Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their contributions. Before adjourning the meeting, I will take the opportunity to make some general remarks. First, I am not sure it makes sense to describe a presentation as both concise and comprehensive, but it does seem a fitting description of the engagement we have had today between committee members and delegates. I expect the latter are relieved to discover there is a great deal in common in terms of what they and the committee are trying to achieve. Several members of the committee, and numerous Members of the Oireachtas, are active farmers. I participated in the REP scheme and had some land designated as being invested in nature, with natural eco-tillage and as a linnet, habitat. We worked with the local gun club to preserve bird species, with some success. The habitat was located on marginal land on my own property. As people who have grown up for generations on the land, we understand the need to have a healthy environment in order to produce quality food. Without a clean environment, there will be no economic future for our families.

The Commissioner has justified the maintenance of the CAP budget on three key principles, namely, to produce as much food as possible within the EU, to do so sustainably and to protect and preserve rural communities. When the Irish MEPs attended a previous meeting of this committee, they referred to the greening and other measures as a public good for which people should be rewarded. In other words, that language and mindset is already in the mix at European Parliament level and is being promoted at Commission level. If we get a buy-in to that concept, then there is a realisation that there must be some acknowledgement. European taxpayers have more of a discretionary spend than their counterparts in many other parts of the world. The delegates might disagree with us on this, but the point about producing more food from within the EU is not that we would seek to deny a Third World country in so doing. There are provisions in various agreements and protocols to protect against that. It is not about denying a Third World country access to the EU market but rather ensuring we do not pull from the food supply in that Third World country, wherever it is on the planet.

We are all united in our concern that second pillar funding is only now being discussed and that the discussion is in the context of a proposed significant cut. I am not as concerned about the modulation issue because it is optional. It should, however, be the same for every country. There is provision for modulation in both directions within the principle of the provision. It is not as significant an issue as we might have feared. The major concern is that the budget is being undermined to such an extent.

In the previous Dáil I was rapporteur to the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security which produced a document on land use changes. The document set out a formula for calculating carbon sequestration for forestry within the broader context of our greenhouse emissions obligations, whereby credit would be given for post-1990 plantations of forestry. I have a small such plantation myself. The formula was devised in conjunction with members of the industry and Coillte. The delegates mentioned agroforestry. It is my view that we need to look at a total land use policy, incorporating food, forestry, energy, biodiversity and recreation. The CAP will play a part in all of this, and there are aspects of the greening measure and of the second pillar which can contribute to it.

It may have been a surprise to discover today that we are agreed on the importance of preserving the CAP budget and, moreover, that we would justify it on many of the same grounds as those cited by The Environmental Pillar. It has taken ten months to complete our discussion on the CAP, but we have also dealt with other issues in the meantime. In fact, matters relating to communications and natural resources were within the committee's remit for a period, offering us such diversions as the hearings on the controversial episode of "Prime Time Investigates" and discussions regarding North-South interconnectors.