Ms Anja Murray:

I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for all the feedback. We agree on most issues and points. He referred to unsustainablility at system level and the relationship with funding. That is an important point with regard to maintaining the overall Common Agricultural Policy budget and how important it is to justify that budget. Another issue relates to food security and food production. Food is a traditional tradeable commodity which the market rewards whereas the other issues of water quality or the health of the natural environment are not tradeable commodities. The logic is that the CAP budget and public money should go to support the non-tradeable commodities. It is important that we show we are delivering on the non-tradeable commodities if we are to justify the spending on CAP. This is the message coming back strongly again and again from European taxpayers.

We agree with many of the criticisms of the efficacy of prescription farming and the points about not consulting people locally. There have been considerable problems. We are looking to replace the prescription-based approach with an objective-led approach as per the Commission's proposals. No one is suggesting that we will achieve the objectives we have set out or that we hope will be set out under the proposals unless there is a partnership approach. I referred to training and advisory issues. It is important that sufficient environmental expertise goes into designing how we achieve these objectives and into the partnership approach referred to in the paper. That is altogether crucial. I heard a senior person from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine say at a Teagasc conference, and someone from the Commission echoed the point, that we have set several objectives for the CAP and if we do not achieve those objectives, it will be an altogether different story when it comes to securing the funding allocation come 2020. Achieving the objectives laid out requires participation from farming communities and local farmers who know the land as well as from those with environmental expertise.

None of this will take place if we do not have a second pillar budget. If the dreadful scenario - which is a real possibility - of a cut of up to 25% in the second pillar budget materialises, none of this will happen and we will not have the budget for any of this. We will have no budget for partnership approaches or developing decent objective-led measures. This is why we really need to defend that budget. It is already a tiny proportion of the overall budget in the second pillar and it is being cut disproportionately. That is really unacceptable.

It was suggested that the rural environment protection scheme was not so good. There were significant problems with the delivery of REPS. When we refer to agri-environment schemes under the second pillar and putting 50% of funding towards agri-environment schemes, we have in mind the best case examples we have seen from other member states. These are objective-led schemes that are especially targeted for specific objectives and locations. Dr. Copland will discuss these in more detail presently.

Reference was made to the contradiction in the paper about marginal farming, land abandonment, upping the ask in the first pillar and greening, and that there would be less need for REPS or the second pillar. Greening is largely about ensuring that the supports go to farming in a way that is not environmentally damaging. The second pillar is over and above that threshold for objective-led delivery of specific objectives. There is no problem in justifying the extra payment. There will be no issue. There are so many issues throughout Europe and in Ireland which we know we need to address. At the moment the budget is simply not available to address them. We know there will not be a problem in the design and implementation of these schemes and there will be no problem in justifying that to the Commission either. Dr. Copland has a good deal of experience in designing, implementing and monitoring various rural development measures. He may wish to discuss the agri-environment and objective-led schemes and the justifications.