Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure there will be transparency regarding the outcome of the review of areas of natural constraint and that all farm organisations will be consulted before its final approval and prior to approval being sought from the European Union; and if the category of mountain type land will be retained after the review. [21382/17]

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is similar. Many farmers are very concerned that if the category of mountain type land were removed they would be at a severe disadvantage. Perhaps the Minister could give me an assurance on that.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for the repetition. Under the rural development regulation each member state must designate areas eligible for payments under the areas of natural constraints, ANC, scheme.  The ANC scheme replaces the previous disadvantaged areas scheme/less favoured areas scheme.  The designation of eligible areas under these schemes to date has been based on a range of socio-economic factors. These eligible areas must now instead be designated using a set list of bio-physical criteria. In cases where a member state does not introduce this new system for payment, the old scheme remains in place but payments must phase out on a digressive basis.

The biophysical criteria set out in the legislation to underpin the new system of designation are: low temperature; dryness; excess soil moisture; limited soil drainage; unfavourable texture and stoniness; shallow rooting depth; poor chemical properties; steep slope.

My Department has commenced work on this project, and relevant technical experts are currently working on sourcing and analysing the data relating to the new criteria. Department officials have also been in contact with the Joint Research Centre, JRC, and the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Agri, in the EU Commission regarding technical issues arising.  This analysis will identify areas deemed to be facing natural constraints, which will in parallel be subjected to a refinement process.  It is envisaged that stakeholders will be consulted as this process develops.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Deputy McConalogue said, many people are wondering about this extension being sought by both Ireland and Austria. Is that because there was a view that they would not be able to meet the deadline and there was a delay in trying to get the mapping done and over the line? Ultimately, we are dealing with farmers' money and many farmers are very concerned that they are being kept in the dark on this. I am sure the Minister has been lobbied about this as well. The various farm organisations and individual farmers are anxious to know when the maps will be done, when they will be able to see them and when they will get some certainty as to where all of this is going. Places such as Leitrim, Sligo and west Cavan in my constituency are mountainous areas and they have a serious natural constraint. The hill farmers in particular are concerned about where this is going. Can the Minister give an assurance that this mountain type land will be retained within the scheme? Also, will he respond with regard to the delay that was expected and on why the Minister and the Department considered it necessary to seek an extension?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said in response to Deputy McConalogue, I appreciate the importance of this income source for farmers.

I appreciate it, given the regions to which the Deputy referred. It would be wrong of me to give a guarantee on what areas will and will not be included because I cannot. I would be surprised if, in respect of the aforementioned areas, there was any significant change.

It is because of the importance of the payment that we took the opportunity to support the Austrian request. We were not alone. I recall that France and a number of other member states were also supportive of the proposal. In the context of the uncertainty around this debate, it allows us to say that for the period of time the extension will be secured the status quowill remain. That is in itself a reassurance.

At this stage, we do not have a guarantee the extension will be granted. The Commission is considering the request that was made and supported by a number of member states, including Ireland. As I said, we will remain committed to the ANC system, the commitment in the programme for Government in respect of additional payments in 2018 and consultation with farmers in due course where the information is available.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. The point he made that he cannot guarantee he will get the extension, and that nobody else can, raises the question as to how far down the road he is of getting the maps prepared. How close to completion is the work? If we are in a situation where within a short period of time the Commission says there cannot be an extension, what will the position be? Have the Department and its officials reached a stage where they are ready to produce the maps? Are they finding it difficult to try to set out the new criteria and map it out? It is important people know the level of preparedness if we do not get an extension.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The obligation as now envisaged is that the process would be completed in time for the 2018 basic payment scheme. It is 15 May this year and I think it will be around the same date next year. I am sure if the deadline remained we would have met it. As I said, in respect of the uncertainty around this, if it was possible at a European level to have an extension of the current regime for any period of time, be it a year or whatever, that would be preferable to the uncertainty that would have faced some farmers in respect of the current process. That is why we supported the current regime.

As I said, if it was the case that we were obliged to have this process concluded I am sure we would have met that deadline. It would have been reckless of us not to because not meeting it at that stage would have meant that we would have been obliged to phase out the payments on a digressive basis. We certainly were not going to go down that road. The judgment call I had to make was whether it was desirable to have an extension of the status quo. My judgment call was that for the almost 100,000 farmers who were in receipt of the payment it was preferable to the risks associated with the entire review process.