Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this Topical Issue and giving me time to clarify some of the issues involved in what is a very complex matter for many. The Minister is away at a jobs announcement in Tullamore in the drinks industry. That is the way we do business. I want to be helpful, if at all possible.

GLAS is designed around a tiered approach and the tiers are based on a consideration of priority environmental assets and actions. The tiered approach will give priority access to farmers with important environmental assets. In the case of commonage owners, priority access under tier 1 is guaranteed if at least 50% of the active shareholders sign up to a commonage plan for their commonage. This figure of 50% must be explained better. The next level of prioritisation is tier 2 which largely covers farms with watercourses classified as "vulnerable". Under tier 3, farms which do not fulfil any of the criteria for tiers 1 and 2 but who commit to a series of general environmental actions will qualify.

The proposed maximum payment is €5,000 per annum, with the scheme building up to the inclusion of some 50,000 farmers, with envisaged total expenditure of €1,450 million over the programming period. It is also proposed that, within budget limits, a GLAS+ payment would be put in place for a limited number of farmers who take on particularly challenging actions which deliver an exceptional level of environmental benefit. It is proposed that this payment will be up to €2,000 per annum in addition to the €5,000 paid under GLAS. That gives a total of €7,000.

My priority and that of the Government is to get the rural development programme as a whole approved by the European Commission in order that I can open GLAS as quickly as possible and include up to 30,000 farmers whom I want to attract in year one. Operational details can and will be looked at, but the over-riding imperative is to get GLAS up and running as soon as possible.

There was significant consultation. The Minister travelled the country to see what people wanted prior to the introduction of Pillar 2. When I entered the Department last June, it was at the end of the period of negotiations. If we take ourselves back to that time, the reality is that in Brussels during the Irish Presidency, the Minister handled the negotiations to bring them to a conclusion. I stress that consultation with the farming organisations took place at all times and that they were certainly happy with them.

Turning to look specifically at commonages, the position is as follows. Payments under GLAS can only be made in respect of actions going beyond the baseline

requirements under the basic payment scheme under Pillar 1 of the CAP. In simple terms, this means that a farmer cannot be paid twice for the same commitment under both schemes. I doubt if anyone will disagree with this. Since the introduction of agri-environment schemes in the 1990s, the Pillar 1 baseline has been progressively raised for each programming period and this challenges us all in developing schemes that gain approval at EU level. There is so much that needs to be explained. That is what has given rise to all the hysteria.

Farmers are required under the basic payment scheme to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, and commonage land is no exception to this requirement. Therefore, in order to secure funding for hill farmers under GLAS, we have to design a scheme which manifestly goes beyond the baseline. We also have to ensure the commitments outlined are measurable and controllable as this is critical to securing approval. The key characteristic of commonage land is that it is farmed in common and the actions undertaken under GLAS will have to reflect this. We cannot have multiple and varying plans submitted for the commonage - we need a single plan lodged by a single adviser that sets out clearly what the objectives are over a five year period and what those participating in this plan will do individually and together to achieve these objectives.

On this point, we clearly need to have sufficient people working together to achieve the best results for the commonages in the interests of both the farming community and the environment. I believe 50% participation is the minimum required to make this work and, in recognition of the additional effort involved, I have increased the rate of payment from €75 per hectare under the last programme to €120 per hectare for GLAS. I have listened very carefully to the concerns of hill farmers and recognise that they are real. That is why over the course of the consultation process on the RDP which have extended to a year and half we have adapted and rebalanced our proposals for commonages. It is particularly important to point out that the 50% requirement is based on active farmers only, that is, those actually grazing the commonage. To give an example, if there are 20 shareholders on a commonage but only ten of them are actively grazing the land, the 50% requirement to trigger priority access to GLAS is just five farmers. I do not believe a minimum participation requirement based on this model is insurmountable, but where real difficulties are being encountered, I have already said the farmers concerned can approach the commonage implementation committee to make their case.

Other issues that I know have been of concern to hill farmers include clarity on the Pillar 1 baseline, having adequate time to adapt, the imposition of minimum and maximum stocking levels and the imposition of penalties. We have brought a good deal of clarity to all of these issues in public statements in recent weeks and my sense is that farmers are much more comfortable with what is being proposed. The baseline has been set at 0.1 of a livestock unit per hectare, with farmers having until December 2015 to achieve this. I have made it very clear that my Department will not be imposing minimum-maximum stocking levels for each commonage, but it will provide such figures to help guide the planning process. It is open to the shareholders themselves to propose a different regime if they believe it is better suited to the needs of the commonage. The objectives of the GLAS plan are to be achieved over time and penalties will be applied individually where it is clear that an individual is at fault - there is no question of the group being penalised for something that was clearly the responsibility of an individual.

I hope and believe we have addressed many of the concerns of hill farmers in the clarification provided to date. I have also arranged for a series of public meetings at key locations nationwide in order that farmers will have an opportunity to talk to officials from my Department, ask their questions and consider the replies. We are reaching a stage where all sides can see that we have much more in common on this important matter than might have been realised to date.

See this speech in context