Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Ó Cuív.

I must express my surprise at some of the comments, particular those from Deputy Pringle. I consider myself a proud European and I believe that Ireland benefits from being at the heart of Europe. I also believe passionately in the principle of subsidiarity, enshrined in the Maastricht treaty, with member states having power over as many elements as they can rather than having all powers centralised. I was shocked to hear the Deputy state that he would prefer power to be centralised in Brussels rather than the Government having a say in such matters.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter. This Private Members’ motion will allow me to provide greater clarity regarding the Council’s proposals for GAEC 2. This is important because the motion demonstrates that there may, unfortunately, be a misunderstanding about the proposed Council text as set out in the draft CAP regulations. The proposed text, which is intended to provide certainty to farmers that vital direct payments will continue to be paid, appears to be misinterpreted in some quarters as indicating intention on the part of member states to prevent farming on such lands. This is simply not the case. That is not and never has been our intention.

The motion is not being opposed because it is vital that we use this opportunity to build a better understanding of what is, admittedly, a complex drafting issue. Most importantly, I want to ensure all parties have a clear grasp of what we intend to put in place under the proposed GAEC 2 for Irish farmers.

The next CAP has many goals to achieve. As has always been the case, it needs to support farm incomes. However, it must also ensure the schemes implemented under the new CAP strategic plan deliver significantly improved environmental outcomes. The European Commission’s proposals for the next CAP have been subject to ongoing debate in the European Council and European Parliament since their publication in June 2018. Both institutions agreed their respective positions on the proposals in October 2020. Trilogue discussions between them and the European Commission commenced in November 2020 which are still ongoing.

The new CAP has an increased environmental ambition. It must also help achieve the ambitious targets outlined in the European Green New Deal through, for example, the farm to fork and the biodiversity strategies. I support this. Likewise, I support the protection of our farm incomes. Sustainability of farm incomes is as important as sustainability of our environment and society as set out in the draft 2030 strategy for our agrifood sector. This increased ambition was a key factor in reaching the final agreement on the CAP budget last year, when, in the face of planned significant cuts, the Government achieved an increase in it. As a result, the way in which farmers receive support is changing with the emphasis shifting much more definitively to a focus on better environmental outcomes, delivered through the green architecture.

This green architecture combines greater environmental and climate ambition with Pillar 1 payments with further environmental achievement through Pillar 2 schemes. As part of the increasing climate ambition, it includes new standards such as the introduction of a new GAEC 2 which aims to protect peatland and wetlands due to the importance of these carbon-rich soils. The protection of such areas is important for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as for biodiversity.

The Council’s proposals for the new CAP set out clearly that it is member states which will define these areas and set out the appropriate management practices to be deployed. I, along with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, have consistently called for appropriate national flexibility in this regard. Together we have succeeded in ensuring that the Council’s position provides for that.

We need to be able to consider how best we can implement the new standards to take account of our own farming structures. When we set this new standard, it will relate to how people will continue to farm these lands and not to the prohibition of all agricultural activities in these areas. With our feet on the ground, we as Ministers know what is needed in Ireland better than anyone else.

GAECs are minimum standards. That is how they are defined in the Council text. It is the stated intention of the European Commission that the other elements of the green architecture, such as eco-schemes and multi-annual agri-environmental schemes, should also be made available to farmers affected by GAEC 2 standards to reward farmers who implement further actions which achieve an additional environmental benefit. It is my view that this will be the case. The Council text does not prevent this from happening in any way.

To support this increased environmental ambition under the new CAP, the Council general approach aims to provide certainty to farmers that direct payments will continue for these lands, regardless of any issues which might occur due to the introduction of new schemes such as the new eco-scheme. The Council text includes proposed language that guarantees that farmers’ lands will continue to be regarded as eligible hectares for the purpose of direct payments regardless of any requirements of eco-schemes or the standards of GAEC 2 and GAEC 9 with regards to non-productive features and landscape features or land managed under paludiculture. However, this additional language in Article 4 of the draft CAP strategic plan regulation has no bearing on what the actual requirements of the GAEC 2 standard will be. This, as I have said, is up to member states to define. We are essentially asking farmers to commit to new basic standards. We are also seeking their participation in additional actions under eco-schemes and multi-annual agri-environmental schemes.

As we embark on the next CAP, farmers are surely entitled to have certainty that payments will continue. This desire on the part of member states at Council to provide certainty for farmers, as well as having it reflected in the regulations, is being misinterpreted as an intention to introduce standards that would prohibit farming on these lands. This is simply not the case.

The standards for GAEC 2 will be set out by member states, with national flexibility, under the language in Annex III of the draft CAP proposal. When the Commission made its proposals for this new GAEC, the suggested text was "appropriate protection of wetland and peatland". The Council wanted to ensure the protection under this GAEC, while effective, also clearly left scope for subsequent eco-schemes and multi-annual environmental schemes to be implemented on these lands. We also recognised that additional time would be necessary to put the new requirements in place. Accordingly, the Council has chosen to amend the wording to read “minimum protection of wetland and peatland at the latest by 2025”. Far from including a text to ban agriculture, the Council has proposed a text that allows additional time for the new standard to be introduced, while, at the same time, recognising that further environmental programmes, such as eco-schemes, are capable of being implemented on these lands.

I consider that it is the European Parliament’s suggested language, “effective protection of wetland and appropriate maintenance of peatland”, that places greater demands about what the new standard will consist of than the Council’s text. The European Parliament’s text also demands the immediate implementation of the new standard at the beginning of the new CAP which it continues to press for in trilogue negotiations.

Those who have raised their concerns about the new standard should consider this aspect carefully. They should highlight these issues and raise their concerns with MEPs. We need a better understanding from the European Parliament that more time is needed to allow farmers and member states prepare for this new GAEC, as well as asking it to support the Council’s wording on minimum protection.

Despite the misunderstanding at the heart of this motion, there is a key point that I fully share with the proposers. We need to ensure appropriate and effective national GAEC standards that farmers can clearly understand and implement as they go about their day-to-day farming on these lands. It is the Minister’s intention to establish an appropriate and effective GAEC 2 standard which will allow continued appropriate agricultural activity, as well as voluntary environmental practices on such lands, through participation in annual eco-schemes or multi-annual agri-environmental and climate measures.

We are both committed to this. I consider that the Council wording provides the appropriate flexibility to set minimum standards, allows for sufficient time to implement the new standard and continues to provide certainty regarding farmers’ payments. As the trialogue process continues, the Minister and I will remain fully engaged on all aspects to ensure the best overall outcome for farmers and the agrifood sector.

See this speech in context