for rural development. I

accept that member states will deal with these priorities in differing proportions

in the context of both their objectives and specificities.

We have also introduced new instruments under the second pillar in order to

support

farming

organisations

the

creation

producer

groups

and

organisations. This is essential for all sectors in the European Union, not only

that which produces fruit and vegetables. There is already a system in place to

support producer groups and organisations in that sector. It is vital that all

sectors encourage farmers to work together. In the context of proper

management of volatility of prices and particular crises and the bargaining power

of farmers, the organisations to which I refer are essential. With the new

measures, we want to stimulate farmers to organise themselves in order that

member states can finance the creation of the producer organisations to which I

refer. In addition, it might also be possible to fund common activities among

these organisations.

We have also introduced a new instrument to ensure the results of research and

innovation will be taken into account in the context of the Common Agricultural

Policy. It is a completely new development to have a clear deal - not only in

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

terms of procedure but also in the context of budgets - and a clear link between

research and innovation policy at European level and the Common Agricultural

Policy.

I worked

well

and

in an extremely efficient

manner

with the

Commissioner, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, on this matter. For the coming

period we have in place a specific research and innovation policy for agriculture

and the agrifood sector. Attached to this is a specific budget and particular

procedures. In addition, there will be a clear link between the decisions and

choices of member states, in the context of the rural development programme,

to support investment in one sector or another. This will assist in stimulating

work in the area of research and development. The new instrument will be

managed at European level and we will deal with the priorities already

established under the Common Agricultural Policy.

There remain some matters to mention in the context of the market orientation

of the Common Agricultural Policy into the future. Members will be aware that

we have some mechanisms in place which are specifically designed to deal with

crises. There is also a separate budgetary line devoted to dealing with such

crises.

I will be happy to answer any questions members may wish to pose.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Opening Statement by Mr

Aidan O’Driscoll,

Assistant Secretary General,

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Tuesday 1 May 2012

I would like to thank the Committee for its invitation to address it today on the

subject of CAP reform. I know that Minister Coveney would welcome an

opportunity to discuss this issue with the Committee in the near future. In this

short statement I hope to bring the Committee up to date with the current state

of play in relation to the negotiations, and will be happy to attempt to answer

any questions that Members may have and to listen to Members comments and

advice on the negotiations.

In very broad terms, the challenge for the current round of CAP reform is to

deliver, in good time, a Common Agricultural Policy that is fit for purpose, that is

coherent with the Europe 2020 strategy for recovery and growth, and that

supports

the

twin

goals

competitiveness

and

sustainability.

These

requirements in turn create further challenges in the form of crucial questions

about how much money will be made available for the CAP in the period up to

2020, how these funds will be allocated both between and within Member

States, and how the policy content will help to shape and serve the development

of European agriculture. I would like to focus my comments on each of these

key issues.

Process and Timeframe

Since their publication last October, the Commission‘s proposals

have undergone

two rounds of detailed technical examination at Council Working Group level.

The Danish Presidency has begun to produce revised texts in some areas, which

reflect where it feels Member States are broadly in agreement on some issues,

but which do not yet necessarily equate to final compromise texts.

In the meantime, key policy issues within the reform such as direct payments,

greening and simplification have also been discussed by the Council of Ministers

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

and by the Special Committee on Agriculture. Negotiations will continue at

technical and political level over the next year or more, and it is very likely that

the current texts will change considerably before final agreement is reached.

These issues are also being discussed in the European Parliament and will be the

subject of reports from rapporteurs on each of the four draft CAP regulations. It

is very important to remember that the CAP reform is subject to co-decision, and

therefore the Parliament will be a full partner in any final agreement that is

reached.

In a parallel process, negotiations on the new Multiannual Financial Framework

(MFF) for the EU budget for the period 2014 to 2020 have begun to gather pace.

Early drafts of the MFF ―Negotiating Box‖ (that is the draft text of an

agreement

on the MFF) have been circulated by the presidency.

Heading 2 of the MFF

covers the CAP, and draft text on this heading has been discussed at the General

Affairs Council on 24 April.

It is important to note that key CAP issues will now continue to be discussed in

these two parallel tracks

–

that is:



In the CAP reform negotiations in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, and

at official level in the Special Committee on Agriculture and four separate

working groups, and



In the MFF negotiations in the General Affairs Council, and ultimately in

the European Council, with in this case discussion at official level

happening at Coreper and a ―Friends of the Presidency‖ group.

And, as I have already mentioned, the key role of the European Parliament in

this process, and in final decision making, must also be recognised.

As a

Member State taking over the reins of the EU Presidency in January 2013,

Ireland is committed to playing an active and constructive role in securing

agreement on the reform of the CAP.

However, to do this, three things need to be happen:



there must be progress and ultimately agreement on the MFF

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture



there must be substantial progress during the Danish and Cypriot

presidencies, at least on technical issues, and



all three institutions - the European Parliament, the Council and the

Commission - need to engage actively in the negotiating process, with a

commitment to seeking workable compromise.

Minister Coveney assured Commissioner Ciolos during his visit to Dublin in

January that Ireland is willing to play a full role, both before and during our

presidency, in seeking agreement on this vital issue, both for the EU and for

Ireland.

Content of Reform

In terms of content, the key challenge is to deliver a policy that is fit for purpose

and consistent with other EU policies. The outcome of this reform will essentially

set the context and policy framework for the future of EU agriculture, so it is

important that we get it right.

The Europe 2020 strategy for economic recovery is grounded on the principles of

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

The agri-food sector is hugely

important in the context of this strategy and it contributes to all three of its

priorities.

It follows, therefore, that the reformed CAP must also be based on

these three principles and must be coherent with the overall strategy for

Europe‘s economic recovery.

The objectives cited by the EU Commission in its reform proposals reflect this.

These three objectives:



viable food production in the EU,

sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, and

balanced rural development

are a very good fit with the agenda of increased competitiveness and

sustainability in the Europe 2020 strategy.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

In terms of overall policy objectives, therefore, it can be said that the current

CAP reform proposals are going in the right direction, and are broadly in line

with Ireland‘s national priorities for smart, green growth under our Food Harvest

2020 strategy.

Priorities for Ireland on delivering a well-resourced CAP

It is Ireland‘s view that a strong Common Agricultural Policy will make an

important contribution to European economic recovery in the years ahead.

order to guarantee a strong CAP, commensurate resources need to be devoted

to it. Ireland believes that the funding proposals in the MFF, which maintain CAP

spending at current levels in nominal terms post-2013, represent a good starting

point. However, it is also our view that the amount proposed by the Commission

is the minimum required.

In the MFF negotiations there are intense pressures for reductions in the

proposed overall EU budget, and some Member States are seeking to cut the

proposed CAP allocations. In this regard, Ireland has been emphasising the fact

that the CAP is the budget heading showing most restraint when compared to

existing budgetary provisions, and in fact this will entail a small reduction in

direct farm payments across the EU.

Distribution of CAP funds between Member States

The issue of how to distribute CAP funds between Member States is obviously a

very sensitive one and has preoccupied much of the discussion to date. We have

called for the principles of equity and pragmatism to be applied. The priority

from an Irish perspective is to ensure that we retain our levels of funding for

both direct payments and rural development, i.e. pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP.

The Commission has proposed using what is known as a ―pragmatic method‖ to

reallocate Pillar 1 funds (which mainly cover direct payments), using as a base

the average payment per eligible hectare in each Member State. This is an

approach which was originally proposed by Ireland and which largely protects

our funding.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

In relation to rural development funds, the Commission have not yet revealed

their proposals for national allocations but have said that they intend to base

them on a combination of objective criteria and past performance. We have real

concerns about this as some of the criteria being considered could lead to a

significant reduction in Ireland‘s allocation. We have made

it clear that such an

outcome would not be fair or acceptable, and have expressed our preference for

the use of the same pragmatic method as the Commission have adopted in pillar

–

preferably looking at both pillars of the CAP together.

We have called on the Commission to bring their proposal on this issue to the

table as soon as possible, and made the point that it is not realistic to expect

Member States to agree Pillar 1 allocations, in the absence of proposals on Pillar

Distribution of direct payments within Member States

In relation to the distribution of direct payments to farmers within Member

States, the Commission proposal is to gradually move away from payments

based on historical production references towards a system of uniform per

hectare payments, or flat rates by 2019, in each Member State or region of a

Member State. Many Member States already have such flat rates or are evolving

towards them.

In response, the Minister has said that we recognise that we cannot continue to

base our payments on outdated historic production references. Nevertheless, we

have major difficulties with the pace and extent of convergence in the

Commission‘s proposal.

Under a national flat rate around 76,000 Irish farmers would gain an average of

86% on their current payments, while around 57,000 would lose an average of

33%. These are average percentages, and some of the gains and losses would

be far larger than this. In general it is clear that the losses would be incurred by

more productive farmers. This would have undesirable consequences at a time

when Ireland is trying to encourage sustainable intensification in the agri-food

sector, as we strive to achieve the objectives in the Food Harvest 2020 strategy.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

We have accordingly been pressing for the maximum possible flexibility to be

given to Member States to design payment models that suit their own farming

conditions, and to adopt a more gradual, back-loaded transition process, rather

than the very rapid, front-loaded approach proposed by the Commission.

We would like to have the possibility of putting a limit on the amount any farmer

could lose in any redistribution. This would be consistent with the Commission‘s

desire to achieve a more level playing field, but would avoid a disruptive level or

pace

of change. The ‗approximation‘ approach, by which all payments could

gradually move towards, but not fully to, the average, is one alternative that we

believe should be considered in this regard. The Commission‘s ―pragmatic‖

proposal

for

redistribution

between

member

states

is,

effect,

approximation approach and provides a useful precedent.

The Minister and Department have been very active in seeking allies for this

position and have been making significant progress, particularly with a group of

Member States with somewhat similar concerns.

However it should also be

understood that a majority of Member States have no difficulty with the idea of

flat rate payments, although they have concerns about other aspects of the

proposals.

Greening

One of the

key policy issues in this CAP reform is the focus on the ―greening‖ of

direct payments. This takes the form of the Commission‘s proposal to assign

30% of the national payment envelope to a new per-hectare payment to

farmers. The Commission have set out three environmental criteria that must be

met to qualify for this payment, relating to maintaining grassland, diversifying

crops and establishing ecological focus areas on farms.

The Irish Government supports the idea of encouraging sustainable forms of

agriculture, which is at the heart of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, and can

support the Commission in its desire to further enhance the green credentials of

direct payments. However, it is preferable to do so in a way that avoids adding

excessive bureaucracy.

The Commission‘s proposals give rise to concerns in this

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

respect, since the existence of separate greening conditions will add significant

complications to the direct payment system. There are also concerns that the

proposed structure of the greening payment would hasten the movement

towards uniform national or regional payment rates, with the undesirable

consequences I referred to earlier. There are also practical difficulties with the

three greening criteria proposed that need to be resolved.

To resolve some of these difficulties, Minister Coveney proposed at a joint

session of the Council with Comagri of the European Parliament in November

that we adopt a more flexible menu approach to the green criteria. Many other

Member States have now also come to this view, but there are a wide range of

ideas about how to structure such flexibility and what specifically to include in a

menu.

In relation to the structure of a payment, we have suggested that it would be

worth considering adding the green criteria to the current cross-compliance and

GAEC provisions. This would have the effect of ―greening‖ 100% of the direct

payment, at a much lower administrative cost while achieving, at least, an

equivalent additional environmental benefit.

It is also clear that there are important points of detail in the criteria for the

green payment that will have to be adjusted and will be the focus of detailed

negotiations.

Other Issues

I want to just briefly touch on some other issues in relation to direct payments

and rural development.

The Commission‘s proposal to use 2014 as

reference year

for

the

We have made a range of specific suggestions in this regard.

establishment of entitlements has been the subject of a good deal of comment in

Ireland, but not in other Member States.

There is concern here that this

provision will lead to some disruption of the land leasing market and therefore

we continue to seek more Member State flexibility on this point. The provision

has already been subject to some change, with the introduction of a 2011

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

qualification criterion, which has been further amended in the presidency

proposals. The issues are complex and may well change further before the final

texts are agreed, and people should bear this in mind in relation to any action on

existing leases that they might contemplate.

In relation to the proposals to

establish a small farmers‘ scheme and a top-up

for young farmers, the main issues that have been raised relate to whether

these measures should be mandatory or optional for member states. We favour

an optional approach to the small farmer measure, but have no difficulty with

the mandatory nature of the young farmer proposal.

In relation to the rural development proposals, we are broadly satisfied with the

thrust of the specific menu of measures provided for in the proposals. We have

some specific concerns about forestry and investment measures and are glad to

see these being addressed in the presidency‘s proposals. Our main concerns on

rural development relate to the very elaborate, and in our view overly

bureaucratic, provisions relating to rural development planning

–

these will

impact more on the administration than the farmer. The long running question of

how to define disadvantaged areas (now known as areas of natural constraint)

has also been brought into the CAP reform package and is clearly also an issue

of major interest to Ireland.

In the time available I will not dwell on the proposals on market measures or

commodity market organisation, other than to note that we are supporting the

Commission‘s proposal to abolish sugar quotas in 2015.

There is

however a

strong current among some Member States to extend this to 2018 or 2020. We

are also supporting the proposals to provide for a €500m per annum crisis fund

for agriculture.

Conclusion

In summary, the priorities for Ireland in these CAP reform negotiations remain:



a strong and well-resourced CAP,

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture



retention of our levels of funding for both direct payments and for rural

development,

maximum possible flexibility for Member States to implement the payment

systems and transitional arrangements that best suit their farming

conditions.



as much simplification as possible for the farmer and the administration,

subject to proper financial and operational controls.

The negotiation process on CAP is a complex and difficult one, but all our efforts

are focused on achieving the best possible outcome for Ireland. These efforts

continued last week when the Minister used his attendance at the Council of

Agriculture Ministers meeting in Luxembourg to further press the Irish position

with his colleagues and to work on building strategic alliances. They will be

repeated over the coming months as the process evolves, and will further

intensify during our Presidency, during which Ireland will work with other

Member States, and with the European Parliament and the Commission, to

secure an agreement that will provide an appropriate policy structure for the

agri-food sector over the coming years.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Opening Statements by Irish MEPS

(Made following the earlier presentation above by Mr

Aidan O’Driscoll)

Ms. Mairead McGuinness MEP, Ms. Marian Harkin MEP

and Ms. Phil Prendergast MEP

Tuesday 1

May 2012

Chairman: I welcome the MEPs and know they have busy schedules but this is

an important process for them in which to be engaged. It is also important for

the committee to hear their perspectives on the CAP reforms.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP:

I thank the Chairman for inviting us to

participate in the committee‘s work on CAP reform. It is important to

acknowledge the work of the departmental officials in this regard. They have

been consistent and excellent in their engagement not just with the Council of

farm Ministers but also with the European Parliament. I also acknowledge their

active engagement with all Members of the European Parliament. There has

been real recognition by officials and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the

Marine, Deputy Coveney, of the role of the Parliament in co-decision.

I am glad the issue of the budget has been raised as a serious matter that is still

not resolved. I was concerned when I spoke to some Deputies recently that they

thought this issue had been resolved and the deal was done. It is not. I am

concerned about what will happen around the overall budget for the European

Union. It will be influenced by the political climate of Europe which is not exactly

warm. We need to be conscious of the importance to Ireland of ensuring the

budget is adequate.

Europe‘s politicians should see a European budget as an

instrument for growth and jobs but there is a tendency among member states to

regard cutting their contributions to Europe as a badge of honour. That creates a

serious danger for Ireland and the Common Agricultural Policy. If the budget is

reduced overall there will be cuts to all policy areas. Agriculture will not escape

and the rural development budget may also be hit. The impact on direct

payments may not be as large but rural development is vulnerable. It is

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

important, therefore, that we participate fully in the budget discussions and work

to improve the political climate of Europe. The European Parliament has

demanded a good budget for agriculture and other policy areas but the European

Union does not raise taxes. We rely on Heads of State and Government to fund

the budgets for EU policy areas. The focus of CAP reform is on direct payments

and their redistribution. However, we should not forget rural development, the

organisation of the marketplace and market supports.

In regard to direct payments, I do not see greening as a major problem for

Ireland. The officials have provided clarity on the details of the proposals, some

of which are problematic. We have not yet discussed the redirection of policy

towards a public goods payment, the principle of which is that farmers not only

produce food but also perform environmental tasks for which the market does

not pay them. Deputy Harrington pointed out that the direct payments proposal

includes an allocation of 30% for greening linked to the overall budget. Those

who argue this is too much should be cautious in seeking a reduction to 20% or

10% in case they endanger the overall budget for direct payments. There are

consequences to our actions. There is no doubt that the greening proposal will

increase bureaucracy. The Commission has estimated that member states will

face a cost increase of 15% in implementing the new system. That issue needs

to be addressed.

We have not yet discussed the Commission‘s plans

to abandon the current

entitlement system in order to reinvent an entirely new payment entitlement.

The field of horses comprises 27 member states but their starting points differ.

Some have already introduced flat rate payments and others operate simplified

systems or, like Ireland, base their payments on the historic model. The

Commission wants all the horses to reach the finish line by 2019 despite their

different starting points. That will be practically impossible to achieve but it is

difficult to see how flexibility can be translated into a text that member states

will be able to implement. I accept it will be difficult for Ireland to move to a flat

rate but certain member states which have already made the change do not

understand our position. The discussion around 2011 and 2014 is academic

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

because we will not change minds that have already been made up. The

Department and I have warned repeatedly this is a proposal rather than a

decision.

The European Parliament has great expectations for the Irish Presidency. We

may have to resolve the overall budget issue, the fisheries issue and the

agriculture issue during the Irish Presidency in first six months of next year. It is

a lot to ask but officials have indicated a willingness to deliver. If the political

climate is better, we can deliver because we will be able to put the budget in

place and discuss the details. The Council of Ministers is discussing the details

but the Parliament is also involved in that process. As a member of the EPP‘s

negotiating team, I find it extremely difficult to achieve consensus within political

groups because of the complexity of the document. The more one reads the

greater the difficulty in getting a handle on the detail. Certain proposals, such as

active farmer, have already been changed, however, and we can reach

agreement quickly in other areas.

The most difficult issue is redistribution, whether between or within member

states. Some of the member states which are on low payments, such as the

Baltic countries and Portugal, are actively campaigning to get better payments

but they are willing to sacrifice agriculture in favour of cohesion if they do not

achieve a better redistribution.

We are also holding parallel discussions at Commission level on the issue of

fairness in the food supply chain. A report will issue in June from the stakeholder

working groups and another major report will be prepared by the end of this

year. The outcome of these almost non-political deliberations are as important to

the future of Irish agriculture and farm incomes as the issues we are discussing

today. The Chairman might bear that in mind because farmers and consumers

will be interested in knowing what is happening in that regard.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP:

I endorse what Ms McGuinness has said about the

Department‘s officials and our permanent representation in Brussels. I have

found them very helpful and knowledgeable. It is a big help to us as MEPs that

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

they have their finger on the pulse because, as Mr. O‘Driscoll has pointed out,

the details of these proposals are intimidating. We often hear generalisations

about different aspects of them but our role as parliamentarians is to amend the

minutiae of the documents that come before us. Members of all political parties

and none can play a role in these debates thanks to co-decision. They can work

with MEPs of all parties to understand the details or at least offer their views.

That is a role this Parliament can play for the first time because it now has co-

decision with the Council.

Deputy O‘Mahony

asked about the size of the budget. The best estimate anyone

can give is that it is approximately 1% of Europe‘s wealth. The budget proposed

for 2013 is €138 billion, which represents an increase on 7% on previous

budgets. While the Commission and the Parliament will support this increase one

can be sure the Council will seek to cut it. It is difficult to estimate over a seven

year period. All I can say is that it will be less than €1 trillion and that Germany

and some of the other large countries want to shave significant amounts from it.

If we have a smaller cake, the portion for agriculture will also be smaller. We will

be supporting a large budget but we do not have the same influence because we

do not raise the taxes. The Parliament has always been strong in supporting an

adequate budget for agriculture and I have no reason to believe this will change.

The other issues of concern to people will be the flat rate payments and

redistribution. Countries such as Romania, Poland and Bulgaria want us to be

even more ambitious than we are while Germany and Belgium prefer that we

have a proper adjustment period. The view of the agriculture committee of the

parliament is that we should have a long enough adjustment period to allow

member states to get that point.

I do not need to add to the greening issue. However, there is a great deal of

concern in Ireland about it but I do not know that it will create as many

problems as we think. The Parliament has strong views on this with the provision

for 7% of land to be set aside. Significant amendments to these proposals will be

made by the committee and the Parliament. It is something Ireland can probably

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

will live it whereas the issue of the redistribution of payments is of greater

concern.

Ms McGuinness, MEP, mentioned the active farmers issue. We can forget about

that because the Commission has had to admit defeat on it. We will have to

consider something else, which is a positive move as well. In the past week or

two, the European Court of Auditors produced a report on the CAP and there was

a presentation last week. I read that representatives of the court will appear

before the committee at the end of the month.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP: They appeared before us last week.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP: Obviously, what I read was out of date. They say that,

for example, the level of bureaucracy within the rural development programme,

even to them, is mind boggling. There are six layers of rules, which confirms

what Deputy Ó Cuív said and that is no way to go about our business. They also

had a problem with the definition of ―active farmers‖ and the issue of capping.

The committee is interested in what the Parliament thinks. Recently, we voted

on a non-legislative report on greening in Strasbourg. That was a good indication

of what the Parliament is thinking. We voted that mandatory greening practices

should be adapted to suit the specificities of different member states and they

should be workable and not entail too much bureaucracy. That gives an outline

of where the Parliament is coming from on those issues.

The Court of Auditors report stated the CAP is too input and expenditure

oriented rather than looking at performance and outcomes. This is what the

Commission tells us it wants to do but the Court of Auditors report says the way

it is designed will not allow for that. They also referred to the additional

administrative burden on farmers and member states. They reckon the current

administrative budget could increase by 15% to implement the Commission‘s

proposals. All these issues will be taken into consideration by the Parliament

when we deal with the reports and the minutiae.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Ms McGuinness, MEP, mentioned the foodchain but the debate is ongoing in the

Commission and it is very important for farmers. The agri-environment options

scheme was mentioned. I acknowledge the significant impact the scheme has

had not only on farmers along the west coast from Donegal to Kerry, but across

the country. For the first time in 18 years, there will not be an agri-

environmental scheme and I wonder whether that will have an impact on

Ireland‘s allocation from the rural development fund. There may be no

connection but I would be interested in the committee‘s comments on that.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned

de minimus

aid earlier. Negotiations are ongoing but I

am more than hopeful that the directorate general for competition will not see

the €200,000 threshold as a problem. On the basis of communications I have

had with officials, they do not say this. I acknowledge the Deputy referred to an

increase but we will deal with what is there now. I agree with him that we can

look to the next Leader programme. That issue will be sorted and it will take

time but I acknowledge it has taken too long.

I refer to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Commission has

made a proposal that farmers may be included under this for the first time. It

has a budget of approximately €3 billion and up to €2.5 billion could be available

for farmers but that money will only be available if trade deals prove

disadvantageous to agriculture, in particular the Mercosur trade agreement.

What are the committee‘s view on that? There are differing views in the

Parliament as to whether this is a suitable and sufficient instrument if a trade

deal significantly damages agriculture.

Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP:

Like my colleagues, I am grateful for the

opportunity to address the committee. During my year in the Parliament, I have

met the representatives of many farming organisation and families to discuss

issues affecting farmers and I have used my position on the agriculture

committee

convey

their

concerns

and

priorities

during

the

ongoing

negotiations. Ireland has participated in the CAP since 1973 and, over the past

40 years, has received more than €45 billion in funding. That has

paled into

insignificance recently as we talk about billions of euro as if they are just

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

hundreds of euro. However, the CAP has provided farmers with great income

security and has allowed Europe to become largely self-sufficient and less reliant

on food imports. Ireland receives the highest amount per capita of member

states and that is a reflection of both the success of previous Governments in

negotiating the policy and the strength of the agriculture sector here. Ireland

receives just under €2 billion

in support from the Union every year and the

importance of this funding cannot be overstated. In a political discourse

dominated by euroscepticism, it is worthwhile to point to the CAP as an example

of Europe contributing to improving our communities, increasing rural standards

of living and providing employment through Ireland.

I will break my submission down into two parts. I will address issues related to

direct payments to farmers under the reforms proposed to pilar 1 and the

importance of maintaining a strong focus on rural development post-2013

through pillar 2 supports. There have been many difficulties with the proposals

for pillar 1 reform, most notably as they relate to reform of the single farm

payment and the so-called the greening of the CAP, which has been covered by

the colleagues. However, these changes must take account of the various

national contexts in member states. A one-size-fits-all approach would be the

ruination of the CAP and it would dilute its potential to bring about genuine

improvements in the European agricultural sector. A practical example is the

proposals announced to update the small farmer scheme. Many of them, such as

the drastically reduced administrative burden through a single defined payment

of between €500 and €1,000

to farms of less than 3 hectares, have been

discussed by the previous contributors. The number of small farmers varies

greatly and, therefore, the Commission cannot be overtly prescriptive when it

comes to the percentage of the national envelope that must go to the scheme.

There are also problems in Ireland and throughout Europe with how to define an

―active farmer‖. We are all in agreement that golf courses and airports are non-

agricultural and industries should not receive pillar 1 supports. However,

precisely

defining the term ―active farmer‖ is cumbersome.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

The current proposals seem to kick the can down the road. They say that an

inactive farmer is one whose direct payment equals less than 5% of income

received from non-agricultural sources. However, the problem then is whether a

non-agricultural source of income can be correctly defined. Can a definition be

found which comfortably fits all 27 member states? The expert is Ms McGuinness

and, therefore, all questions should be put to her. We agreed this in advance in

the interest of brevity. However, we had a chat recently. She said that in the

direct negotiations in a committee it comes down to nuances. The use of ―a‖,

―is‖, ―them‖ or ―on‖ could make a difference to the interpretation of what we are

discussing. It is that defined and refined. It is also one of the difficulties when

there are many languages and interpreters. How things are interpreted or

misinterpreted can cause problems for us. There have been some questions

regarding creating positive or negative lists outlining criteria for establishing who

is an active farmer. While there could be a reasonable compromise we would

need to see the specifics of that. The most sensible thing to do in this instance is

to allow the individual member states establish their own definition of what an

active farmer is, taking into account the peculiarities and nuances of the state in

question.

Greening of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, has been one of the most

difficult areas in the current negotiations. The priority for Ireland should be the

introduction of a system which is flexible and adaptable and does not put undue

burdens on individual farmers. This will mean ensuring the greening measures

are realistic. I was particularly happy last week to hear my party colleague, Luis

Capoulos Santos, MEP, who is one of the European Parliament‘s rapporteurs for

this legislation, state that he is in favour of the Commission proposals to allow

transfers from pillar 1 to pillar 2 up to a maximum of 10%. I believe it is a

sensible move which gives power to member states and will improve the overall

effectiveness of the reforms.

The final issue on pillar 1 relates to the top-up payment for young farmers.

Greater clarity is needed on the specific definitions contained in chapter 1 of the

proposals. There is considerable uncertainty about the precise requirements for

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

access to the programme. I have received queries from constituents who are

concerned that the requirement to have activation entitlement under the single

farm payment might prevent new entrants. That is definitely a difficulty and

needs to be examined more closely with a usable system put in place. Regarding

pillar 2, one of the best things I did since becoming an MEP was to visit various

Leader programmes and partnerships across Munster. Since January I have

visited IRD in Duhallow, West Limerick Resources and on Thursday I will visit

Avondhu Blackwater Partnership in east Cork. I have seen really fantastic work

done by these programmes. It has been a pleasure to visit and see a

programme in action with such positive benefit for the entire community.

I use this platform to highlight the dangers of diluting the impact for local action

groups through alignment. While I favour greater co-operation between local

authorities and the action groups, I vehemently oppose bringing these action

groups under the control of local authorities, which would destroy the bottom-up

approach envisaged in the rural development programme. If some of the

measures currently under the control of the LAGs were taken away and given to

the local authorities, it would not be in line with the Commission requirement

that rural development be undertaken in an integrated fashion. We know of very

great successes. If something is not broken we certainly do not need to fix it.

The proposals for reform of pillar 2 have stated that the Commission favours

increased integration after 2013 with all aspects of rural development working in

synergy. Having seen the work of these organisations and their transformative

effect on local communities, I will continue to advocate this position at home and

abroad in the European Parliament. I thank the committee for the opportunity to

speak here today.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Presentation by IFA President John Bryan

‘Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Post 2013’

Thursday 3

May 2012

Chairman and members of the Oireachtas, I want to thank you for giving the IFA

the opportunity to make this presentation.

Background to CAP reform

Since its inception, the CAP has been of vital importance for producers and

provides European consumers with a plentiful supply of high quality, sustainably

produced food. The CAP has undergone significant reforms since its inception,

prompted by the demands of European consumers. Farmers have responded by

providing high quality, sustainably produced food, at reasonable prices.

The CAP has a multi-functional policy role, and provides benefits in a number of

key areas:

Consumers

–

the CAP provides security of food supply, price stability, and

guarantees on food safety and traceability and assured environmental and

animal welfare standards ;

Rural Economy

–

the CAP, through the Rural Development Policy in

particular, maintains economic activity in remote areas, thereby providing a

vital support to rural society in Europe;

Environment

–

farmers under the CAP meet high environmental standards

for sustainable food production and land management.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

In return, the CAP provides support for the continuation of the family farm

model of production in the EU. The EU plays a leading role in international

agricultural trade. It is the biggest global importer of agricultural products, with

EU imports valued at

€70 billion annually. EU imports from Developing and Less

Developed Countries are greater than that amount imported by the USA, Japan,

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined.

With the world population set to reach 9 billion by 2050, and demand for food

set to double, a strong CAP focused on food production is essential. The best

way to achieve food security for Europe‘s 500m consumers is to maintain our

production capacity in Europe. Preserving the EU family farm model of

production is key to this.

Commission proposals on CAP post 2013

At the IFA AGM in January, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Dacian Ciolos went

through his proposals for reform of the CAP post 2013. In his proposals, he

outlines three core principles for the CAP after 2013; viable food production,

environmental balance and territorial cohesion.

However, the text of the proposals does not support the achievement of these

principles. IFA highlighted to Commissioner Ciolos the very damaging impact on

agricultural production, farm income, exports and jobs of his proposals. It is

disappointing that the Commissioner remained wedded to his proposals for a flat

rate payment system to replace the existing model.

IFA is determined that the CAP must support active farmers, and must support

the role that the agriculture sector is playing in contributing

recovery and delivering on the

Food Harvest 2020

targets.

With exports of €9b from the agri-food sector in 2011, it is in Ireland‘s interests

that the growth continues. The Government has been strong in looking for a full

CAP budget for Ireland and to ensure that funding supports the productive base.

It is critical that significant changes are made to the Ciolos proposals in order

that CAP reform works for Ireland.

to our economic

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

The CAP Budget

The context for reform of the CAP is different to previous years in that the CAP

budget itself is not yet known, as negotiations on the overall EU Budget from

2014-2020 have not yet concluded.

With lower growth prospects pressure may return on the overall EU budget for

2014-2020. However, the opposite must be argued as a well-funded CAP budget

underpins economic activity across rural Europe.

It‘s critical that, in the event of their being downward pressure on the EU budget

after 2014, policymakers must maintain a fully funded CAP budget. Indeed, it

can be justifiably argued that increasing the CAP and EU Budget is a credible

way of stimulating badly needed economic activity and jobs in Europe.

The Single Payment

It is vital that Ireland retains its

full funding allocation of over €1.2b for the

Single Farm Payment. Once the CAP budget and Member State allocations are

decided, the issue that is occupying the minds of many farmers is how the Single

Payment will be distributed internally.

The Commission proposals, as currently set out, will undermine active producers

and interfere with farmer‘s normal business decisions. First and foremost, the

proposal for a uniform per hectare payment on a national or regional level is of

great concern. It takes no account of major differences in the productive

capacity of land or levels of investment and commitment by individual farmers

In general the current payment model in Ireland closely matches production

level on farms. This fact is supported by the Department of

Agriculture‘s figures.

At the simplest level, given the variance in the existing distribution of payments,

the result of this proposal would be a major disruption in payments for individual

farmers, and across a very short time period.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

This income effect has been identified by many commentators. The speed and

scale of the income drop alone would impact on the production decisions of

many farmers, their capacity to repay investments and the viability of their

business. It has been suggested by some commentators that this may not be a

problem. Some farmers would lose out, some would gain and, overall the impact

nationally won‘t be negative. This is clearly not correct.

A uniform payment only makes sense in the context where there is uniformity in

the other factors that impact on farm output and income, such as land and

returns from the market. Clearly this is not the case for Irish agriculture.

Therefore a flexible payment system linked to the original system, allowing for

gradual adjustments, provides an option that will minimise disruption at farm

level, and maximise production at national level.

IFA is supportive of a national reserve fund to target to extra supports to

productive

farmers

who

expanded

their

business

and

may

have

low

entitlements. The Association is also in favour of supporting young farmers

based on objective criteria and for the option of a coupled payment of up to 10%

to underpin the viability of vulnerable sectors.

The Commission‘s proposal to use 2014 as a reference year is creating major

disruption of the land-leasing market in Ireland. To address this issue, further

changes are required that should allow Member States to set their own reference

year.

I would like to turn briefly to the other issues that are of importance for Irish

farmers, namely the proposed greening measures, Rural Development and the

importance of Emergency Market Support measures.

Greening

The EU proposal to use 30% of the Single Farm Payment for greening measures

and allocate this on a flat per hectare basis in the first year will cause a

significant reduction in payments immediately for farmers and is totally

unacceptable.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

A separate payment on greening, as proposed, would involve significant

additional bureaucracy, administration and processing, leading to substantial

payment delays.

The existing cross compliance and particularly GAEC measures, which are

currently applied by all farmers in respect of direct payments, contain very

significant greening measures. These include prevention of soil erosion,

maintenance of soil organic matte and protection of groundwater.

Greening must be incorporated into normal farming practices and included as

part of the cross compliance and GAEC measures for the Single Farm Payment.

Farmers should be able to choose from a menu of

practical ‗greening options‘ on

an annual basis.

Rural Development

Ireland has traditionally participated strongly in the Rural Development

programme. In the discussions on the Single Farm Payment, it must not be

forgotten that Rural Development funding brings

in almost €600m annually,

through EU funding and national co-financing. Funding in the next programme

must take into account past performance of Member States as well as objective

criteria.

In addition, the level of co-financing must remain at a standard 50%

EU/National Exchequer funding for all measures. Adequate funding must be

provided to ensure payment rates across all measures are at a level which

allows effective implementation.

The key priority areas for Rural Development must be Agri-environment

measures, Support for Less Favoured Areas, On-farm investment and innovation

programmes to modernise and improve efficiency across all sectors. The LFA

review must allow flexibility at Member State level to reflect country-specific

Natural Handicaps.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Emergency Market Support

Emergency Market Support measures are effectively used to put a floor on prices

at times of price collapse. We saw this in action during the dairy crisis in 2009.

Schemes such as private storage, intervention and export refunds are effective

in easing market difficulties.

However, additional funding must be allocated. The Agricultural Crises Reserve

Fund is not sufficient.

Conclusion

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is nothing new. Farmers have shown

their ability to adapt and respond to consumer demands and a changing policy

environments.

I believe that the current proposals are inflexible and have the potential to

seriously undermine the growth potential of Irish agriculture and the viability of

thousands of full time productive farmers.

However, with the correct

amendments and flexibilities and the smart utilisation of the entire CAP budget

Irish farmers will again adapt and continue to deliver for their families,

communities and country.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

CAP Reform- where do we stand now?

Presentation

Mr Gabriel Gilmartin (President)

Mr Eddie Punch (General Secretary)

Tuesday 8

May 2012

Chairman, Members of the Committee

Thank you for the invitation to address you on the CAP reform proposal, which is

undoubtedly the most critical policy issue facing farmers at the moment.

ICSA, as you know, was the association that took the lead on CAP reform in

2003, as the first, and for a long time, the only farm association, to support

decoupled payments.

So it‘s no surprise that we have worked very hard to make the case for the

historic Single Payment, and we continue to argue, that if change must come,

then change must be gradual, phased in over a long period, and in a way that

does not result in significant losses for farmers who have continued to farm in a

productive manner since the last reform in 2003.

I think it‘s fair to say that there is a lot of concern among our members

about

the implications of what Commissioner Ciolos has proposed.

farmers are especially dependent on the Single Payment.

Cattle and sheep

In 2010, direct

payments represented up to 160% of Family Farm Income on drystock farms.

Many of these farmers have now exited REPS and have either entered a much

less valuable AEOS scheme, or in the case of those who left REPS after May

2011, have no scheme to replace REPS.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

The key concerns are:

1. Concern that the EU budget will be sufficient to retain the current level of

CAP across Europe and that Ireland gets at least a similar amount to what

we get at present.

2. Concern that the flat rate payment will not work in Ireland and that any

significant flattening of payments across the board will hit too many

farmers too severely.

Concern that we don‘t end up with a whole new regime of extra

bureaucracy and restrictions, particularly in relation to greening.

4. Concern over what is happening to the land rental market as a result of

the uncertainty around reference years.

The budget remains undecided and it seems that there is no great urgency to

get a decision on this. The economic crisis and elections in France are partially

to blame.

But there is also a range of views on whether the European Union

budget should be reduced at a time when austerity is the prescription for many

member states.

The problem is that progress on negotiations is delayed in the absence of

certainty on the budget. As it stands, it seems to us that we are not on target

for a deal to be done under the Irish presidency of the EU in the first half of next

year. In turn, it is increasingly possible that the reform will not be in place for

2014 as planned.

This raises questions about reference years.

In the Ciolos

proposal, 2014 is the base year, with eligibility also linked to whether a farmer

made an area aid application in 2011. This begs the question; will the relevant

years actually be 2012 and 2015 rather than 2011 and 2014?

One thing we are clear on is that there is no possible justification for going back

to any form of coupled payments. There is a campaign being run by the meat

industry who would like to see some reversal of the implementation of full

decoupling.

This is precisely because decoupling has created the conditions that has allowed

beef to pass the €4 mark and given us much improved sheep prices over the

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

past 12 months. The sharp drop in recent weeks in lamb price shows that we

are still very vulnerable to fluctuations in supply and demand.

The critical point is that the only sensible means of increased output is in

response to improved markets. Putting in place artificial incentives to increase

numbers is a roadmap for disaster for farmers.

In any event the options for re-coupling are limited. The proposal would allow

Ireland to use 5% of the total national envelope for coupled payments. This is

less than €65 million.

payment of €65.

If it was allocated to the suckler cow, it would be a

However, there would also be an equally strong case to

allocate it to the ewe.

But would this be of any benefit to farmers?

live-weight

compared with €2.50 to €3 this year.

The problem is that if you go back to a coupled payment, farmers tend to all run

in the same direction with the inevitable consequences of over supply benefiting

the factories but no-one else.

The alternative is to strictly limit it with a suckler

When we had the suckler cow

premium, beef price was typically €2.50/kg. Quality weanlings made €1.90/kg

quota but all of this is a return to needless bureaucracy for a very small

payment, which of course is not actually extra money but a deduction from the

decoupled national envelope. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter.

What we want

ICSA believes that the only strategy is build alliances to ensure that the

proposals are watered down sufficiently.

At the April Farm Council, Portugal

proposed that no member state or no individual beneficiary should be subject to

a cut greater than 8%. This was supported by Italy and by our own Minister.

ICSA believes that this is a positive development that needs to be built on.

Contrary to our worst fears, there are grounds to believe that the Commissioner

will have to compromise a lot more than he intended and that we can retain

more than we hoped for.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

We accept that some re-distribution may have merit particularly in the case of

young farmers or farmers that had enterprises that attracted little or no premia,

such as calf-rearing enterprises. However, we are clear that the gains should be

limited.

Limited in the sense that only those who are actively farming and continue to

actively farm will get an increase.

Limited in terms of the total hectares

involved. We believe that it is inappropriate to increase payments significantly

on more than 100 ha, when there will be farmers with smaller holdings suffering

cuts.

Regarding cutting per hectare payments, we think that the EU proposal is

actually revolution not evolution.

It is unacceptable that Europe wants a flat

rate payment within member states by 2019, yet has admitted that a flat rate

between member states is not attainable till 2027.

Therefore, we believe that the objective must be that reform is about reducing

the extremes between now and 2019- not about a flat rate that sounds plausible

in theory but which

won‘t work in practice.

An acceptable arrangement would be one where farmers who possess

entitlements in excess of €270/ ha would have some adjustment on a graduated

scale.

In this model, farmers with entitlements worth between €270-600/ha

would be cut

by 3% per annum on the amount above €270 and those with

entitlements above €600 would be cut by 5% per annum on the balance above

€600. Entitlements above €800/ha would be cut by 10%.

In this way, there is

a gradual move towards more even payments while respecting the principle that

almost no beneficiary should lose more than 8%, in the period 2014-2019.

The money saved by these cuts would obviously be much less than the cuts

envisaged by Commissioner Ciolos. Accordingly, we would limit the beneficiaries

to only deserving cases using objective criteria to limit gains to active farmers

and in terms of setting a maximum of 100 ha on which extra rates could be

paid.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Greening

ICSA believes that the Greening proposal is confused and unclear. The greening

element was initially seen as a voluntary top-up but it now seems that it will be

compulsory for all.

This makes the setting aside of 30% for a greening

component meaningless.

The main concerns are that the 30% will be immediately re-constituted as a flat

rate payment, thereby accelerating the move towards full flat rate payments.

Second, there is a lot of concern that greening will lead to more red tape. Being

required to allocate 7% of area to greening measures is very worrying.

addition, we see that an idea such as the compulsory rotation of three crops is

just not workable on a typical sized Irish farm.

In a strange way, we take some consolation from the reality that there is a

widespread hostility to the greening details across a lot of the member states

and therefore they are likely to be watered down.

One point on this is whether farmers will be allowed to re-submit land which is

currently classed as ineligible such as hedgerows, scrub etc.

included in the 7%?

One thing which must happen is that the contradiction between Single Payment

and agri-environment schemes must be resolved.

Farmers are losing ground

Can this be

and incurring penalties under the Single Payment for marginal land that is being

encroached on by scrub but they are blocked from dealing with this under REPS,

designated areas and now under the land reclamation regulations.

While a lot of focus is on Pillar 1, we must not lose sight of Pillar 2 reforms.

Oireachtas members have a special role here in lobbying to ensure that the

Department of Finance faces up to the need for co-funding in order to ensure

maximum draw down under Pillar 2.

We would prioritise a return of a young farmer scheme, retention of the

Disadvantaged Areas scheme and a new, more viable agri-environment scheme

than AEOS, under Pillar 2.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Finally, I might say a few words on the rental market. The disastrous decision to

announce a reference period of 2014 in advance has played havoc with rental

markets.

The subsequent decision to announce that only those who made an

application in 2011 has only marginally resolved the problem and it is storing up

a whole lot of hardship cases in terms of farmers who start in 2012 or 2013.

We would see that there is a growing need for a land use and tenants‘ rights

reform to give more protection to farmers who are renting ground. The current

system is not working. Around my part of the world land just is not available

and we are forced to travel to rent ground. With land making up to €200 per

acre, there is no sense that we are facing up to this problem. What are young,

trained farmers to do?

As a general principle, reference periods should only be announced when the

period is passed to avoid the mess we have here.

However, I fear that the

damage is already done in terms of CAP proposals but I do believe that placing

limits on who gains from this reform will be an essential part of tackling this

problem so that land is in the hands of active farmers who have a progressive

plan for the long term.

In conclusion, Deputies & Senators, I want to commend this committee for its

interest in this vital topic. We will be working closely with the Minister and the

MEPs, as well as lobbying officials here and in Brussels.

We need a strong

campaign by the Taoiseach to get movement on the issue of the budget and we

need to continue to work to reverse the more extreme elements of this CAP

reform proposal.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Mr Tom Moran, Secretary General,

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Thursday 17

May 2012

I thank the committee for its invitation to address the key issues in the six

monthly progress report on developments in the EU from July to December

2011.

Moving on to developments in the EU, as the Committee is aware there have

been a number of important policy developments in the agri-food sector during

2011. Of most significance to Ireland was the publication by the Commission of

proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in July 2011 and proposals

for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in October 2011.

CAP/CFP Reform

The CAP reform process is of particular importance in an Irish context and I am

pleased to say that the Commission proposals are broadly in line with our

national priorities for smart, green growth as set out in our Food Harvest 2020

strategy. Our priorities in the negotiations will be to:



Deliver a well-resourced CAP,

Retain Ireland‘s share of CAP funds,

Maximise payment model flexibility for Member States,

Ensure

rural

development

policy

supports

competitiveness

and

sustainability,

Keep the CAP as simple and as effective as possible for farmers and

Member States.

The CFP reform package is of equal importance to Ireland in achieving our

overall goal of a sustainable, profitable and self reliant fishing industry. The key

issues for us in these negotiations will be:

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture



Transferable Fishing

Transferable Quotas),

Discards policy and measures,

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY),

Regionalisation,

Future funding.

Concessions (a

form

of mandatory Individual

You will recall that the Minister, I and other Department officials have appeared

before the Committee on several occasions in recent times to update it on

developments in these negotiations. I don‘t propose to dwell too much on these

topics today but to concentrate on other aspects of our involvement at EU level.

Legislative procedures

The Agri-food sector, in general, is a highly regulated sector with a continuous

flow of proposals being put forward by the Commission.

Since the Lisbon

Treaty, the majority of these proposals fall under the Ordinary Legislative

Procedure requiring agreement across the three EU Institutions; the Council, the

Commission and the Parliament.

This of course adds a new dimension to the

negotiation process and requires that the Department must engage fully with all

three institutions to secure the best possible outcomes for Ireland.

Commission proposals

I would like to briefly touch on some of the proposals presented by the

Commission during the latter part of 2011 starting with the proposal to increase

the annual quota for imports of high quality beef from the US into EU.

This

proposal has been adopted by Council and agreed by Parliament and is awaiting

final signature. We were not particularly happy with the increased quota but it

resolved a long standing dispute between the EU and the US and possibly paved

the way for the publication of a draft revised US BSE Rule in March 2012. As the

Committee is aware, EU beef does not currently have access to the US market

due to the current BSE rule and that we believe that this is an important step in

a process which should allow for the resumption in Irish and EU beef exports to

the US.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

During 2011, the Commission commenced the process of reviewing promotional

measures for agricultural products publishing a summary report of the green

paper in December 2011. Agriculture Ministers adopted views on the paper at

the December Council and it is expected that the Commission will bring forward

legislative proposals towards the end of 2012.

We have welcomed the broad

thrust of the Commission views to date as they acknowledge the need to simplify

and remodel the current EU promotion regime and provide for greater cohesion

in promoting EU produce in Third Countries. This focus on the image of EU food

is of direct interest to our exports.

Also in the food sector, the Polish Presidency put in a major effort towards the

end of December to find a compromise in the discussions to conclude the

negotiations on the food aid for the most deprived persons in the Union. The

main contentious issues with this dossier revolved around how the programme

has evolved, whether or not the programme should be financed under CAP or is

more appropriate to social policy. Agreement was reached at Council and by the

Parliament in early 2012 resulting in the safeguarding of the programme to 2013

and the Commission will evaluate whether or not this programme should rightly

fall within EU social policies.

A key area of particular interest to Ireland is the simplification of processes and

a reduction in administrative burdens and compliance costs for the farming

community.

We are working closely with the Commission and other Member

States to bring forward constructive proposals particularly in relation to the CAP

in order to reduce those burdens.

Presidency of the Council of the EU

We are now approaching the end of the Danish Presidency of the EU Council and

the main focus of this 6 month Presidency has involved intense discussion on the

CAP and CFP dossiers.

It is widely expected that the conclusion of the

negotiations on these important dossiers will fall under the remit of the Irish

Presidency in the first half of 2013. For this to happen it will be necessary for

the next Multiannual Financial Framework to be agreed and it will also be

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

necessary for the three institutions, the Commission, the Council and the

European Parliament, to participate actively in the negotiation process in order

to progress the negotiations.

As you will be well aware, previous Irish Presidencies have been regarded as

very successful and we will do our upmost to continue in this regard.

element of a successful Presidency will be our level of preparedness.

A key

Our

Presidency will be the 1

in the trio of Presidencies that we share with Lithuania

and Greece.

Preparations are well under way in the Department with my

officials actively participating in the various preparatory bodies. In addition to

the main reform packages, it is expected that the Commission will publish some

major dossiers this year and early next year covering Animal Health law, animal

welfare, a new plant health strategy, review of the meat inspection aspect of

food and feed law and a review of the seeds package. Chair persons have been

identified for the various Council working groups that we anticipate will be

convened and they are currently participating in specialised training organised

by the Taoiseach‘s Department.

We have intensified our interaction with key players through numerous meetings

with relevant Commission officials and key Parliament players particularly the

Rapporteurs for the major dossiers.

The Minister, I and senior officials are

engaged in ongoing meetings with our counterparts in other Member States both

to emphasise the issues of importance to Ireland and to gauge the issues of

concern to them so that we can be well placed to facilitate compromise positions

in order to conclude negotiations on as many dossiers as possible.

Concluding remarks

To conclude, the six monthly report provides the Committee with a summary of

proposals published by the Commission during each Presidency term.

In the

report we highlight the major developments across the various sectors

particularly those that impact on Ireland. Any questions or clarification that the

Committee would like to pose now, I will be happy to discuss.

kom (2011) 0625 - Bilag 3: Udtalelse fra det irske parlament vedr. reform af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture

Appendix 4

INKS TO

RANSCRIPTS ON THE

IREACHTAS

EBSITE FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS

Reform

the

Common

Agricultural

Policy:

Discussion

with

Commissioner Dacian Ciolos 19

of January 2012

Reform of Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with Officials from

the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine and Irish MEP’s 1

of May 2012

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with the Irish

Farmers Association 3rd of May 2012

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with the Irish

Cattle and Sheep Farmer’s

Association (ICSA) 8

of May 2012

Reform of Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with ICMSA and

Macra na Feirme 15

of May 2012