Mr. Paul Savage:

I will try to be brief and respond to any supplementary questions Deputies or Senators might have. I come back first to Deputy Carthy's question on GAEC 2 and knowing for sure what that means. The text differs at the moment depending on the point of view taken by each of the three institutions but if we work on the basis of the Council approach, which refers to a minimum protection of wetland and peatland by 2025, at the latest, the issue is where we set our minimum level of protection. That is what it is about in terms of what this means in practice. Member states have the flexibility to do that in accordance with local conditions. It is not our intention to do anything as part of the imposition of that GAEC 2 requirement that would result in any lands being made ineligible.

In terms of setting the standard for GAEC 2, we will look at that in the context of considering practices that provide an environmental benefit but are not so onerous that they do not provide scope for further building on those measures when we come to potentially look at eco-schemes or pillar 2 measures. It is not the intention at this point to do anything in setting the GAEC 2 standards that would render lands ineligible.

It is in our interests, and certainly from our point of view, that we want to have what is known as green architecture, which would allow us to build on the things that we do under conditionality, whether that is GAEC 2 or GAEC 9 of any of the other GAECs, and that we can build on those elements through what we do on eco schemes and under Pillar 2. It must be remembered that Pillar 1 conditionality is mandatory for farmers. It is compulsory. In the context of building on those things the eco scheme and the Pillar 2 measures would be voluntary for farmers to participate in.

Again, we are not looking at doing something that in a broad-brush way would simply make lands ineligible. I can give that assurance. Maybe my colleague, Mr. Tom Keating, might come in on our thinking on what might be feasible, even for individual practices we might consider. I wanted to provide that assurance, however, in an overall sense.

On where the convergence in capping is going, which was mentioned, it is difficult at the moment because there are different positions from the three EU institutions. In an overall sense, we had discussions with the farming organisations and stakeholders only recently. We have done a survey of them on what their views are on issues such as convergence and capping, farm organisations and environmental organisations. We met bilaterally, just before Easter, with a range of stakeholders, around these issues. We are taking their views on board, which are very different views about what should be done under convergence and capping. We are taking that on board and will include it in the discussion with the Minister first of all, and then, as Deputy Carthy said, as input to the negotiations.

As part of this, we must bear in mind that the Council has already agreed its general approach as of the end of last October. It has agreed what its approach is to the Commission's proposals. We have moved on to the stage where those elements are now being discussed among the three institutions, led by the Portuguese Presidency. The text that was agreed last October, as the Council's position, provides the basis for the Council's contribution to those trialogue negotiations. Yes, it is still open but scope is minimal for individual member states to come back and somehow unravel what was agreed as a general approach last October. The negotiation process could not withstand the possibility that every member state would simply go back and potentially reopen Council's general approach. If we get to that point there is a possibility that all member states will want to open up all aspects of the negotiations and we would be right back to square one. A very difficult compromise had to be struck and we now have to go along and try to protect the Council position in the negotiations with the Parliament, especially where the Parliament view is very different from the Council's approach and where it would, in our view, undermine some elements of how the CAP has evolved over the last number of years. We must bear this in mind when considering where that is going.

From Ireland's perspective, and with regard to the Council's position on convergence and capping, we can see there are different approaches to whether they should be voluntary or mandatory. We discussed this with stakeholders and those issues are still very much at play in the trialogue negotiations and it is not possible to say where they will go.

The Minister has, in the past, supported capping. The capping provisions are there around the voluntary approach by member states and the €100,000 cap. That came out of the EU budget negotiations last year that were agreed by Heads of State and then subsequently agreed with the Parliament. There is a voluntary cap of €100,000 established for member states, but we have degressivity proposals, or reduction proposals, within the CAP strategic plan regulation that give members states, potentially, some flexibility to play around with the bands to which the reductions are applied. There is scope there for member states to exercise a bit of flexibility around how they apply the capping arrangements. Again, we do not know if they will actually survive the negotiation process over the coming months.

We are inputting actively to the process. We will input through the Council as issues are taken back to the Council by the Presidency on foot of the trialogue negotiations. We will be able to input our views on that but it is going to be very difficult to essentially change internally what has already been agreed as a Council general approach. It will be more in the context reacting and negotiating with the Parliament on its approaches to these issues around convergence and capping.

Deputy Carthy referred to some issues in regard to the organic farming scheme and new agri-environment scheme. I will take up his offer to come back to him separately on those issues because they are slightly outside the remit of today's discussion.