Ms Anja Murray:

Funding for the second pillar of CAP must not be cut. If it is, the entire CAP will fail to deliver on promised green reform and will not be supported in the future.

I will now speak about rural development and agri-environment schemes are the green backbone of CAP. Agri-environment schemes play a crucial role in supporting farmers to introduce environmentally friendly practices and have a proven delivery for the environment. We are asking for 50% of rural development funding to be ring-fenced for agri-environment and climate schemes. I refer to schemes like the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, which were previously known as agri-environment schemes. If such schemes are well designed and implemented, they can deliver targeted support to address well-known conservation problems and provide long-term assistance and much-needed income to rural communities. This issue was covered on the "Drivetime" radio programme yesterday. When people who were protesting outside the Taoiseach's constituency office were interviewed, they spoke about cuts in funding for rural development and REPS and called for such agri-environment supports to be reinstated. That would be consistent with our call for the funding of agri–environment schemes to be ring-fenced.

I would like to speak about the use of rural development funding to support Natura 2000, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. Many of Ireland’s most unique habitats and much of its wildlife is found in Natura 2000 sites. Many of these sites need specific management to achieve favourable conservation status. Appropriate farming practices must be supported. Apart from the environmental value, farming in these areas has cultural and language associations which are also hugely important. Natura 2000 can have significant benefits for local communities, including farmers and broader society, in terms of public goods such as water quality, biodiversity, tourism and education potential. Ireland needs to seek higher co-financing for environmental measures under the second pillar of CAP. At the moment, higher co-financing is allowed for measures like knowledge transfer and producer groups. If it were to be allowed under Natura 2000, we would be more likely to be able to seize the opportunity to ensure those who are farming in Natura 2000 areas receive payments. It would enable Ireland to respond better to the challenges facing marginal agriculture and associated natural habitats.

High nature value farming also needs to be supported by means of payments through both payments of CAP. High nature value farming systems have a rich cultural heritage and tend to generate lower income from the market than other farming systems while delivering higher public good benefits. There is huge pressure on high nature value farming systems in Ireland. These tend to be the extensive grazing systems. There is a great deal of land abandonment, especially in the west, mostly in what we would classify as high nature value farming systems.

Given that they have lower income and provide higher public good benefits, they must be supported through the Common Agricultural Policy.

There is also significant potential to support forestry and agroforestry. Strong supports are available to foster alternative sustainable approaches to forest management. Agroforestry is land management that combines trees and crops or livestock using agricultural and forestry knowledge to create more diverse, productive, profitable, healthy and sustainable land use systems. It can help to meet the climate change, biodiversity and economic objectives of land management, while providing fuel wood, shelter for animals and other benefits for the farmer.

I will now address first pillar payments. As I noted, the 30% greening payment provides legitimacy for the first pillar budget. Most first pillar spending is untargeted. The indicated approach for the division of first pillar funds between countries - the external convergence - suits Ireland reasonably well. Ireland must not only support the principle of greening but also ensure that greening measures deliver credible benefits which can stand up to scrutiny and deliver real improvements to environmental quality. This returns us to my comment concerning the legitimacy of Ireland marketing its farm exports and produce based on sustainability. If there is no substance in these criteria, we will be highly vulnerable when making such claims.

The distribution of Common Agricultural Policy funds to individual farmers in Ireland remains an area of debate. With respect to the flat rate payment for internal convergence, studies have shown that the majority of farmers in Ireland would benefit from this approach. Not only would most farmers gain but this approach gives equal treatment to intensive, extensive and low intensity farming. Under the current distribution of first pillar payments, many extensive farms are, at best, operating marginally in terms of economic return and the farm families and communities associated with them are at great risk of leaving farming altogether. This is the process of land abandonment I described. It is also the case that this shift does not need to be front-loaded as we have until 2019 to move towards flat rate payments.

Extensive farming systems, which would be better supported by flat rate payments, often deliver goods that are not rewarded by markets. Public goods such as landscapes and a high quality natural environment that is rich in biodiversity underpin rural communities and economies in areas of the country that often struggle to attract outside investment. Extensive farming systems in Ireland are generally not able to match the yields of intensive farming and need to be supported to maintain farming activities.

Another area that should be supported is training advisory services. Many of the measures that would be implemented under the rural development programme require skill and knowledge of wildlife needs. There is currently no absolute requirement for training advisory. The mid-term evaluation of Ireland's Rural Development Programme 2007 to 2013 recommends that there should be a more focused structure to support delivery of proactive environmentally friendly farm practices, including provision of guidance and best practice. Good advisory leads to good compliance, which is cost effective. This is important for short-term and long-term jobs. There is a crucial role for providing ongoing advice if we want to be effective in the targeted schemes under second pillar. A focused and tailored training advisory system must be incorporated into the rural development programme to maximise the extent to which participating farmers are meeting objectives. A ring-fenced fund is required to support this.

On the issue of consultation, it is becoming increasingly urgent for all of us to address the issue of biodiversity loss and climate change. Environmental objectives are increasingly being incorporated into the Common Agricultural Policy. It is imperative that the agricultural sector and political and administrative process works in partnership with the environmental sector to ensure meaningful co-operation. It has taken ten months for The Environmental Pillar to come before the joint committee. While we are delighted to be here, we need to advance this partnership approach to develop these measures, especially in the preparation and monitoring of the national strategy plan and preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the rural development programmes.

The Environmental Pillar and its constituent organisations are calling for CAP reform to bring real public benefits. It is these public good benefits that will assure future spending on the Common Agricultural Policy by European taxpayers. We must do more to reward those who deliver the environmental benefits that society values so highly.

To summarise the key issues, 50% of expenditure on rural development should be allocated to target agri-environment schemes and measures. These have a proven delivery to address known issues and we need to ensure they are strongly supported in the next round of the Common Agricultural Policy. Ireland should also investigate opportunities for modulation of first pillar funds into second pillar because they support the widely beneficial actions that are delivered through second pillar. We also need to ensure we support farming in Natura 2000 and support high nature value farming. These areas need targeted support because farmers engaged in these areas face special challenges and must be incentivised if they are to meet them successfully. The Common Agricultural Policy must ensure sufficient funding and resources are allocated to delivering this support. Ireland should also seek higher co-financing for environmental measures under the second pillar to support marginal farming and associated natural habitats. I assume members will have some questions.