Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will provide the committee with a quick update on the CAP post-2020 negotiation process which has continued apace under the Finnish EU Presidency.

In preparation for discussion at next week’s AGRIFISH Council, the Finnish EU Presidency has presented a progress report outlining the work done to date on the CAP legislative proposals. This report includes revised drafting suggestions for all three draft regulations. It should be noted some elements of the three draft regulations are part of the horizontal multi-annual financial framework, MFF, negotiations. Agreement on the MFF will, therefore, be needed before the Council can establish its overall position on the CAP post-2020. Notwithstanding this, we have made considerable progress on the horizontal regulation dealing with financial rules and the amending regulation for the Common Market Organisation, CMO.

For the horizontal regulation, which deals with the financing, management and monitoring aspects of the next CAP, member states are in broad agreement with the proposed amendments. However, a final position on the text can only be taken once agreement has been achieved on the MFF proposals and final wording relating to certain provisions within the new delivery model within the CAP strategic plan regulation.

For the amending regulation, which deals with amending certain provisions within the common organisation of markets regulation, member states are also in broad agreement with the consolidated text and consider the regulation to be largely stable. Some elements relating to wine labelling, financial envelopes for school schemes and the role of producer organisations are expected to require further discussion once we enter trilogue discussions with the European Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, the main focus of discussions on the CAP legislative proposals during the Finnish EU Presidency was on the CAP strategic plan regulation. The Finnish EU Presidency focussed its efforts on the new delivery model and environmental and climate-related aspects in particular. The new delivery model is proving challenging for member states to reach agreement on. Significant work was undertaken in an effort to address member states’ concerns around reporting requirements for non-area, non-animal-based interventions. Ireland has been a strong voice on this issue and has worked hard with other member states to present an alternative solution to the Commission’s proposal. Up to 12 member states have supported our alternative proposal. However, it is still very much a matter for debate and discussions will continue under the Croatian EU presidency. Further discussions will also continue on financial flexibility and regarding indicators to ensure they are fit for purpose.

There was much discussion on environmental and climate-related aspects of the CAP strategic plan regulation. In general, member states are in favour of a higher environmental and climate ambition, a point I have supported strongly myself. The CAP must do more to support environmental action. However, there are concerns and diverging views on a number of areas such as the formulation of certain standards for good agricultural and environmental condition of land and the impact on the definition of "eligible hectare"; how conditionality should be applied to small farmers; whether the proposed eco-scheme in pillar 1 should be mandatory or voluntary for member states; the planning of eco-schemes and the potential risk of losing funds if there is insufficient uptake.

In addition, the Finnish EU Presidency has suggested the introduction of a single common percentage or fixed amount for climate and environmental expenditure across the entire CAP strategic plan budget. The EU Presidency intends for this common percentage to replace the minimum 30% target under pillar 2 expenditure, giving member states the flexibility to decide how best to allocate their climate and environmental expenditure across pillar 1 and pillar 2. The proposal, which suggests that only interventions appropriately targeting climate and environmental objectives would count towards this common percentage, could only be properly considered by agriculture Ministers following agreement on the MFF proposals.

In general, member states have considered the Finnish EU Presidency’s suggestion as a basis for further discussion. From my perspective, there are too few details around the proposal to determine a position at this early stage. However, I have always said that Ireland accepts the increased climate ambition in the next CAP and that we are willing to examine all options that meet this objective.

In general, I broadly agree with the EU Presidency’s progress report, considering it to be a good reflection of discussions that have taken place to date. However, we still have some concerns over certain aspects and agree that further discussion is still required before final agreement can be achieved. Separately, under the discussions regarding the MFF, there have been proposals which go some way towards restoring the funding for the CAP budget. While I welcome this, I will still continue to press for the removal of all the proposed cuts in the CAP budget. This work will continue under the Croatian EU Presidency.