Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Department officials for being present. I want to go back to the issue of GAEC 2. If we look at the different negotiating positions, small word changes can make a big impact. I know this from my time in Europe. When one moves from "eligible area" to "agricultural land" or vice versa, or when one uses the word "minimum" or "appropriate", the words can have very different impacts. As it stands, in the context of the Council position, what will that mean from the Department's perspective in respect of farmers' Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 entitlements? Can an absolute guarantee be provided that those payments will be secure beyond the timeframe of the next CAP and into the future? The Department will understand, I am sure, the concerns many farmers will have because, whether or not we call it a derogation, we will all have heard the stories of farmers with Natura 2000 lands, with a derogation in place that allows for land to be deemed ineligible, and the very negative experience many have had. In 2007, of 927 farmers assessed, only 13 were deemed eligible. The Department can therefore see why there will be a lot of concern about this. We want to know for sure from the Department's perspective what this will actually mean and the change it will make for farmers.

I was interested in listening to the Department and talking about the additionality in terms of the requirements of what CAP is expected to deliver. Obviously, it has moved beyond just market supports and income supports to environmental protection. The question I get asked probably the most, particularly in counties where there are high levels of designation, is why the farmlands that do the most in terms of carbon sequestration, biodiversity and environmental protection receive the lowest amount per hectare in payments? As far as the Department is concerned, how does that add up in the context of the definitions that have been outlined?

We had a discussion, which I hope the witnesses heard, in the previous hour about the issues of convergence and capping.

It would be useful if the committee could get a sense from the Department today as to where it stands and where it believes the next CAP will allow for flexibility. For example, if we are moving towards convergence will it allow a front-loaded payment to be made to address some of the concerns raised about smaller landholders who traditionally might have higher eligibility? Could we move towards a flat-rate payment that is front-loaded on the first 30 ha? Could we get a sense from the Department as to where it stands on the negotiations on an upper limit on payment that would allow for redistribution back to some of those lower-paid farmers? At what level would the Department like to see that cap set? What, if any, flexibility would it allow? We know some of the flexibility mentioned would dismiss and disregard capping because it is so broad that farm enterprises would continue to be able to receive six-figure sums.

I have several more short questions and if there is not enough time to answer them I would appreciate a written response later. With regard to the organic farming scheme, in response to a parliamentary question I submitted I saw that the Department has set itself a target of having 7.5% of land in the organic farming scheme within the term of this CAP, which is far below the EU average. Is this to suggest that between 2025 and 2030, the Department expects the percentage to move from 7.5% to the EU target of 25%? Do the witnesses believe this is attainable? With regard to the new agri-environmental scheme, we are told approximately €200 million a year has been paid in recent years. We have been told a carbon tax fund of €1.5 billion has been promised to add to the scheme. Will the officials confirm the number of places intended to be delivered per year, considering that the Minister told us recently the average payment will be €4,700? If we know the average payment, surely we have a sense of the number of places that will be provided.