Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 14 April 2021

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Proposed Amendments to the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions: Discussion

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome everyone. Apologies have been received from Deputy Kehoe. Before we begin, I remind members that in the context of the current Covid-19 restrictions, only the Chairman and staff are present in the committee room and all members must join remotely from elsewhere in the parliamentary precincts. The secretariat can issue invitations to join the meeting on Microsoft Teams. Members may not participate in the meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. I ask members to mute their microphones when they are not making a contribution and to use the "raise hand" function to indicate. Please note that messages sent to the meeting chat are visible to all participants. Speaking slots will be prioritised for members of the committee. The topic of today's meeting is the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations, specifically the proposed amendments to the good agricultural and environmental conditions 2, GAEC 2.

The meeting comprises two parts. In the first part, from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., the committee will engage with representatives of the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, ICSA. The second hour is engagement with officials from the Department of Agriculture and the Marine.

I welcome Mr. Tim Cullinan, president of the IFA, and Mr. Tadhg Buckley, IFA director of policy and its chief economist. From the ICMSA, I welcome Mr. Pat McCormack, president, and Mr. John Enright, general secretary. From the ICSA, I welcome Mr. Dermot Kelleher, president, Mr. Eddie Punch, general secretary and Mr. Tim Farrell, rural development chair. From the INHFA, I welcome Mr. Colm O'Donnell, national president, and Mr. Henry O'Donnell, Donegal national council representative. They are all appearing remotely. I welcome the witnesses. We have received their opening statements, which have already been circulated to members. We are limited in time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions, so the committee has agreed that the opening statements will be taken as read so that we can use the full session for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website and are publicly available.

Before we begin, I have an important notice on parliamentary privilege. Witnesses 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 a 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 or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which their participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I invite questions from members to the farming organisations.

Photo of Paul DalyPaul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses from the farmer representative bodies. As the Chairman rightly says, we have many witnesses and members in attendance, so time is of the essence. I will not take much time. While I have no specific question, I would like to hear from the different organisations, in advance of our meeting with the Department later, if there is one thing that we could leave this meeting with that witnesses want us to get across to the Department in our deliberations with it later. Reading the submissions, there is a common denominator in all three, which, as a farmer myself, I and members of the committee were probably well aware of before we read the submissions.

Regarding the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and the genuine farmer, the issue of capping and convergence seems to be coming to the fore in all the submissions. I reiterate the organisations should give a brief couple of lines on each of those issues that they would like us to bring forward in our deliberations when it gets closer to D-Day.

From reading the submissions, there is a slight difference of opinion between the different organisations on the good agricultural environment conditions. That may possibly emanate from the different sectors that are their core membership or the different geographical areas they represent. I would like to get a little more depth as to their stance on the good agricultural environment conditions with regard to high carbon soils and where they would like to see this evolving.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. Senator Paul Daly has mentioned a number of issues, including the genuine farmer, capping and convergence. Regarding the genuine farmer, it is very clear and absolutely essential that this CAP reform ensures money goes to the people doing the work and who are out ploughing the fields. That is paramount. We are strongly of that view in the association.

On capping, what obviously has to be included is farmers' income. If farmers are leasing in entitlements, that has to be included as well. On convergence, we are clear. We strongly believe that we cannot take money from one farmer and give it to another. As we all know, the main problem is the entire budget. The overall budget has not been increasing with inflation. We have to deal with the budgets as they are but we have to lean on the Pillar 2 schemes, which are the schemes the Government can deal with. The budget of €2.4 billion agreed in Pillar 2 can be co-funded, by up to 57%, by national governments. That is critically important. It is more important that the €1.5 billion coming from the carbon tax, agreed in the programme for Government, and agreed by all governments currently in power, is ring-fenced for a proper environmental scheme. That is absolutely critical and essential and needs to happen going forward.

On the soils high or rich in carbon, it is very important to state that those lands have been farmed for generations. We want to ensure that continues going forward as well. We cannot have restrictions put on farmers for what they have been doing for generations and that needs to continue long into the future. Somewhere in the region of 300,000 ha. are in the high carbon soil category. I want to make it clear to the committee that we do not want restrictions on farmers on those soils in the future.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

In response to the Senator, it is very hard to define just one thing coming from today because it is a combination of things as we move forward. Mr. Cullinan alluded to the genuine farmer who is the person working the land. We certainly feel that the person who is working the land, and is doing so in a meaningful fashion, needs to be defined as the genuine farmer. When I started out in farming, twenty-something years ago, there was the armchair farmer who was effectively a milk quota holder. We now see entitlement holders becoming armchair farmers. That is not sustainable for the commercial or active farmer, or the genuine farmer as it is now, who is out there.

We see convergence as being a very harsh method. While it flattens the payment per hectare it by no means levels the playing field. There should be no further convergence without taking into account the overall envelope an individual farmer receives.

On good agriculture culture and environment, on carbon unfortunately we have seen the case of Bord na Móna which is so hesitant to give a written agreement. It is not that long ago since we asked for that in this forum. We would not like to see that burden on farmers who are farming in a commercial and effective manner. We need to be very prudent about how we navigate that. The critical matter is the genuine farmer and the convergence. We need to get those right. The farmers who are trying to make a living and make a meaningful economic return from farming cannot afford to carry the armchair farmers into the future.

Photo of Matt CarthyMatt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the farm organisations for their attendance at this meeting which was called because of the very serious concerns among committee members on the position as articulated by the INHFA on the GAEC 2 proposals.

Will the INHFA representatives outline what exactly they see as being the potential concerns from these proposals as outlined? I hope they have had an opportunity to see the Department's response to the effect that there is nothing to worry about here, that the Council is moving to protect farmers on peat land. What do the representatives see as being the significance of a piece of land being designated or considered an eligible hectare, permanent agriculture or not being considered? Do they believe the proposed changes by the Council at European level have the potential to impact on payments received by farmers in Pillar 1, Pillar 2 or both? What might this mean for farmers who are operating under commonage agreements?

The IFA has raised concerns around GAEC 9 which relates to the minimum share of agricultural land devoted to non-productive features or areas. Its opening statement indicated that the Department seems to be pushing for this to be applied across all agricultural land rather than simply arable. Will the IFA outline its view of the effect that extending this condition would have on all agricultural land?

On convergence, all of us will have sympathy for any farmer who is likely to lose out on Pillar 1 payments, particularly those who would be on smaller holdings but might have larger eligibility. I understand the point made on the European budget and the share of that going to CAP, and I agree. Ireland should not have agreed to the European budget on the basis of what was being provided, but in the parameters that exist, will the different farm organisations outline what they propose with regard to Pillar 1 payments for the farmers who are currently receiving below the EU average? We can say that we do not want to take funding away from any farmer, but there are farmers who are being penalised because of a historic eligibility criteria that is archaic. How do we address that?

What are the views of the witnesses on capping? This would appear to be the first thing we could try to put a redistributive mechanism in place. The ICMSA has proposed a cap of €60,000, which would be eminently fair. Would the other organisations support such an upper limit payment?

Mr. Colm O'Donnell:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this meeting. Regarding the Deputy's question on the GAEC 2 proposals, there are ten GAECs, which are cross-compliance tools to ensure that payments are delivered and farmers comply with the conditions. However, the new GAEC 2, which is proposed to protect wetlands and peatlands, will have the opposite effect. It will remove land from being an agricultural area due to not having agricultural activity happening on it. Under the Commission's drafting, an eligible hectare must consist of an agricultural area exercising an agricultural activity. Clearly, this amendment will knock land out of being eligible on grounds of compliance with the GAEC standards. This is unprecedented in any CAP reform. Lands will be now be differentiated. It is why we have relished the opportunity to inform the members of this committee that this will be the case. It is teeing up to be part of the European Commission's bigger picture under the biodiversity strategy to protect carbon-rich soils. It is being offered on a plate under the amendment to the Commission's position on Article 4. That is our fundamental problem with the proposal.

I might ask Mr. Henry O'Donnell to continue this point.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell:

As Mr. Colm O'Donnell outlined, the current amendment, as produced by the Commission, is detrimental to our members on carbon-rich soils. While it is mentioned that a derogation may be provided at national level and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has told us that this amendment is being made to protect our farmers, the reality is that agricultural activity on the land in question will potentially have to stop. That introduces much bigger questions, which our Department has not been able to answer, relating to whether the land will still be available for an eco scheme payment and whether farmers will be able to avail of a Pillar 2 payment in respect of that land. Far from protecting the land and the people who farm it, this amendment has the potential to stop all agricultural activity in those areas. As Mr. Colm O'Donnell stated, when we consider the bigger picture in terms of the biodiversity strategy and carbon sequestration and storage, we can see that the objective is to sterilise this land and use it for carbon sequestration to offset unsustainable activity everywhere else.

The Deputy mentioned the Department's submission to the committee. Page 4 of its document where it relates to Article 4 is inaccurate. GAEC 2 is mentioned along with eco schemes, landscape features and non-productive features under GAEC 9.

The reality is, looking at the EU regulation and the amendment proposed by the Commission, GAEC 2 lands and carbon-rich soils are separated out in Article 4, under which they are not classed as agricultural areas. While this is quite technical, the reality is that the legislation has the potential to be extremely damaging for our type of farmers. That is why we are acting so strongly on this issue because it potentially negates any gains that our farmers may get from increased convergence and a flat-rate eco scheme. If our lands are not eligible for all these things, it will take away from that.

That is a summary of the issues we have with GAEC 2. They are very real and we believe the Department has not addressed our concerns properly. We are extremely familiar with the regulations and can see the potential for huge issues for our members farming on carbon-rich soils going forward. There are also many unintended consequences that have not been properly thought out. We are asking that this be looked at in detail before it is passed into law in Europe.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

Our outlook on the whole thing is that in respect of the GAEC, for many years they have all been worried about the "A" part of it but no one was worried about the environmental part of it until now. They are now all jumping up and down about biodiversity and habitats but there is no point in talking about biodiversity when another Minister on the other side of the room is drawing red circles around habitats and areas of high biodiversity, stating that they no longer constitute land. Suckler cows and sheep in disadvantaged areas are actually doing a good job for the environment. They should make up their minds as to what they really need.

On the issue of productive farmers, we believe that an active farmer is one who is producing and working. Some may argue that some farmers work part-time. The former Minister, Joe Walsh, sang that song for years. The argument was that those who cannot make money from suckling cows should get an off-farm income as well. Many farmers were forced to do so. The elephant in the room is that the CAP money came out of the beef and suckler cow schemes and EU premiums. All of the CAP money came out of all of those schemes originally. Since the MacSharry and Fischler reforms, the whole thing has changed. When I was a young fellow I was taught that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. Since these reforms came in, we have been taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

It was noted in the Teagasc report of 2019 that dairy farming is four times more profitable than suckler farming and sheep farming is three and half times more profitable than beef or tillage. Still, these farmers are probably drawing the same amount of CAP or more. If we want to rebalance it, we must look after those suckler farmer, the sheep farmer and small tillage farmers in disadvantaged areas who have no other option but to pursue such farming. Looking forward, what is being proposed will mean that farmers will have to move into dairy farming. It is not necessary to build a milking parlour to move into dairy farming. The farmer can lease his or her land, opt for contract rearing or do something else. The smaller farmers are suffering big time. While the money was provided for those people at first, it has since been taken off them constantly.

In respect of convergence, we believe that €60,000 would be a very fair cap. However, one needs to look around it at the minimum, because when an approximation was made a few years ago, those who were due to receive a six-figure sum had it reduced by around €3,000 to €4,000. I know of farmers with smaller hectare farms in disadvantaged areas who were working hard who were brought from €11,000 down to €9,000. It is a much bigger hit for a farmer to take when his or her income is reduced from €11,000 to €9,000 than from €80,000 to €75,000.

We have submitted our proposal.

We believe that farmers with values of between 130 kg and 150 kg per hectare shouldbe entitled to the full payment under the eco scheme. Farmers with values of between 131 kg and 170 kg per hectare should probably be paid at a lower rate. People seeking a derogation should be excluded from the scheme, as should farmers with values below 50 kg per hectare, especially those on low land, as they are not doing anything. Those who can sit at home and do not need to put on their wellies and go out to do work should not be getting money. There are fellows out there - this is coming down the track - who can lease their land and entitlements and sit back. They should not be getting a lot of CAP money. That is all I can say. Mr. Punch is more technical than I am if members have questions. I thank them for listening to us.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

Deputy Carthy raised a very important point about smallholdings with high payments per hectare. This is critical. Those smallholders are getting caught up in this, as they were in the past. We have a very clear view. We need targeted schemes. As I stated, we must ensure there are more targeted schemes in Pillar 2 co-funded by the Government. For example, we must ensure we get the payment under the suckler cow scheme up to €300 per cow and get a proper payment of up to €30 per ewe as well. It is important to note the structure of farms here compared with many of the larger countries in the European Union. We have hedgerows and smaller fields. We have an excellent farm structure for sequestering carbon. Outside of the CAP, we are the only group in society that can help in the whole climate change debate. For generations, farmers have been sequestering carbon in hedgerows and grassland. A new payment must be developed around that as well to help farmers in smaller farms to continue farming.

Deputy Carthy asked a question about capping. We are in favour of capping but there must be an allowance for all farm labour, including that provided by family members. If a farmer leases entitlements, that is a cost as well and it must be included. I will ask Mr. Buckley to give a view on GAEC 9.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

GAEC 9 specifically relates to the percentage of land that is dedicated to non-productive features. Originally, it was proposed that it would just be for arable land but there is now potential for it to be extended to all land. The key message on GAEC 9 and the other conditions as well is that there must be flexibility at member state level to ensure that when we apply GAECs at a member state level, it is done in an appropriate fashion that minimises the impact on farmers. For instance, in the context of GAEC 9, more than 6% of all the land in Ireland is under hedgerows or individual trees. As Mr. Cullinan mentioned, hedgerows sequester significant amounts of carbon. That should be taken into account when we are looking at non-productive areas. GAECs must be applied in an appropriate manner at member state level. We cannot take a GAEC and make it even more-----

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have lost Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

Apologies.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Buckley back?

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

I am back. Such are the joys of rural broadband.

To refer to Senator Paul Daly's question, the 2019 national farm survey showed that only 34% of farmers were viable and a future CAP cannot increase the number of unviable farmers. That is the key message I would take from that. The 34% figure is shockingly low but it cannot be allowed go any lower.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank Deputy Carthy for the question. It is a long time since I first met the Deputy. He was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and the topic of significance on the agenda to me on the day was the fact that the small family farm structure was losing out under convergence. I dealt with that matter in answer to Senator Daly's question.

I thank Deputy Carthy for his acknowledgement that we had courage to put a figure on a cap. In that context, we felt, after a great deal of discussion, that €60,000 would be a reasonable. That would afford some level of distribution but we have to examine the envelope available to the people earning below the national average. In the last round of CAP reform, negotiations we saw people with single farm payments of between €10,000 and €12,000 having their payments cut while those on €40,000, €50,000 and €60,000 got increases. We need to keep that in mind also.

Another contributor mentioned that dairy farmers are more profitable. The facts are - and this was alluded to by the same speaker - that other sectors are in a position to get income from off-farm employment. In the vast majority of cases, dairy farming is very much a full-time job. Direct payments in challenging years - and we are in a time of volatility - have contributed up to 37% of overall income on dairy farms. By no means should members be of the view that dairy farmers can survive without the single farm payment or any cut to the payment. That cannot happen, irrespective of whether it hovers between 20% and 37%.

There is a lot of discussion about non-productive land but the reality is that for the past five to seven years, come the middle of October, the one issue that keeps the ICMSA office extremely busy is people being penalised for having rushes, dock leaves or habitats. The committee's next forum in an hour's time is with officials from the Department. We need to have them on board to ensure that farmers are not penalised if they have those habitats.

Equally, we need to see environmental schemes under Pillar 2 that are available and attractive to the family dairy farm units. As we move forward, the more farmers we get into environmental schemes under Pillar 2, the better. There was a great grá, and I know it was the initial scheme, for the old style rural environment protection scheme, REPS. When this Government was formed, there was a good deal of hope that we would see a scheme similar to that. Unfortunately, we have not seen that in the pilot scheme that has been launched, which is going to be very targeted. We need to see environmental schemes that attract all farmers, including commercial and dairy farmers.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McCormack. A number of Deputies and Senators wish to contribute. Unfortunately, Covid-19 has imposed restrictions on us timewise. Many issues have been raised and I believe we will end up adjourning this discussion to a date in the near future. I will take questions from a number of Senators and Deputies and then revert to the organisations for their responses. I call Senator Lombard.

Photo of Tim LombardTim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the farming organisations to this important meeting to discuss setting out the parameters with regard to CAP and where we will be in the next few years. How we define the active farmer will probably be the decisive statement in this proposal and ensuring that the active farmer on the ground is sustainable into the future. That will be a major issue for the farming organisations and for farming communities.

All of us involved in the farming industry know there is a cohort of farmers who are in many ways armchair farmers living off CAP payments continuously. Some of us have been renting entitlements from such individuals for many years.

The big issue for the farming community is how we can take everyone along this road because there will be a significant backlash if there is a proposal to move away from the definition of "active farmer". It is a matter of how we can take all the farming organisations along with us on this road. Addressing the issue of retired farmers in their 70s, 80s and 90s claiming single farm payments back through land leasing is going to be one of the key factors in determining how we can make progress and manage the whole system. There will be significant pain for everyone. That is probably the thorniest issue we will deal with.

Convergence is probably another issue. In my part of the world in Cork, people say convergence means taking the money from the south and east and moving it to the north and west. That is effectively what is proposed as part of convergence. It would have a huge knock-on effect for economic farming and farming that involves supplying to co-operatives and other societies that keep our food industry going. It is a sustainability issue for farming. That main issue will be that of how we can have a sustainable farming sector. The payments received from Europe ensure that it is sustainable. Unfortunately, we can all see the demographic trends. Young people are going out of farming for quality of life and financial reasons. Therefore, how can we make sure that, if there is convergence, there will be sustainable farming in the areas in question and that young people will get involved in the farming community? I am 44 now and I would say I am the fourth youngest farmer in my parish. That is a poor reflection on what would be a really good farming part of the world. It is because of what is happening in society itself. If we were to move large numbers of entitlements, what would be the knock-on effect for the relevant areas? What would be the major knock-on effect for the agriculture industry and the island's food dynamic?

Photo of Victor BoyhanVictor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because I really want to hear the witnesses.

It is important that we get a message out from this meeting today that the new CAP is focusing on delivering better environmental outcomes. No one is in doubt about that and no one is disputing it. It is not that farmers or the agricultural community are against that. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on the alignment of the new CAP with what is the European Green Deal. That is the political reality we are in. While we are talking here as politicians and while the witnesses are representatives of the agriculture community, the Government and our representatives at the table in Brussels ultimately need to be aware that there is a commitment cost to the green deal. It has to be compatible and aligned with any reform of the CAP. That is important and nobody is doubting it. The written submission of the president of the IFA states farmers who do not participate in the ecosystems could lose 30% of their single farm payment and that this is completely unacceptable and ignores the huge efforts of these farmers. I agree with the IFA on that. The witnesses might tease it out. I am interested in hearing how we can align the commitment to the EU green deal with a reformed CAP. That is the concise question to which I would like to hear responses.

Photo of Michael CollinsMichael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been involved with farming organisations down through the years. Coming up to CAP negotiations, I have always considered the smaller farmer, the farmer who is finding it hard to survive. Quite a lot of farmers will say they are finding it hard to survive but the smaller ones certainly are.

I listened to Mr. Kelleher speaking along the lines of what I have been saying for years. Many farmers get less than €10,000 in farm payments and are barely able to survive. There are CAP negotiations, with much promise, but farmers will gain about €200 or €300 in payments. We have to work towards a system whereby any farmer earning less than €10,000 will have their payments brought up to €10,000, while anyone earning more than that should be fully protected. The sum of €10,000 is small money for survival on a family farm and to try to rear a family on a farm. There was much discussion prior to the election that the new rates should be nothing less than €10,000, but now it looks as if it will be €4,700 in new rates. It will be an appalling position for farmers to find themselves in if they have to pay for a farm planner and whatever other payments from that sum. It will be hardly worth applying for. There is talk of €11 million being moved from the east to the west, which will affect parts of my home county of Cork.

I would like to hear much more from farming organisations this year about the survival of the small family farm and about where the payments should be focused going forward. Those who are receiving massive payments need to come down to some kind of a fair level. I understand they have significant costs too and I respect that, but the survival of the small man and woman on the farm certainly needs to be a greater focus for us going forward in the context of the new CAP. I am interested in hearing from the organisations and I thank their representatives for attending but we need to put a greater focus on that issue.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

Senator Lombard made some excellent points. I am clear on the definition of an "active farmer". It is anybody who works on a farm. That is very important. The Senator referred to "armchair farmers", a term I do not like. We have to look at this and be serious about it. We have one budget now. If a farmer is at the point in his or her life where he or she decides not to farm any longer and to lease out his or her entitlements, and if that continues on an ongoing basis, we have to look at that. People have worked hard to earn those entitlements but there needs to be a trading system whereby the farmer could sell those entitlements. The Government has to step up as well from a capital allowance point of view. The money received for the sale of those entitlements would have to be tax free. It is very important that we examine the issue.

As for how we take people down the road in the context of convergence and sustainability, there are three pillars, the first of which relates to economics. For a farm to be viable, it has to be economical and there has to be a return for what the farmer is doing. The second pillar is societal, which is very important. In this review, we want to be very careful in regard to that issue in order that we will be able to sustain and maintain farmers in rural Ireland. If we have learned any lesson from what has happened in our society in the past year, that is critical. Third, on the environmental pillar, we are up to doing what we have to do as farmers to deal with the environmental measures coming down the tracks.

Senator Boyhan also made some excellent points. The new CAP is being aligned to the green new deal, the farm to fork strategy and the biodiversity plan. It is worth remembering that those measures are aspirational and there is no legislation on them as yet, but I could not agree more that the pressure coming onto us for more green farming will cost a great deal. The Senator mentioned eco-schemes, an issue on which I am very clear. This is another cut. We are speaking about convergence but the European Commission and the Government are talking about anything from 20% to 30% of the Pillar 1 payment.

The history of the payments is that they were introduced in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome of 1957. The money was put in place to protect farm incomes and provide food security. That is important. We have been producing cheap food for the consumers of Europe since then and the money has been used for that. There is now a huge shift and the money is being moved away from protecting farmers who are producing food to protecting the environment. We will deal with that matter but we have been telling the Government consistently that we need an economic impact assessment on the cost this change will have for farming. That message needs to go out from here today. Before we sign up to any agreement at the end of the year, I want to see such an assessment. I have asked the Minister on several occasions to do that. It needs to happen immediately. The only assessment that we have sight of at the moment is from the United States Department of Agriculture, which has shown it will have a serious impact on farmer's incomes, anything up to 15% or 20%.

Deputy Michael Collins said that a farmer needs to be getting a minimum of €10,000. If we look at the situation at the moment and bring this back to reality, the average payment is less than €9,500. That is where we are at. Some livestock farmers are depending on payments because those payments are 160% of their income. That is the reality of where we are at. All of those things must be taken into account by the Government when it is signing up to this new CAP reform.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. McCormack wish to come in?

Mr. John Enright:

I am going to deal with this topic, if that is okay.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go ahead, Mr. Enright.

Mr. John Enright:

Senator Boyhan mentioned the green deal. We have farm-to-fork and biodiversity strategies. At the same time, we have an EU Commission that is proposing the Mercosur deal. On the one hand, the Commission wants to impose new restrictions on family farms in Ireland, France, etc., while, at the same time, it wants to import 100,000 tonnes of extra beef from Mercosur countries. It is important for us to call out these contradictions because we cannot have it both ways. The Commission is, to an extent, trying to have it both ways.

Mr. Cullinan mentioned sustainability, which has economic, social and environmental components. The complete focus of the Commission and our Government is on the environment. We understand the environmental challenges but there seems to be a complete absence of examining what is going on economically on farms and what is going on socially in rural areas. We must have an economic assessment of what these strategies are going to do to countries such as Ireland, France, etc. Those topics are conveniently ignored by the people who bring forward these strategies. The green deal is suggesting that we are going to put 25% of land into organic production. The reality is that if we do that, it will destroy the organic market for the people who are in it at the moment. It will turn it into a commodity. Many of these sorts of ideas seem great on paper but they will be a disaster from a farming perspective.

The Commission publishes all these strategies while, at the same time, cutting the CAP budget. To listen to some of these conversations, one would think that farmers are doing nothing for the environment at the moment. People tend to forget that we have had agri-environment schemes in this country since 1994. We have had cross-compliance since 1994. A considerable amount is being done on Irish farms regarding the environment and we are not getting the acknowledgement for it. We recognise the need for increased environmental ambition but we cannot expect farmers to pay for it all. If we, as a society, want increased environmental ambition, it comes at a cost. Sustainable food comes at a cost. One cannot expect farmers to bear that cost while they are getting the same prices they got 30 years ago. There are decisions to be made by politicians at both European and national level. If we want all this sustainability, the system is going to have to pay for it because we cannot expect farmers to pay for it.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will follow on from Deputy Michael Collins's comment that an income of €10,000 needs to be protected. I agree that the first €10,000 of one's envelope should be exempt from convergence. That would take a lot of the pain out for the smaller family farm structure. The Deputy and Senator Lombard were right in their comments that convergence is moving money west but I would say it is moving money from the more productive areas.

Obviously, food production and farming activity brought these payments to the country. As I mentioned earlier, we are in a time of volatility and this has helped underpin all sectors of agriculture in difficult times in the past. We will not have that support into the future, which makes the rural economies very vulnerable.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Punch of the ICSA want to come in? Perhaps Mr. Kelleher can comment.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

Can the committee hear me?

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

I agree with Deputy Michael Collins. In fairness, they are talking about money travelling from the east to the west of Cork. It probably happens a bit but ten years ago, it would have been the other way. Let us remember that going back to the Treaty of Rome, this money was to help family farms in rural Ireland. A lot of this money came into disadvantaged areas in respect of suckling beef cow headage payments and all that. Over the years, it has moved away. Many smaller farmers in the beef and sheep sectors and small tillage farmers are suffering and their payments are very low. When we look at big dairy farmers and big enterprises that are profitable - four times more profitable according to the Teagasc figures - we can see that they are getting the same single farm payment or in many cases, way more. That cannot be fair or logical. We make no apology in calling for the larger share of eco schemes and other money to be given to the smaller farmers who find it hard to make a living, such as sheep and beef farmers and suckler cow farmers. We propose that in Pillar 2, the agri scheme should deliver real benefits to participating farmers. If they carry out the full range of measures, they should get something up to €15,000. In respect of the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, between farmers' trouble, time and planning, they are only making Mickey Mouse money. It is a waste of time. If farmers do not get some reasonable payment for doing all this work such as planning and paying planners, they will not participate any more because the day when farmers cannot stay working for nothing has come. They must get a reasonable income from participating in schemes. This idea of income foregone, costs incurred is a load of rubbish. No farmer will work for nothing. If he or she cannot get it at home, he or she will have go away and get it somewhere else. I will refer back to Mr. Punch if he is there.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone from the INHFA wish to comment?

Mr. Colm O'Donnell:

Senator Lombard and Deputy Michael Collins spoke about the convergence of payments and taking money from one part of a county to the other. It was stated that only 34% of farms are viable. For the record, viable farms are defined by Teagasc as farms that can support a labour unit. The vast majority of farms are in the sustainable and vulnerable sector. For those farmers, convergence would be make a difference when it comes to making them more sustainable - and not before time.

We are back where payments are linked to historic references dating back to 2001 and 2002. I suppose it is getting the mix right.

Senator Boyhan was wondering about the alignment of the CAP and the European Green Deal. Designations on land as a way of ensuring environmental dividends does not work. It has not worked in the past. The Natura 2000 designations have been a failure for both the farmer and the environment. Reports back to the Commission from the National Parks and Wildlife Service shows a deterioration in all the habitats that were supposed to be pristine and in good condition and to keep them as such. Therefore, that has not worked for Ireland. I am afraid where we are going down here again under the biodiversity strategy will not work for farmers. It has proven not to work in the past. The previous document, the prioritised action framework document that was signed off by Government as an assessment tool for funding for areas under designation, has no mention of the biodiversity strategy or the impact of it.

Mr. Cullinan spoke about an assessment of the impact of the farm to fork and, indeed, the biodiversity strategy and this needs to be done. Now is the time to ensure that we do not have a situation where as a result of a proposal in the Council's position under GAEC 2, it slides off the land and leaves it that it has to come back in under a derogation to be paid on. In the Department's presentation, it is assuring the Houses that these areas will be eligible for CAP payments. To receive those CAP payments, they have to be deemed not to be an agricultural area. This is unprecedented. This is the first time this has happened in the history of the State. The committee has been informed of the potential here. Derogations do not work. They come and they go. Such fundamental change here will have adverse effects. I cannot overstress that.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to members. I call Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for facilitating the meeting along with other members when Deputy Carthy and I put in the request.

I welcome the different farming organisations. I have a few questions for them. Are they united that it is a worrying development that for the first time in 20 or 25 years there is a different meaning for both mineral soils and peaty soils when farmers seek single farm payment eligibility? Are they concerned about that? I want to hear clearly whether they are all opposed to this and at one in making it clear to the Minister that they will not accept this on behalf of farmers. Are they agreed, as one, about derogations? No more than what we have seen, we saw it with turf years ago in one that never existed and we saw it with water when there was a debacle about water. We have seen approximately ten different derogations to a member state. Bear in mind, this is not to a farmer. This is to the member state. As things go down the road, the witnesses should bear one issue in mind. I have a Commission document in my possession. I had a meeting with the INHFA last week and I gave Mr. O'Donnell a copy of it. There is a document that states - Pillar 2 is where I can see many farmers getting sucked in - one will have to do X, Y and Z, be it under an environmental scheme, under eco-schemes or whatever, and one will go do that road but there will be no going back to having that land as eligible for single farm payment. Then this so-called other system, called a derogation, will kick in.

The Department will argue that it is not a derogation but I have a document in my possession proving that it is a derogation. Are the witnesses concerned that, as a result of this new system, huge areas of the country will be under pressure, from Donegal right down to Kerry and places such as Cavan, Monaghan, Westmeath, areas of Wicklow, parts of where Michael Collins is from in Cork and Tipperary? Senator Lombard made reference to the payment system but the first thing we need to do is get this sorted. This is the part of CAP that must be sorted. If farmers go outside the system in the context of the derogation, assuming the derogation is renewed, they will end up in trouble in ten or 15 year's time, when the guys in the farming organisations and we politicians have moved on. We saw what happened with the animal medicines issue. We know what Ireland had and what we had to do but now we are caught in a snare.

Are the witnesses at one in saying that they are not accepting this? Do they agree that farmers in Donegal, in the Golden Vale or in County Meath must be treated as one when they apply for their single farm payment and that this new system of derogation under GAEC is not acceptable? We can debate this at length and I would argue with Senator Lombard that for the last 25 years, there was an economic effect on farmers in the west and north west because of a lack of money received from Europe. That could be said about farmers right around the country but they were definitely down the ladder a bit. This is a bigger picture and I would worry about it. Do any of the witnesses think that if this land is taken out of the main single farm payment criteria, down the road it will be moved under the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in terms of biodiversity? We must look at all of this together. Ireland has signed up to the 2030 biodiversity strategy which will see 30% of the country designated. That is what we have committed to through the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. Approximately 10% of that will be an area that we will not even put our foot on. With the best will in the world, we can look for as much State land as possible but that will be gone by the wayside. In terms of the bigger picture, if we take this land out and declare that it is not eligible under the normal CAP but that there is a derogation, down the road it will come under the biodiversity strategy.

I have a question for the witnesses and the Department. I saw a reference in the document from Europe to the effect that farmers will not be allowed to open drains or do certain works on their land. Where are we going in the context of marginal land if we cannot clean a drain or do things like that? Are the farming organisations at one in terms of rejecting this? The Minister can make the decision to try to have this removed.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will invite a number of Deputies to speak and then we will revert to the witnesses for their responses. Deputy Martin Browne is next.

Photo of Martin BrowneMartin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I have a question for each of the farming organisations, the first of which is for the INHFA. There are farmers in my constituency in Tipperary with a stake in this problem and it is sad to see that, judging by the approach being taken here, all of the work they and their forefathers have put into their businesses could potentially be wiped out at the stroke of a pen. We need to be certain that any measures taken in the context of the environment do not deliberately or inadvertently lead to irreversible and negative consequences for farmers and their livelihoods.

Is this uncertainty having an impact on these farms in making plans for the future? If it is, the damage is already done and that message needs to be passed on to everybody involved in the negotiations. We continually hear about the move away from supporting farm incomes and production towards environmental demands, and this was mentioned again in the IFA's opening statement. I am sure we all agree that the best way forward to advance good land management is to bring the farmers along with us. We are talking today about certain types of lands potentially losing agricultural status. The IFA noted that if these matters result in negative consequences for our farmers, they will also have a social impact on rural Ireland. I would like the association to highlight the seriousness of this issue. Will Mr. Cullinan comment on the implications of this kind of an approach for rural Ireland in general? Is it properly thought out?

The ICMSA representatives spoke about the EU food supply chain not functioning properly. Will they comment on how planning issues within our country are having an impact on dairy production? We have seen this in Belview. Is the association concerned that this could set a precedent in the years to come as we face into the new CAP and the post-Brexit environment? Does it have any suggestions with regard to the areas that need to be cleared up here so that these issues will not arise again?

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman very much for the opportunity to question the witnesses. The issue on which I will focus is that of good agricultural and environmental conditions with specific regard to the high-carbon soils that make up a large part of my part of the country: peatland soils. In its submission to the committee, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine tells us that there is absolutely nothing to worry about here and that an effective derogation is available at the national level. In the past, we have seen what happened with derogations in respect of veterinary medicines. We also see it with regard to the nitrates directive at the moment. The derogation from this directive is vital to the operation of agricultural practice across the country. It is important to remind members that our part of the country was designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone to facilitate agricultural production in the southern half of the country, where we did not have issues with regard to nitrates. We now have to farm by calendar to facilitate agricultural production in other parts of the country. That must be remembered as we discuss all of this. The levels of intensity in some parts of the country are a direct result of farmers facilitating the designation of the whole country as a nitrate vulnerable zone, which I believe was wrong. However, because of this, we now have to farm by calendar.

The key issue in respect of all of these derogations is that the derogation has to be invoked by the Minister of the day. That Minister decides whether he or she wants to utilise that derogation. Depending on the political make-up of a particular Government, the Minister may decide not to invoke that derogation. I have had personal experience in the past of the Commission putting pressure on me, as a Minister, not to invoke particular provisions to facilitate another agenda. We cannot allow peatland soils to be singled out, whether today or in the future. There needs to be a commitment from all farm organisations that they will not allow peatland soils to be singled out either through the facilitation of a derogation, through a new Irish land use policy being developed down the road or through future interpretations of good agricultural and environmental conditions that would result in these peatland soils being restricted in agricultural practice.

We need to address this issue now because, as was stated, it may not happen in the current round of CAP, but we will be impacted by this in the future. It will have a significant impact across large swathes of the country if this principle is broken in differentiating between peatland and non-peatland soil.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to the representatives of the farming organisations for the last time. I ask the representatives to be as brief as possible because we are eating into the time allocated for discussion with representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the Marine. I will go to Mr. Cullinan first.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I thank the Chairman. I could not agree more with the point made by Deputy Fitzmaurice. If one goes down the road of derogation, it is a slippery slope. Deputy Naughten referred the nitrates derogation, where one must go back year after year to reapply for derogation. I am clear that, in the context of these carbon-rich soils, we cannot have a system for one type of farming and another system for the other type of farming. In fairness to the Deputy, I recall working with him in 2004 and 2005 on the issue of nitrates. We did not go for zones but, rather, for the country as a whole. Our position is clear that that is where we are staying and we will fight that to the bitter end. A clear message for the Minister is that he cannot divide the country. The same agricultural practice has to follow through.

Deputy Browne raised the issue of divergence in the context of taking farmers' income to support environmental measures. As was stated earlier, in the dry stock sector, anything from 130% to 160% of farmers' income comes from direct payments. We are now being asked to do an eco-scheme. It will impact on anything from 20% to 30% of the direct Pillar 1 payment that was put in place to compensate farmers for producing cheap food. We are nine months out from signing off on this but the Department and the Minister have given us no clues as to what we have to do. We have no problem working with the environment. We have been doing so for many years, playing our part. We are the actors in the chain who will play our part in the future on climate change, but we need fair play on this. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

To deal first with the question asked by Deputy Fitzmaurice, we certainly believe that if land is being farmed, it should be eligible, regardless of soil type. A derogation of any form, whether it is nitrates or in any other way, creates uncertainty and bureaucracy. Over time, we have seen with the nitrates derogation that the bar rises. That may also answer the question asked by Deputy Naughten.

As regards the point raised by Deputy Browne on the EU supply chain malfunctioning, we represent primary producers who are receiving a price that they received 30 or 35 years ago. All other sectors along the food supply chain increase or maintain their margin while the margin of the primary producer is eroded.

The Deputy alluded to the Belview plant. We met the Taoiseach last week on that particular issue, as well as the Minister for Agriculture and the Marine. It has put the industry and, in particular, that process and entity, at a crossroads. It is a juncture at which it had not expected to find itself. The consequences could be widespread in the country and, equally, could be drastic across rural Ireland. Since the abolition of quotas, we have seen a vibrancy, which was not present in rural Ireland for a significant period, with young people and those from other sectors transferring to dairy farming. That could all be brought to an end very easily. It needs to be watched very closely in the coming period.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I noted that Mr. Punch joined the meeting a few minutes ago. We tried to go to him previously.

Does Mr. Punch wish to contribute?

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

Mr. Punch's Internet connection is very poor.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot seem to get Mr. Punch so Mr. Kelleher can contribute.

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

I will first answer Deputy Fitzmaurice.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

-----based on where he came from. Whether it is crag, mountain, good land, bad land, limestone, upland or low land, that is where he has been born and reared, and that is all he would have. This was my argument about this. The Deputy went on with this ineligibility and marginal land. Marginal land is grand if one has 50 or 60 acres of good land with just a corner of marginal land. If one has been born in a place in west Cork, south Kerry, Ballymakeery or somewhere and one is born in a place that has 60 of 70 acres of marginal land then that is all one has. So, one cannot call it marginal land because it is all one has. I have spent my life fighting for that principle. Especially the more biodiverse land is now, then the more eligible it should be. The Government wants biodiversity and habitats but then there is a lad drawing red circles around these places trying to make them ineligible. One hand must know what the other hand is doing. I totally agree with what was said by Deputy Fitzmaurice, in that no farmer should be discriminated against based on where he came from or what land he was born into.

As for different farming practices and having the same farming practices all over the country, that is not correct either because a farmer with 200 or 300 acres in County Meath or in the Golden Vale will have very different farming practices from somebody with a 100 acres on top of a mountain out west around Dingle, back around west Cork or somewhere who is trying to scrape a living from between rocks and bushes. Yet the Department is trying to tell him that his land is not eligible any more. I know young fellows who had the same amount of stock as their father and grandfather yet they were told that their lands were ineligible, which is totally wrong. The more biodiverse land is then the more eligible it should be.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear from representatives of the INHFA before we finish this session.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell:

I can assure Deputy Fitzmaurice that we are certainly against the differentiating of land. I was surprised when I got a communication from him that the Commission has proposed to count this proposed GAEC 2 derogation to ineligible hectare standard rules. Consequently, the Commission is referring to it as a derogation at this stage. The Minister's position will be that minimum protection is better than the Parliament's effective protection and appropriate protection by the Commission. Anywhere, where the word "protection" is mentioned in terms of a GAEC smells like a designation to me. Farmers will have to comply with standards of GAECs in order to get a basic income support for sustainability, to get their first year of a payment. If this is onerous then this will leave farmers in a difficult position to build a payment in environmental measures or, indeed, in the eco scheme. My colleague, Mr. O'Donnell, wants to make a quick point and I will leave it at that.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell:

It is quite heartening to hear widespread support for not having more derogations, and they are ineffective, as has been evidenced in many areas.

On the whole area of GAEC 2, the question must be asked what do we want. The opening statement submitted by representatives of the Department to the Oireachtas today states "While we must await the final text before we can finalise any management requirements under GAEC 2". To be honest, my interpretation of this is it would look as though the Minister and his Department were actually outside of this process and were awaiting a resolution. The reality is that we are very much part of the negotiations and discussion here, and we need to step up and get this flawed wording removed.

It is not right that the Department is saying it is awaiting the final text. It can have an input into the final text, and that is what we are seeking. This flawed amendment, which leads to a derogation and the end of agricultural activity on peat soils, must be removed. That is what INHFA is seeking here. Referring to the Department's statement again, GAEC 2 standard is lumped in with eco schemes, landscape features and issues under GAEC 9. That is not what is in this Council amendment. GAEC 2 is separated as an area of the holding. It is not an agricultural area of the holding. This must be acted on and the House must convey that message.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I have to conclude this session. I thank all the organisations. Obviously, this is a very important issue. As Chairman of the committee, I will convey to the Minister the sentiments that were strongly expressed today. This is an issue we will focus on again in the near future. We will now have a session with officials from the Department and we will raise with them the issues of great concern for the farming organisations. This was a very worthwhile debate and very informative from our point of view. I thank all the witnesses.

I will suspend the meeting so we can bring in the next witnesses.

Sitting suspended at 11.52 a.m. and resumed at 11.53 a.m.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We resume in public session. I welcome the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary; Ms Sharon Murphy, principal officer, EU division; and Mr. Tom Keating, senior inspector, integrated controls. I apologise for being a little late in coming to this session, but we had a session earlier with the farming organisations. This is a very important issue for the organisations and their representatives made many strong points to the committee. That is the reason for the delay.

We have received your opening statement and it has been circulated to the members. We are limited in time due to Covid-19 restrictions so the committee has agreed that the opening statement will be taken as read so we can use the time for questions and answers, as we did in the first part of this meeting. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website and are publicly available.

There is an important notice relating to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence relating to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected to the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which their participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for coming in. The CAP was brought in to subsidise the price of food. Why are all these different parts being put onto it which put more onerous conditions on farmers? I am asking questions one by one. My second question is on a document from the European Commission. It is clearly stated in five parts of the document that under the GAEC 2 this is a derogation for member states to apply. That is stated by the Commission. Why then is the Department calling it an amendment? It was highlighted earlier but at the end, under a derogation, is it not very clear that a minister applies for that? If there is a minister who is opposed to letting farmers work in those areas where they had been farming it is entirely up to that minister.

After 25 years of CAP, why are we now going down a road whereby some farmers in this country are being differentiated based on whether they have mineral soils or peat soils? Can the officials answer that? On top of that, in the document, it states that where a farmer would not be able to clean drains or carry out works, this sort of backdoor job would be operating. Do the officials envisage that farmers with peaty soils will be stopped from doing certain works? What vision does the Department have for what we will call the boggy or peaty soils, especially in the mountains?

Over the coming years, if we go into Pillar 2, is the Department signing up along with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to the 2030 target whereby 30% of our country will be designated and some of it will be strictly protected? One will not get that on State land. Are the officials working with that Department to pencil in areas which may be suitable for this? When farmers go into Pillar 2, be it an environmental scheme or other eco schemes or another type of scheme which is brought out, if they put land into a habitat or biodiversity, will the officials guarantee that that farmer will be able to go in with a digger and pull it apart again to make it eligible for what we might call tier 1 now, of being able to apply for a single farm payment? I ask because obviously under this proposed new system there is going to be a two-tier system. I ask that the officials answer those questions one by one.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the officials take note of that. I will let in one more member and then we will get back to them. I call Deputy Browne.

Photo of Martin BrowneMartin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ultimately, what we are seeing here is how our family farmers, on whatever type of land they are farming, are having to fight tooth and nail to be heard and for their livelihoods to be put front and centre. In this particular case farmers who are struggling to make a living are actually trying to ensure their land is not being stripped of agricultural status. That is effectively going to lock them out of farming and the supports they need to survive. The offer of a possible derogation is misleading and could actually draw them into a situation of carrying out these actions, which make farming impossible and which they fear may not be reversible in future. They need to see measures being taken by the Minister to assure them that what is being done is not deliberate.

In County Tipperary our farmers are responsible for some of the most picturesque and environmentally rich lands which fall under the GAEC conditions. However, there is an issue of trust there. I have three or four questions.

As the witnesses will be aware, farmers in Tipperary with lands in the Galtee and Knockmealdown mountains are concerned that the technicalities of what we are talking about today are going to trip them and the Department up and that will have huge consequences. In addition, farmers on commonages are concerned that if the technical details under GAEC 2 are not properly thought out that could result in a decision by one farmer to meet the GAEC 2 conditions, meaning that it will also be imposed upon others nearby without them having a say. Can the representatives from the Department confirm that this issue has been addressed? Will the officials confirm if they have relayed the concerns of our farmers to their counterparts elsewhere in the EU? Will they also negotiate a way to give long-term assurances to those farmers not signing away their land concerning their ability to actively farm forever? Is it possible to give those assurances to farmers?

Mr. Paul Savage:

I thank Deputies Martin Browne and Fitzmaurice for the points they have made and the questions they have asked, which give me a chance to make some comments. I begin with some overall comments from my perspective regarding the overall direction in which we are travelling in this regard. I will ask for further input from colleagues, including Ms Murphy and Mr. Keating, on some of the more technical elements as we go through the process of answering the questions.

I start with some of the points made initially by Deputy Fitzmaurice. Concerning the CAP originally subsidising the price of food and why these additional conditions or further requirements are now being imposed on farmers, the only way I can answer that query is by looking at the evolution of the CAP itself over the past 20 to 30 years. It would certainly have been introduced essentially as a means to provide support for the sector in the form of market supports or subsidies to support the price of different food products. However, that of course led to problems over the early part of the CAP. We have since seen changes in what the CAP does in recent years and a move to much more of a market orientation for the CAP and away from direct price support, if we want to call it that. The CAP has now moved more towards market orientation and supporting farmers through a type of income support structure, as it is now essentially, which provides a foundation then for farmers to respond to the demands of the market and the requirements of the wider development of the industry, and for them to feed into that wider development.

That market orientation has characterised the CAP over the past 15 to 20 years, and I suppose gradually over the latest period. We have also seen an increasing environmental dimension to the CAP in recent years. That environmental dimension and focus is, if anything, intensifying. It has been doing so in recent years and it is going to intensify more in the future because there are major pressures from consumers globally concerning expectations of environmental standards associated with food production. In addition, there has been an impact from the targets we have set for ourselves domestically in the climate action plan, as well as in respect of the targets set at European concerning the green deal and the farm-to-fork and biodiversity strategies now in place. There must also be consideration of the expectations of stakeholders and of people generally who have an interest in ensuring that farming and food production takes place in an environmentally sustainable way. I think that aspect will continue to characterise the CAP in future and there is an increasing focus in that area.

These extra conditions or requirements to which Deputy Fitzmaurice referred are, therefore, a reflection of the way the CAP is evolving. It is a reflection of the hugely increased environmental pressure regarding the standards we must meet and the level of ambition we must try to achieve. We are, however, trying to do that, and member states and the parliament have been trying to do this on the basis of continuing to support farm incomes while also endeavouring to redirect the CAP to support these market-oriented and environmental objectives. Income support obviously remains a key objective of the CAP and that will continue to inform the reform process in future.

Another point touched on regarding expenditure and farm incomes concerns the budgetary negotiations and where we stand regarding the budget we have for the next CAP. We have seen, for example, a slight increase overall in Ireland's budget for the CAP and a slight decrease on-----

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting, but we are limited on time. We have probably heard enough on the issue of the CAP. Could we move on to the GAEC 2 and the other questions I asked, with no disrespect to Mr. Savage?

Other members want to get in as well. We need to know about this derogation and why the Department is calling it something different. We need to have the other questions answered. The first thing we must do is get farmers in line for it but is it possible to have those other questions answered?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Of course. With the Chairman's permission, I am happy to move to the other questions that were raised. With regard to GAEC 2 and differentiating between peat soils or providing a derogation for member states, for example, I can make some general comments before leaving it open for colleagues to provide some detail. There are a number of different provisions within the regulations that provide for the management of soils and the maintenance of what we call eligible hectare. There are a couple of different elements. The GAEC 2 is a new requirement that is coming in as part of conditionality and the protection of wetlands and peatlands. It is clear that this new requirement is coming in as part of CAP reform. It is linked to provisions in the regulations, specifically Article 12 and Article 4 in particular.

Article 12 makes it clear that member states must define the GAEC standards in accordance with their own local farming conditions. Member states set the standard that must be achieved under each of the GAECs. It is up to member states themselves, subject to compliance with the overall regulatory framework, to decide the level at which the bar should be set in terms of management to fulfil GAEC requirements. In the case of GAEC 2, for example, there are different approaches in the wording from the Commission, the Parliament and the European Council. The Council's wording speaks about minimum protection of wetlands and peatlands by 2025 at the latest. It is up to the member states to decide the minimum level of protection they want to set as part of the implementation of that GAEC. Therefore, we have freedom at member state level to set the requirement in accordance with our local conditions. This is under the article and it is clear it is the member states' responsibility and there is flexibility in doing this.

Article 4, meanwhile, goes into some detail on the definition of eligible land. There are a number of different elements to that. One of the elements referred to is the possibility of land that would continue to be considered eligible despite the fact that something may be done on that land in the context of implementing a GAEC 2 requirement. If the land were to become ineligible as a result of that practice, member states could nevertheless continue to make payments on that land as if it were eligible land, essentially.

The key point is that this is not a derogation as such. There is provision in the legislation. We speak about an amendment but it is an amendment to the text that was submitted by the Commission in the first place, which speaks to the areas that would continue to be considered eligible for payments. Under that there is specific reference made to any lands subject to a management practice under GAEC 2. It essentially means that if anything is done in the context of GAEC 2 that might otherwise lead to land being made ineligible, it is up to member states to decide whether that is the case and they could continue to consider that land as eligible.

This is not a derogation. It has been said before that we must still agree the detail of the regulations between three institutions. Even in the context of the wording as it currently stands, there is no intention for a member state to apply for a derogation on this. This is around member states exercising the flexibility they have been given in the regulations to define what is required under the standard. In the context of doing that or implementing GAEC 2, for example, if a member state made a requirement under GAEC 2 that would otherwise render lands ineligible, the member state could still treat those lands as eligible and pay on them as eligible lands. It is at member states' discretion.

Ultimately, this is about providing the framework within which member states can make a decision. In our case we will look at local conditions, as other member states would do, in order to set a standard under GAEC 2. We want to be able to do that in a way that is manageable and which upholds our obligations to comply with GAEC 2 while giving the scope to build on that with potential ecological schemes.

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the EU telling lies in the meeting of 16 March?

The word "derogation" is used three times in the one document. Are they telling us lies in this document or who else is?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Again, I do not have the document in front of me. All I can say-----

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will send it to Mr. Savage if he needs it.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Absolutely, and I can come back to the Deputy on that perhaps in more detail after the meeting. I do not have sight directly of the document he is talking about. People can use easy phrases such as "derogation" to describe what is quite a complex matter. Looking purely at the text of the regulation as it stands, with both the Council amendments and the European Parliament's amendments, it can be quite complex to navigate through it and to follow through the different sub-components of those articles, particularly Article 4, which is quite dense in its definition or setting out of the requirements surrounding an eligible hectare. It is easy to refer to that as a derogation.

Again, not having sight of the document the Deputy is talking about directly, I am saying, looking at the layout of the text in the regulation as it stands, including the changes the Council had proposed, that what is being set out is that member states have the flexibility to define and set the standard in GAEC 2. If, as part of the process of setting that standard, land were to be made ineligible, in accordance with the normal consideration of land being eligible for payment, then member states would have the ability to continue to consider those lands eligible for payment. I think that is where the derogation piece comes in. That is where people refer to it as derogation, but it is up to member states themselves to continue to treat those lands as eligible for payment. That will very much depend on what member states decide to do as part of the requirement for GAEC 2. As I said, we will look at that in the context of complying with the requirement but also leaving scope for further development and further actions on those lands under eco schemes and under Pillar 2.

Photo of Matt CarthyMatt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Photo of Paul DalyPaul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the departmental officials. I will be very brief. Most of what was raised in our first session that needed to be brought to this session has been raised by Deputies Fitzmaurice and Carthy. I would like to gain a little bit of an insight as to how the Department is approaching the negotiations. Based on what we have been told by the INHFA in particular, what is the viewpoint of the Department when it comes to good agricultural environmental conditions, in particular high carbon soils?

To be devil's advocate, and I do not want it to go out that I am condoning this or that I am in favour of it, if we have to go down this road somewhat, what preparation has the Department done? How will it differentiate between soils? In my area there is a lot of land with two extreme soils in the one field. The best of land backs down to a bog. In a 10-acre field there could be 8 acres of the finest agricultural soil with 2 acres down at the bottom that are well drained and getting farmed in the same way as the higher ground. How will the Department differentiate in this case? To reiterate, I am being devil's advocate. In the worst-case scenario, if farmers are not allowed claim a single payment on this type of soil what other compensation will they get? How will carbon credits, sequestration and carbon storage envisaged for the land be offset in the agriculture sector? How will Irish agriculture as a whole gain from this sacrifice, for want of a better word? How is the Department approaching this?

Another issue that came up was with regard to the discussion about convergence and the genuine farmer. Robin Hood was mentioned in the previous session. Rob the rich to pay the poor was the Robin Hood outlook. In this case, it seems we are robbing the poor to pay the rich. We also robbing the poor to pay the poor. If we go back to the reference years, where a farmer had above average payments, in particular a small farmer, that is a sign that he was an active farmer at the time. He was claiming the subsidies and schemes and he was working hard. Now he is being punished to pay his neighbour who may not have been nearly as active as a farmer. There is a major contradiction there when we talk about active farmers and convergence in the current conversation. I would like a comment on that.

Photo of Tim LombardTim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Paul Daly made an interesting contribution about soil types in the same location and how we will define that and have a policy in place that will tie all that together. On every farm, there are what one would consider a few wet acres, to say the least. Will we work on electoral districts? Will we work on townlands? Every townland has a different soil type. It will be interesting to see if we can put in place a system for the different soil types that will work on the ground. Will a survey of every field in the country be proposed? How will the work be done on the ground? I know from my part of the world that Senator Daly is right and one has different soil types in different fields, or even in the same field, depending on where it leads. That is a major issue.

The definition of "active farmer" and how that plays into this debate will be a defining moment for the CAP. Does "active farmer" mean somebody who is actively farming the land or someone who owns the land? What level of activity is required to be an active farmer? Will we see holdings purchase a few store cattle to be cleared as active farmers, while renting out the rest of the holding? Will that scenario arise in the new CAP? It has been an issue since 2002. I was criticised for using the terminology "armchair farmer" but we have a major issue with a cohort of landowners who lease land with entitlements on a continuous basis. The farmer who is working and farming the land is doing so to pay back the entitlements. That is the way farming in Ireland has worked since the early 2000s and it has had a negative impact, particularly on efforts to get young people into the industry. It has been a barrier to the younger generation building up a holding.

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.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Mr. Savage might reply to Deputy Carthy in writing to those.

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes. On the organic farming scheme and the agri-environment scheme, I will follow up in more detail afterwards.

Deputy Carthy also mentioned the 7.5% target and if that was the EU average.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Savage might reply in writing to Deputy Carthy on those matters.

Mr. Paul Savage:

I will pick up on the comments of Senators Paul Daly and Lombard. On the overall point on the approach to the negotiations, I mentioned earlier on that the GAEC 2 text that has been agreed by the Council is the one the Council will be defending in the negotiations. We have not yet got back to that point. The Portuguese Presidency has moved away from all of these environmental matters. Once Portugal took over the Presidency in January it went to other aspects of the regulations. Under the German Presidency we had some initial contacts on some of these issues but the Portuguese have not taken that forward yet and they do not intend to do so until the next stage of the negotiation from their perspective over the coming weeks. We have not yet seen any detailed engagement between Parliament and Council on some of these issues. In that respect, it will be a case of waiting to see what happens with the text but from our perspective we will still be reflecting on how we set the standard for GAEC 2 in a way that provides the flexibility to build on that through eco schemes and Pillar 2 measures that I mentioned earlier.

Senator Lombard was talking about soil types and he picked up on Senator Paul Daly's comments on different soil types on pieces of land that are close to each other. I take the point about needing a system that will work on the ground. We have to do our best to try to acknowledge the different types of systems that are in place. We try to make sure that the schemes we put in place are tailored to deal with the challenges that are presented by different soil types in different parts of the country and our schemes are designed in a way that we can respond as best we can. That has to be dictated by the CAP framework that we agree. That is more of a technical detail that we need to work through in some of the measures that we will eventually end up putting in place as part of the CAP strategic plan.

Senators Lombard and Paul Daly mentioned the genuine or active farmer and we are looking at this issue. It formed part of that recent consultation with stakeholders around some of these direct payment issues and we got feedback from all of the stakeholders. There was unanimity that we need a definition of a genuine or active farmer. The challenge is to try to set that in a way that is meaningful and that allows us to make payments in an accurate and proper way. We will be giving some thought to some of the options that stakeholders have put to us, including some of the options that were mentioned here in terms of activity on the ground. We would have to look at those options and then decide what is the most appropriate measure we can put in place in defining a genuine farmer. That is part of the evolution of the process over the coming weeks and months.

Photo of Michael CollinsMichael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A lot of the questions I wanted to raise have already been raised, which is fine. The definition of an active farmer has been raised with me quite often. As others have said, there are farmers out there who are growing corn, fodder beet, grass, maize or silage for sale. They deem themselves to be hugely important to the agriculture sector and there are concerns that they will deemed as armchair farmers, which would probably be unfair to a lot of them. The witnesses might be able to give us more clarity on that.

On the negotiations on farm payments, disadvantaged or single farm payments will be up for review. I have always fought for the small farmer, whether male or female, and those involved in family farms. Many times I have lost the fight on small farmers, some of whom only get payments of €2,000, €3,000, €4,000 or €5,000, which is an outrageous sum. It is disastrous and wipes out small farms. In some situations there are massive payments of well in excess of €100,000 made to some. How do the witnesses see that faring out?

There is another hammer blow coming with this new REP scheme with figures of €4,700 being talked about. Imagine all the payments that have to come out of that before the farmer even gets his or her hands on the few cent to put food on his or her table. Where are we going with those negotiations? I mention the farmer who is below or slightly above the threshold of 10 acres. What kind of future has he or she got or what can he or she look forward to? Can the witnesses give us some input into how that is rolling out?

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that two non-members of the committee, Deputies Naughten and Pringle, want to come in but, unfortunately, we are over time for this session, so I ask the two Deputies to submit their questions to the secretariat. We will get Mr. Savage to reply in writing to them. This is obviously a hugely important issue. A framework is being set for the next seven years. It is hugely important to the whole agricultural sector and the economy in general, so we will return to this again. The Covid restriction of two hours per committee session makes it extremely difficult to have the full debate we would want. I ask Mr. Savage to address Deputy Michael Collins's remarks and we will send Mr. Savage questions from Deputies Naughten and Pringle to which he might reply in writing to the committee if he would not mind. Is that okay, Mr. Savage?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Certainly. We would be very happy to respond in writing to any questions submitted after the meeting concludes.

On the general point about payments, the disparity or divergence in the level of payments being received by different farmers and how we might address that, in terms of low payments or redistributive options available to us, we have seen an evolution on this over recent years in terms of convergence, for instance, and moving payments from some farmers to others. The motivation of the previous CAP reform was to try to achieve a greater level of fairness in the distribution of payments and to provide more consistency to the level of payments. Obviously, this resulted in a large shift of payments over the period from 2014 to 2019 from some farmers to others. There are issues around that and around those who have high-value entitlements perhaps suffering more than those with lower-value entitlements in terms of convergence. There are other anomalies within that system, which are very difficult to address. Obviously, within a large and almost one-size-fits-all convergence system, there will always be anomalies. From our perspective, however, we have to look at these things as an overall package. Direct payments are comprised of a number of different elements. There is capping, convergence and payments to young farmers. There will be the new eco scheme payments, for instance. They will come from Pillar 1. There will also be the redistributive option that is currently being discussed as part of the negotiations. All these things will have to be looked at in the round in the context of the scope we have at the end of the day to redistribute payments. We have said some of these options should be voluntary for member states in terms of a voluntary redistributive payment, for instance. However, we have to consider what the combined effects of all these things will be on payments. How do we ensure that their impact is as fair as possible, while also keeping in line with the ethos or the thrust of the regulations, which is to get a greater degree of fairness? All I will say on that is that we are doing a lot of modelling at the moment on where the current system and where convergence, capping and other elements have left us over the past five years in terms of payment distributions around the country. We are looking at the potential options or the potential impacts of things such as 75% convergence, as currently proposed in the regulations, and the impacts across different farm types and sectors. We have to do a lot more modelling in looking at the impact of that convergence but also building in some of these other elements such as redistributive payments, the initial cut from the direct payments for eco schemes etc. We are working through those elements.

Again, all that modelling cannot be finalised until we have a full picture of what the regulations and that package of direct payment measures will look like. To reassure Deputy Michael Collins, I think the overall approach here will be to try to strike the right balance in combining all those measures in order that we get a degree of fairness in the system. However, as we said the last time, when we were doing the reform for the current period, we want to try to make sure not only that there is fairness there but also that we are not causing any undue or untoward impact on those who have, for instance, invested in their farms and undertaken expansion programmes or other programmes on the ground. We want to try to strike that balance. I think we will just have to wait and see what measures are available to us on foot of the end of the negotiations and on foot of the modelling we complete. Then we will decide what the best combination is.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage for being very constructive with his information provided to the committee. As I have said previously, this is a hugely important topic, and this is the time to try to have our influence on the policy that will be there for the next seven years. We will, I am sure, as a committee return to this in the very near future and look for the Department's input again. I thank Mr. Savage on behalf of the committee.

I now propose we suspend until 2 p.m.-----

Photo of Martin BrowneMartin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before you finish, Chairman, could Mr. Savage answer the question I asked about the commonage?

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get Mr. Savage to send a response in writing to Deputy Browne, if that is okay, because I am getting very sour looks from my secretary here. Has Mr. Savage that taken on board?

Mr. Paul Savage:

Yes.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage.

I propose we suspend until 2 p.m. this afternoon, when we will meet representatives of Teagasc to discuss the impact of the new climate action plan on the agricultural sector. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 12.41 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.