Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 25: To ask the Minister for Agriculture; Fisheries and Food if he will reverse the recently announced rowback in agri environmental options scheme Natura payments from an expected €150 to €75 per hectare [17912/11]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will dispense with my notes on this as I know the issue backwards. The Deputy has asked whether I will reconsider a decision I made previously not to advocate an increase in payments for Natura qualifying land under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, from €75 to €150 per hectare. I have had much discussion with farmers and farming organisations on this issue and I understand their issues. When the previous AEOS was put in place, the sum of €75 per hectare was agreed with the European Commission, but a political promise was made that the Government would consider and advocate an increase in that payment from €75 to €150 per hectare. Therefore, there was an expectation among many farmers that would be achieved.

Even if I wanted to grant that increase in the morning, I could not do it without approval from the European Commission. The Commission was not forthcoming when we sought the increase up to a number of weeks ago. Therefore, even if I decided politically that we want to prioritise expenditure in this area and to try and increase payments from €75 to €150 for qualifying applicants, which would involve a cost, I would need to go back to the European Commission and get approval to do it, which would take some time. People need to understand there is a process involved in this regard.

Some 75% of the funding for the AEO schemes is from the European Union. The reason I wanted to stick with the sum of €75 per hectare, rather than €150, is that I wanted as many farmers as possible to qualify for AEOS 2, which I launched. Therefore, I had to make some choices. This is why I was prioritising the inclusion of the maximum number of farmers possible given the limited budget available to me.

I recently met farm organisations and stated I will re-examine this issue in the context of the overall risk expenditure review in my Department. If we decide the best way to obtain value for money is to seek from the European Commission an increase from €75 to €150, we will pursue that route. This could only happen in the context of the review.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am heartened to hear the Minister will review this matter. The promise of a certain sum of money, to which my question refers, is not the only one farmers were given that was subsequently withdrawn. Many farmers made their financial plans based on the promises made but now find themselves in a very bad place. It was not the hard-working small farmers who caused the economic problems in this country, yet they seem to be punished all the time for it.

With regard to the commonage framework plans, there has been a fair amount of destocking of land already. Some might argue destocking contributed to the recent upland fires. Is it possible to consider the possibility of returning stock to the affected lands? There are questions asked over whether the land could be better managed by farmers if the destocking rule were relaxed. Are other payments promised to and expected by farmers to be reduced?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy on the stocking rate. Ireland has a problem with understocking in some commonages and mountainous areas. People need to realise that the sensitive biodiversity of the hillsides in question relies on stock keeping certain grasses and plants down by grazing. Understocking is often as dangerous to biodiversity and the protection of the landscape as we know it as overstocking. There is much evidence to suggest we need to increase stocking rates. My Department is pursuing this. In the not-too-distant future, we will see a relaxation of the stocking rates within certain areas. We want to encourage farmers to increase stocking rates to try to support the active farmer concept, and perhaps link this to some payments.

The Deputy's second question may touch upon the Estimates process and the expenditure review. I have tried to be as up-front with farmers as I can be in this regard. My Department is being asked to make significant savings next year and will have to do so. I will be prioritising the limited amount of money we have to spend for key areas, including supporting the strategy in Food Harvest 2020 and supporting farmers so as to keep them on the land in the first place. Many farm families could not stay farming if they did not have a certain amount of subsidy and support. The two key areas, therefore, concern increased productivity and efficiency, as referred to in the Food Harvest 2020 document, and the type of farmer who needs the financial support of the State and European Union. Even in the midst of making significant cutbacks and savings, we will be trying to support as best we can the agribusiness sector and rural communities that rely on farming.