Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 5 June 2014

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Maximising the Usage and Potential of Land (Resumed): European Commission

9:40 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members from European Commission. I shall first introduce the members of DG Agriculture: Mr. Tassos Haniotis, Mr. Pierre Bascou, Mr. Andreas Gumbert, Ms Viki Palotai and Ms Christiane Canenbley. I cannot see everyone on the screen but they are all present. We are also joined by three more officials.

Mr. Peter Wehrheim:

I am from DG CLIMA.

Mr. Patrick Barrett:

I am from DG Environment.

Mr. Flavio Coturni:

I work on agricultural policy analysis and perspectives.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My name is Andrew Doyle and I am Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I thank the delegation for their attendance, on behalf of the committee members.
During the course of the meeting the members will make contributions and I shall introduce them to the delegation. I thank everyone for their co-operation this morning and for facilitating a video-linked conference to brief us on policy priorities and ways to optimise the use of rural lands in a sustainable manner. We are interested in hearing the expert views of the members of the delegation on these matters. The committee welcomes the opportunity to be informed on the views of the Commission.
This morning's format will commence with the delegation making an opening introduction and outlining its position. Perhaps we will then go to members and give them an opportunity to ask questions, if they have any. I suggest that we deal with agriculture, the environment and then climate issues. Our main priorities, in Ireland's case, is to meet our food production targets as set out in the Food Harvest 2020 objectives, to offset carbon, the provision of clean water and protecting habitats for biodiversity. That is sort of the areas that we are in. We have held quite a few hearings because we are trying to prepare a report detailing an Irish model or position on how to best contribute to the objectives under the various EU directives.
The delegation has probably been advised about privilege. It may not seem relevant but I must do so. Please bear with me. I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I invite Mr. Haniotis to make his opening statement.

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

Good morning Chairman and members of the committee. I welcome the opportunity to address, together with my colleagues, any inquiries the committee may have on the scoping notes that it is preparing on land use. We will be glad to also send the names of all of the participants after the meeting in case members have subsequent questions. My brief introductory points would like to link this to the recently agreed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and its relevance for the committee's inquiry. In order to leave most of the time available for discussion and answer questions in detail, I will focus on the broader context of the reform, its main EU-wide elements and the flexibilities left to member states for implementation.

In terms of the broader context of the reform, concerns that characterised the recent past on price volatility have subsided to some extent. The level of prices for most agricultural products continues to be high by all historical standards or previous expectations. This is an important element in the understanding of developments in agriculture. It reflects both opportunities for agricultural products in export markets, linked to world demand prospects. Also, it challenges for their supply of these products with respect for productivity and the sustainable use of natural resources. This is especially the result of the increase in costs of production due to their link to energy, and other input prices.

Within this environment of a changing world market situation, different sets of policy parameters were analysed, and the policy challenges that these developments posed were reflected in the decision to "green" the CAP.

It is in this context that the reform orientation is relevant to the scoping paper, since these developments have brought into the forefront a dilemma faced by all farmers on how to optimise the use of natural resources and especially the use of land. Faced with high production costs linked to energy and other inputs, including fertilisers, the short-term temptation for producers is to ignore environmental concerns since markets do not compensate for the environment. From a long-term perspective, this would be detrimental to the capacity of land to support production sustainably. To address this dilemma, unlike farm policy developments in other parts of the world, the CAP reform put at the forefront of its policy design a paradigm shift of policy instruments that tried to address the need for the joint delivery of the public and the private good from agriculture. CAP reform turned land into the basic reference for the receipt of payments, land use into a condition and land use change into a policy target and long-term objective.
“Greening”, that is the mandatory requirement for farmers to respect a minimum set of practices that are beneficial to the environment and to climate change action in order to receive part of their direct payment, is central to our approach. However, this is not limited to the proposal that every farmer respect three mandatory measures linked to soil, carbon and biodiversity. It is also accompanied by a series of other measures that aim to make greening more closely linked to the specific challenges facing European agriculture from climate change adaptation and mitigation to the adoption of innovations. These are mainly measures contained in the rural development part of the reform package.
The significant boost in agricultural research, involving a doubling of the fund in the community budget, which allows for research that is linked to practical questions that farmers face on the ground and improved knowledge transfer through a mandatory farm advisory system, are all elements that try to reverse the negative trends of the past that resulted in a slowdown of productivity growth in the European Union. With this approach, price volatility is not essentially addressed as a problem to be resolved directly, which is an implicit recognition of the fact that is mainly driven by factors exogenous to agriculture, such as energy costs. Rather, price volatility is addressed as a reality to which farmers have to adjust by retaining the basic layer of income support which mitigates the effects of price volatility but shifts the target away from references of past production levels towards references reflecting future production potential, thus linking payments to land and its use.
The final decision on CAP reform reflects the reality, not just for the EU but also for global agriculture, that in a world characterised by the complex interrelationship of so many factors affecting the food sector, it is not single isolated measures, but a set of coherent policy instruments reflecting the specificity of different regions that will maximise policy efficiency. As a result, member statesare left with a wide array of flexibilities in terms of how to implement decisions related to the reform with respect to direct payment, with their choices to be notified to the Commission in most cases by 1 of August 2014. With the basic and delegated acts now in place, focus now is on the final decisions of member states in terms of the implementation of the reform.
By the end of July, we expect to have the full picture on decisions with respect to direct payments on issues ranging from the redistribution of support and the allocation of entitlements, to the flexibility of shifting funds between pillars, that is, between direct payments and rural development. Plans on rural development programmes and their link to other EU funds are at an advanced stage, or in certain cases already agreed. All of these decisions will have a bearing on land and its use.
With this brief statement, I thank committee members for their attention and welcome again the opportunity for my colleagues and myself to contribute to their deliberations.

9:50 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Haniotis. I will now ask committee members to pose questions to the delegation.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their appearance before us this morning. On the new CAP programme, I welcome the inclusion of funding for young farmers and for greening measures. I ask Mr. Haniotis to give an outline of what the Commission's expects member states to do to provide additional supports for marginal land and, in particular, for farming land that is constrained, such as high nature value farm land in the north west corner of Ireland. What additional supports should be earmarked by national governments for such land, where farming activity is constrained by virtue of Natura designations such as NHA, SPA or SAC?

Photo of Tom BarryTom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Haniotis for his presentation. He mentioned that agricultural prices are relatively high at present but that would not pertain to cereals. At the moment, cereal prices are such that cereal farming in Ireland is almost unsustainable. Our rainfall levels and climate mean that Septoria in wheat is becoming a problem. With the lack of pesticides on the market at present and with further regulations coming down the track in that regard, it is questionable whether we will be able to grow wheat in Ireland in future. This issue is of serious concern and I ask the witnesses to give their views on it.

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

I will start with the last question and then ask my colleague, Mr. Bascou to answer the first question.

When I talk about price levels, I am generally referring to what is happening with average prices across the EU. It is clear that there are differences among member states and that transport costs and other factors also play a role in price levels. The other issue that is important has been referred to by the Deputy, namely, the fact that we do not know exactly how climate change is going to affect the production capacity of the European Union. With our colleagues in the Joint Research Centre in both Seville in Spain and Ispra in Italy, we are trying to understand what agro-meteorological models are telling us about the potential impact of climate change in the short-term on various parts of the EU. We have seen that one of the characteristics of climate change is that diseases - of both plants and animals - tend to spread much faster and the research capability to deal with them is lagging behind. This is why we have decided to put more money into targeted agricultural research. This is an area that will be given priority under the new agricultural research programmes. The Deputy has raised an issue about which we have more questions than answers right now. However, we will try to address it as soon as possible.

Mr. Bascou will now respond to the first question.

Mr. Pierre Bascou:

The first question concerned the decisions of member states to provide additional support to specific areas, most notably high nature value farm land. As Mr. Haniotis mentioned in his opening statement, member states have been given much more flexibility in terms of granting support to specific regions or for specific types of farmers, for example, young farmers.

There is also the possibility of granting different types of direct payment. With the new architecture of direct payment, there is a possibility of better targeting certain types of farmers, regions or farming. There is also Pillar 2. Unfortunately, right now we do not have a clear idea about the work member states will do. If I refer to the direct payment scheme, member states must notify the Commission on the decision regarding the allocation of the funding under the direct payments scheme, in particular how they will implement greening and how they will allocate funding to the voluntary support system to the areas of natural constraint. This must be done by 1 August 2014. I think members states will notify the Commission of their decisions by 1 August. We are also in the process of examining further measures related to the Pillar 2, such as voluntary measures that the members states can allocate certain types of support for Natura 2000 and for those who farm what we term areas of natural constraint. It is complementary to direct payment.

We are also in the process of examining the proposals sent by member states in the context of the programme. At this stage it is difficult to give Senator Ó Domhnaill a proper answer. However, I would like to mention that flexibility is given and in addition the portfolio policy instrument is much broader now than it has been in the past in order to target and grant specific support in areas where production conditions are more difficult. Many of the new measures are on a voluntary basis and it is left up to member states to decide how to target support and whether they want to target these regions or not. An element which is possible, but in my view from what we have heard should not be implemented in Ireland, is also to implement the EU direct payments scheme. That means creating different regions with a specific level of support. From what we have heard, this may not be the chosen path, but there are other measures within the direct payment and the Pillar 2 that will enable us to target specific regions but so far nothing officially has been sent in terms of a notification, either through Pillar 1 or Pillar 2. We will have a much better idea at the end of the summer following notification on 1 August and full information concerning the rural development programme, which most likely will be finalised at the end of 2014.

10:00 am

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I come from the north west, the Border region of County Leitrim. As there are representatives from a number of directorates, including environment, climate and agriculture, I want to put a question to the relevant official on the evolving European position on hydraulic fracturing or fracking. The main concern being expressed in my locality is that the Government may award mining licences. Fracking is very controversial as the use of chemicals in the process of fracturing may affect water courses. If the delegates look at the map of Ireland, they will see the many lakes in the region where tourism is the mainstay of the economy. People across several counties in the region known as the Lough Allen basin, Lough Allen being the first lake on the River Shannon, are concerned about what would happen to the water courses if mining were to proceed. We have been keeping a close eye on the Commission's attitude to fracking and this might be an opportunity to express an opinion on the way Europe views this as the issue encompasses all three directorates. I am aware that subsidiarity could come into play and that the issue may be left to national governments to decide because of the drive to alternative energy and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. It would be reassuring to learn of the future direction of policy and whether a policy will be developed on fracking.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The agenda of today's meeting is land use and maximising its usage and potential. The concern is that hydraulic fracturing, if it were to go ahead, could have a knock-on impact on the environment in an area that has Natura sites and agricultural land. I appreciate the delegates may not have been expecting a question on fracking but the issue is the environmental impact on farming or land use.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the context, the impact of fracking on agriculture.

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

I will ask my colleague in the DG Environment to comment on that, but in the DG Agriculture, fracking is an issue that we have been following in terms of the impact it has on energy costs and its links to fertiliser. Perhaps Mr. Patrick Barrett will have something specific to add from the environmental point of view.

Mr. Patrick Barrett:

I have not prepared specifically for this type of question, but we know there is ongoing analysis among the European Commission services on what is being undertaken in terms of fracking. Fracking is being considered on many different fronts, in terms of its influence on nature, the chemicals used in the process and its influence on water. Certainly, it is understood that fracking would have to be seen not to have an impact that would lead to a diminution of the services that the environment can deliver. Overall, there has been a gathering of information from both industry and from member states in terms of what is happening in specific areas. This information is being used as a means to monitor what is going on and to interact and see how it can be managed in the most appropriate way. This has been in train for a number of years. The process is hardening and if any region or a member state has information, it should be co-ordinated with the European Commission.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that Mr. Barrett was not prepared but it was in the context of land use.

Photo of Michael ComiskeyMichael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to the question put by my colleague, Senator Ó Domhnaill. Some years ago a very good REP scheme operated in Ireland and that helped many farmers who were farming in disadvantaged areas on land with designations such as SACs and NHAs. I understand there is a proposal going to the Commission for a new scheme, GLAS, and it would be very important that the maximum number of farmers would be allowed to join it. It is very important to encourage farmers to continue to farm in the hilly areas, which is most of the west and mountainous areas throughout the country. This scheme will be operated under Pillar 2, which was referred to earlier, and I would like more information on the breadth of the scheme.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing maximising land use and how we farm on land that has a high environmental value.

What we are talking about in Pillar 2 is rewarding the public good, in so far as we farm the land in an environmentally friendly way and are doing something to offset, within the national context perhaps, more intensive farming which has greater challenges to meet some of the other greening targets within the European Union.

10:10 am

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials from the Commission for taking time to meet us today. My question is related to the high nature value of farms here. Some people hold the view that increasing farm and food production and increasing biodiversity are mutually exclusive. In terms of maximising land use, what is the Commission's view on using areas of high nature value to offset against areas of intensive production in the context of compensating for biodiversity? Is it the case that everything must be dealt with at landholder level? Is it at that level that biodiversity must be protected and increased and greening must take place? Must the increase in production take place at that level as well or could a member state, on a regional level, support increased wetlands production or similar to offset the intensification that may take place in another region?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Haniotis mentioned something interesting earlier regarding knowledge transfer being mandatory. He mentioned research and making the knowledge transfer mandatory. I presume this has to do with the green Common Agricultural Policy measures and incentives and various schemes, such as the environmental schemes, whereby it is intended an environmental gain is achieved. I presume it means that people who participate in these schemes must take part in mandatory ongoing training or discussion groups, just as happens with regard to profitability, animal health and welfare or whatever in regard to other schemes. Will the witnesses expand on this for us?

Mr. Pierre Bascou:

I will address the first two questions on the provision of environmental goods and Pillar 2 scheme or what has been called offsetting. Basically, the provision of public good in certain areas will be intensification in other areas. At the outset, what we would like to achieve is a new CAP of reform. Nobody at EU level is out to oppose competitiveness and intensification with the provision of public good, but to promote both. We want an agricultural sector which is competitive in the medium term and over the long term, but at the same time it should be sustainable in terms of management of natural resources, social aspects and in maintaining and developing improvements in rural areas. It must also be sustainable in an economic dimension.

This is why with the introduction of what we called the greening obligation in Pillar 1, we have introduced public support for the provision of public goods, both in Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, in an integrated and complementary manner. Therefore, whether a farmer decides to intensify or extend his production, he will have to respect some environmental conditions and some production method which will be beneficial for climate change. What we would like to do is to reach the two objectives of competitiveness and sustainability. Therefore, when we talk about biodiversity or soil quality, we want to have public support that will promote the production of private goods and agricultural products, such as cereals, meat and dairy produce, and also promote the maintenance, development and quality of natural resources, in particular biodiversity and soil quality.

The first question related to grass. This is a measure which is being proposed by Ireland in the context of Pillar 2. The EU supports this measure as it is one which will promote an increase in the development of grass production in a system which is beneficial for the environment. We are in the process now of examining and approving the rural development programme for the member states and our colleagues are examining this type of measure. If the Irish public administration, as per the measure, fulfils the necessary conditions in regard to implementation, approval of the area targeted, premium labour and delivery of sufficient public good, we will definitely approve of it and we will encourage farmers - although it will be voluntary - to enter the scheme. However, this scheme must be seen as complementary or additional to what is already foreseen in Pillar 1, namely, the maintenance and protection of permanent grassland.

The possibility for countries, a possibility Ireland may envisage, will be for them to protect not only at national level, with control at macro level, but to protect at parcel levels, such as specific sites on the ground. These sites might be certain grassland sites which are important for carbon sequestration, for biodiversity purposes and for the quality of water. Countries, Ireland in particular, have the possibility in Natura 2000 areas, but also in other important areas, such as peatland or other types of permanent grassland, to do something in Pillar 2 which will complement what has been done in Pillar 1.

I have already addressed the other question, but I will repeat that we do not want to oppose the two concepts or place environment against production. What we want to achieve is what we called "greening" in Pillar 1, which we tried to achieve through the green payments. In Pillar 2, we have agri-environmental measures and we hope both of these measures will build on each other and deliver both sustainability and competitiveness.

One other element we should mention is the measure related to the advisory system, which is also linked to cross-compliance. We have a system of cross-compliance which has been streamlined and better targeted, but it should also enable farmers, with an increased level of support, to enhance significantly the delivery of environmental public goods in the future.

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

Let me clarify that the one thing that is mandatory is the farm advisory system. The reason for this is very much linked to the point made by Mr. Bascou, namely, the need to deliver both the private and the public good. We have been telling farmers that they need to produce more with less. This is a general statement, but the question is how to do it. In each member state conditions are very different, not only at national level, but at regional level. This is why, with cross-compliance, good agricultural and environmental conditions are regionalised. We do things differently where there is a lot of water and very differently where there is not so much rain.

What we want to do is to have, in every member state, a system where the obligation on the member state will be to provide advice to farmers when they ask specific questions linked to good agricultural and environmental conditions. The set of questions on which member states should provide an answer is limited. However, the question is how can they provide information on something that member states do in very different ways. Some member states are doing it through their ministries of agriculture, others doing it through private advice sessions in which farmers participate and others combine a mixture of farm organisations and universities. It is not Brussels that will decide on how advice is provided. Member states must do that.

What we want to ensure is that every member states chooses what is most pertinent for it. Farmers can go to them and ask for this information.

Then we will make a decision based on the additional money we have for research and the specific questions we target for this research that are very much linked to the issues related to greening and increasing productivity. Furthermore, the innovation partnership brings existing knowledge to the forefront. For example, a farmer who moves into greening would be able to use information on precision agriculture.

Why did we move with a requirement relating to crop diversification? It is not because farmers do not know how to do it. It is because we have seen, especially on large farms, cases of monoculture. If there is monoculture then in the short term the farmer increases productivity because he decreases the cost of production, but in the longer term this has an impact on the capacity of land to produce and it also impacts on soil erosion. This is why putting or forcing farmers to move in a direction of crop diversification comes in parallel with additional advice on how exactly to do it, why it makes sense to do it and how to move or transition in a way that would allow them to do better.

We know of the best practices applied in member states that have worked well. What we wish to do, especially with the innovation partnership, is allow this knowledge to be transferred. Someone put it well recently in a conference I attended on research. He said it was a case of money that brings knowledge and innovation and knowledge that brings money. There is a gap between the time when we put in money for research and the time that the knowledge will come. Sometimes existing knowledge in other member states or in other parts of the same member state could be transferred better to farmers and a farmer advisory system could play an important role in that regard.

10:20 am

Mr. Patrick Barrett:

I will follow up on what has been said in the last two contributions. The Directorate-General for the Environment also supports a type of system the purpose of which is not so much to separate out high nature value farming areas or areas of high biodiversity from areas of high agricultural production. We see this system, as it has been described, working such that we can characterise agricultural land as having different possibilities, including possibilities to provide services. Let us link this back to the provision of information and knowledge services. One thing we really need to be able to inform the farmer about is information. We believe it is essential to have knowledge of the services that ecosystems can provide. We know a process is being undertaken as part of the European Union biodiversity 2020 strategy, which has been translated into member state strategies, to gather up this type of information. This information allows us to understand the environment in totality and, within that, to understand what ecosystem services can be provided, such as, for example, the provision of food. However, it also allows us to understand how to regulate services dealing with air, soil, water, climate and the possibility for cultural services. When we understand this and have all this information, we can then understand the trade-offs that are necessary and the ability to increase production in land suitable for intensified production. Furthermore, we can see that there may be places where it is more suitable to provide regulatory or cultural services. The administration and the people involved in managing agriculture at least have all this information at hand and, therefore, they have the ability to make the decisions and trade-offs that are needed. This relates back to Deputy Pringle's question as well as the overall question on how to sustainably intensify production on land, as called for in the Food Harvest 2020 policy.

Photo of Martin HeydonMartin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commission representatives for their presentations this morning. We have a difficulty at times in bringing farmers with us because in their experience, environmental measures do not always make sense. Farmers are custodians of the land and pride themselves on minding the land better than most. There are environmental issues such as calendar farming, which results in restrictions on slurry spreading at certain times. There are stipulations on when farmers can plough ground and this does not make sense to them when, potentially, there will be a very dry time ahead but the weather may be conducive for that activity now and yet it is not allowed. Conversely, it may be allowed during a very wet time and farmers are obliged to go out with their slurry at that stage. There is a difficulty for us in explaining to farmers that it is a common sense environmental approach.

At the same time we have a good tradition, through cross-compliance and our engagement with the likes of the rural environment protection scheme, in terms of how well we have bought into environmental projects in the past. We have seen it more recently with the agri-environment options scheme and this will continue this in future. We have to get the balance right in being able to expand, as we hope to do with our dairy and beef industries, and in respect of the comments of the Commission representatives on flexibility around a regional ecological approach, which is very important to us given that this is a relatively small country.

My final question is on forestry in light of the new EU forestry strategy and sustainable forestry management. Ireland has continued to invest in forestry in recent years in a difficult economic climate and when it was difficult for our Minister to fight for the budget. Will the Commission representatives outline their view on our afforestation programme in Ireland?

Photo of Tom BarryTom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to go back to the comments the Commission representative made regarding monoculture. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding in this case. Let us consider the greatest problems we face. Most of our land is in grass. Therefore, it is as green as it is going to get. In the case of our cereal lands, the biggest problem we have is the size of our fields. They are rather small. In European terms, they are minuscule. They are fragmented. This means we are travelling long distances between fields. We do not have a choice of crops. We have barley, wheat and oats. Beans are rather marginal because they harvest late. Oilseed rape for oil is almost a non-runner. It would be wrong to go away from this meeting thinking that we have a choice, because we do not. Now, we are faced with ecological focus areas. It seems strange that we will be going back to setting aside land and tillage because of this, yet most of our land in the country is green anyway.

Another key issue we have does not really pertain to land use but to the age of our farmers. The active farming population in Ireland is dropping rapidly. When people hear the term "cross-compliance" in this country, all they think of is fines. We have a situation whereby our advice agencies are advising our farmers but it turns out that when cross-compliance is put in place, fines are being delivered. We need to move from a situation whereby cross-compliance is seen as a threat towards one where it is a help to farmers. The Commission representatives should not go away from this meeting thinking it is straightforward when they refer to monoculture and so on. We have a small cereal industry. Our field sizes are small and our land is fragmented. Ireland is unique across Europe because of these constraints. It is amazing that we have a tillage industry at all.

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with what my colleague, Deputy Tom Barry, has said. We are significantly different in terms of crop diversity and potential from what prevails more commonly at European level. The Commission representative referred to the fact that the farmers involved get a better understanding of the 2020 policy of the land and its potential, its potential for diversity and biodiversity and all of that. Surely the farmers are the people who know. As Deputy Heydon said, they are the custodians of the land and no one knows the land better. It is a problem - it has been reflected in recent times - of a disconnect between thinking and policies at EU level. Often, this is evinced by European Commission representatives and it can be very annoying. The fact is there is an over-emphasis on prescriptive policies emanating from the directorates-general, whether those responsible for environment, agriculture or anywhere else in Europe, and such policies are over-circumscribed.

Deputy Barry is correct that when we speak of cross-compliance in Ireland only fines, penalties and the like are mentioned. Irish farmers are trying to balance increased intensive production with the environmental protection measures that they have adopted. They do not merely pay lip-service to these measures. Their goal is to protect the environment and pass their land on to future generations in a well-preserved state. Some of the policies emanating from the European Commission are more theoretical than practical and it is time more attention was paid to the efforts that have been made here in Ireland. These efforts should be recognised because it seems that often policies are largely intended as being more punitive than helpful.

10:30 am

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

The Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, still begins with the letter "C". That is to say, it still a common policy that must engage member states. The last two points raised the important question of how a common policy can be designed without over-emphasising details that do not allow for regional and national characteristics. It is easy to recognise this but difficult to put it into practice. Mr Bascou and I were heavily involved in the analysis of background information to prepare the proposal and a person engaging in this kind of analysis will see that serious efforts were made to avoid being prescriptive. However, negotiations in the process of co-decision making saw that many details that were not intended by us ended up in the delegated Act. This has made things more difficult than initially intended for member states and the European Commission. Some member states had particular interests so in the negotiation process we tried to incorporate well-intentioned concerns but this made things more complex for member states and the European Commission. We faced this reality with previous reforms and always improved the situation. On this occasion it was more complicated because both member states and the European Parliament were involved. The point raised by Deputy Penrose is valid and we strive not to be prescriptive.

Points were raised relating to structural changes and the age of farmers and these are issues throughout European agriculture. The only factor that has helped European agriculture to improve productivity is the fact that fewer farmers are using the same amount of land as previously. This is an unfortunate reality as we might have expected increased productivity from other areas, such as capital and land. Only a fall in labour has brought about these improvements and this raises the question of what to do with people who are leaving employment in agriculture. How many of these people will stay in rural areas and what alternative job opportunities exist? This cannot be addressed only through rural development measures but requires a wide array of structural and other funds that should aim at improving the rural economy and helping agriculture to adjust to change. This is why there are now stronger links between the uses of various community funds, including structural, employment and agricultural funds. It helps us reach common targets in a co-ordinated and consistent way.

Mr. Pierre Bascou:

As my colleague, Mr. Haniotis, mentioned, the last two issues raised are very important. It is a concern that policy increasingly seems not to make sense to citizens of member states. The new co-decision process has complicated matters in terms of the delivery and final outcome of a legislative framework. There are now 28 member states, including Croatia which I visited recently. The needs of Croatian farmers and Croatian regions are very different from those in France and Ireland. We came to Ireland with the European Commission on three occasions in the past two years to discuss and negotiate reform of the CAP. It is clear the every country is unique within the European Union, EU. It is becoming very difficult for us and for the European Commission to design a policy that meets the needs of farmers and rural areas. It must be a policy that is common but also manageable because it requires the money of EU taxpayers. It is a difficult process that is complicated by the fact that the CAP deals not only with food production but also the management of natural resources, territorial matters and health issues that are viewed differently across the EU. The point made by Deputy Penrose is very important but it is essential to see things from this side of the table also. It has raised eyebrows in recent months but the new CAP will give more flexibility to member states and regions, I insist on the use of the word "regions", to tailor the policy framework and instruments to the needs of farmers and economic agents in rural areas. This is at the heart of our work but if we give more flexibility we must ensure there is a level playing field for farmers and companies in rural areas. There must be no major distortion of competition between areas. The aim is to ensure that what is put in place will address the overall objective of the CAP.

I will now address the issues of monoculture and ecological focus areas, EFA. It is clear that there is much grassland in Ireland, whether permanent or temporary. We are not targeting grassland. By seeking to introduce crop diversification to farming methods we are targeting arable land producers that maintain monoculture. In the south of France maize producers provide a good example. Monoculture has existed there for many years and has major environmental consequences. It is not just a matter of helping the environment, we are talking about food production and potential harvests in the medium term. If we want to ensure the production potential of the EU in five, ten and 20 years we must ensure sustainable management of natural resources like soil. We must ensure biodiversity thrives and farmers have the tools of production and are best placed to do so. Some parts of Europe have experienced problems in this regard and we are trying to address them. In other parts of the EU there is no need for such eco-diversification because there is much grassland.

In addition, farms are very small in size. This is why there are a certain number of derogations in respect of the greening obligation under Pillar 1. These derogations relate specifically to grassland. More than 75% of grassland is exempted from the obligation relating to crop diversification. If a farmer has fewer than 10 ha, his or her property will be exempted. If he or she has fewer than 20 ha, he or she will be obliged to meet only certain aspects of the crop diversification obligation. There is some flexibility and also a derogation in order to make this obligation adaptable and meaningful in countries across the entire EU.

The position is the same with regard to ecological focus areas, EFAs. The obligations relating to the latter only apply to farms with more than 15 ha of arable land and not to other types of farm. Reference was made to set-aside. We wish to re-emphasise that introducing a minimum level of EFAs at farm level is a way to protect and better deal with the non-productive land on farms. Part of every farm, whether it is land on which there is a pond or whatever, is not used for agricultural production. What we would like is to better take into account these parts of farms, which are often excluded under the payment rules that currently apply. We would like to protect it and, if possible, reintroduce it. It is not a question of setting aside productive land. It is a question of better utilising that which is not currently used for production.

10:40 am

Mr. Andreas Gumbert:

The EU has a strategy in place, the aim of which is to ensure the long-term and sustainable use of our forestry resources. The expansion of forested areas by means of afforestation is seen as extremely positive. The interest in afforestation is quite different across the various member states. Some with very large areas of forestry possibly have less space available for afforestation. In Ireland, however, it seems there is some scope for increasing the area of land covered by forests. Rural development policy provides a means for supporting afforestation, forest environmental measures can also be supported and investments can be made in respect of existing forestry. There are support possibilities and this is mainly because it is recognised that forests play a multifunctional role. For example, afforestation can represent the most economic use of certain land. At the same time, however, there are always environmental considerations such as water stabilisation and biodiversity benefits. In addition, forests can be used to produce biomass which is then used to generate bioenergy.

Afforestation also gives rise to impacts in the context of climate. For example, the level of carbon sequestration increases as the amount of land under forest increases. There is a framework in place that will ensure that the climate benefit and mitigation effects associated with afforestation, including the amount of carbon stored in sinks on forested land, will be taken into account by 2020. At present, the accounting mechanism ensures that the impact of afforestation is recognised by member states and that the benefits accruing from it will be counted against the climate targets that will come into place in 2020.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is extremely interesting. Ireland has an afforestation programme. I understand that other countries in northern Europe may already have achieved their targets in the context of land use and land cover. We have not done so and we would be very keen to see mitigation in the context of our climate change obligations vis-à-visour Food Harvest 2020 targets in order that we might offset them against food and agricultural output production. Mr. Gumbert's point is very relevant in the context of the report we are preparing and it has clarified the position somewhat. Under the current rules, only forestry planted post-1990 is contemplated. Perhaps Mr. Barrett might be able to comment further in that regard. If our climate change obligations are amended, then land on which forestry was planted pre-1990 would also be included. In its report, the committee may recommend that the latter should be the case.

Mr. Patrick Barrett:

I wish to reiterate something I said earlier in order to fundamentally underline the vital importance of the biodiversity support that is required. In its interaction with air, land, soil, etc., this support is essential in the context of providing the ecosystem and ecosystem services. It is important, therefore, that biodiversity is factored in at a very high level. The latter should be seen as a strong underpinning factor in the context of delivering on many of the different elements to be achieved in terms of climate targets and food production. Biodiversity must be seen as a key cornerstone on which to build. There was some discussion in the context of ecological focus areas and the loss of productive land. In the medium to long term, however, the provision of ecological focus areas and the type of green infrastructure that has high interlinkages on land in Ireland will lead to high level biodiversity and this will underpin all the elements the Irish authorities are seeking to achieve in the context of land use. It is extremely important that this is considered.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone from the Directorate General for Climate Action wish to comment?

Mr. Peter Wehrheim:

I do not need to repeat what Mr. Gumbert stated. In terms of forests, we face a number of challenges. In the context of agriculture, for example, there are twin challenges. On one hand, we want to make a contribution with regard to increasing production while, on the other, we want to reach the sustainability objectives. Most of the decisions relating to forestry will be taken at member state level. As my colleagues have pointed out, the reformed CAP provides a broad set of measures and flexibilities for member states in regard to the twin challenges of agriculture and also forestry. More specifically, and as Mr. Gumbert explained, afforestation - particularly that relating to marginal land - can have a significantly positive value in terms of carbon sequestration. As he also pointed out, we are currently implementing an accounting framework in order that we might take better account of this in the greenhouse gas inventories of the EU. They will also be submitted, under the United Nations framework, UNF, and in the context of the triple C targets, to our partners in international climate negotiations. We are trying to consolidate the basis for better acknowledgement of the joint efforts being made to try to support action objectives and promote sustainability. We are also trying to ensure that account is taken of climate change mitigation contributions from agriculture and forestry.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Wehrheim. The information with which we have been provided is going to prove important in the context of our report. I wish to point out that some members have been obliged to leave the meeting in order to attend proceedings in the Dáil and Seanad, which is our Upper House.

The fact that three areas of the Commission, namely, the environment, agriculture and climate, and in a wider context we could possibly include transport, are grouped together is important in trying to make everybody realise that with a greener Common Agricultural Policy, if it is implemented in terms of its objectives, agricultural production will definitely be achieved in a more sustainable manner within the EU and in a way that is very cognisant of the environment. In Ireland, where we have 2020 greenhouse gas targets that were set some years ago, greenhouse gas emissions output from agriculture form a very high percentage of our overall emissions, as we, unlike some other member states, do not have heavy industry. It is a simplistic objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the national context. If we do that, we will curb our potential under Food Harvest 2020.

The motivation behind this body of work was to examine how those two seemingly irreconcilable targets work together and how can we make that happen. We are trying to raise awareness that by simply curbing agricultural output in Ireland to meet a target figure, we will not achieve an improvement globally or even in the EU in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or in climate change mitigation. Forestry is a very valuable part of the equation but it is not the only one. It is important that this conservation has taken place with the representatives from the Commission's three sectors in the one room and that they have heard our arguments. I anticipate that our position will be robustly articulated by our Minister and officials over there as well.

For instance, Scotland has a climate change Bill, to which there is a land use policy module. A member of our Library and Research Service attended a conference on it. We could bring in a land use policy with a climate change module, but we are doing it slightly differently. I think the representatives get the picture of what it is that we are trying to inform and convince the people of, namely, that we need to consider the way agriculture contributes to the Irish economy, not in a simplistic manner, and that with a green Common Agricultural Policy, agriculture does so sustainably. It provides, be it in areas of high nature value or other areas, other good services to the public which should be rewarded in some way.

In the context of the age profile of farmers, one of the main implementation objectives is land mobility, not ownership, that is, that land comes under the control of younger trained people with a business focus and also with a very strong sustainable production mindset. I hope that summarises what we are trying to do. If there are any comments on that, I would welcome them. I thank the representatives for giving of their time this morning.

10:50 am

Mr. Tassos Haniotis:

We thank the members for their questions. If there are any matters they need us to follow up on, we will be available to do so. I believe I express the opinion of my colleagues when I say that we also very much agree with the Chairman's last statement. One of the main contributions of the last CAP reform process has been that we will work together in a manner whereby, instead of having opposing views in respect of agriculture, climate change and the environment, we put them together in a concept that considers that private and public goods go hand in hand. Of course, the devil is always in the detail, and when it comes to the implementation of these measures we need to make sure we move in the direction that initially we wanted to, but because the world is so complex, it is very important that we work together both in the various parts of the Commission and also in terms of the Commission and the member states. I thank the members for their questions and we hope we have been able to clarify some matters.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The representatives have done so, and I thank them very much. This discussion is available to the public. While very glib or simplistic comments are sometimes made about targets or figures, what we are trying to do is put a little more context into broader explanations of what this discussion is about. I hope this morning's discussion has been useful for the representatives, as it has been useful for them to hear from us what we consider to be the main objectives. We would like to be able to have the Irish position considered when the final determinations are made across the CAP on climate change, in particular, and environmental decisions. Once again, I thank the representatives. I also thank the technical people who made this happen. We have a gentleman sitting over here who made sure we could both see and hear each other. I thank the representatives and wish them good morning.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 June 2014.