Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the current common agricultural policy negotiations regarding maintenance of CAP Budget and his efforts to secure a fully funded CAP Budget for both pillar one and pillar two; his further views on each of the following priority issues (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6071/13]

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

The overall funding of the CAP, including the amounts to be made available for direct payments (Pillar 1) and rural development (Pillar 2), are decided in the context of the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014 to 2020. As the Deputy may be aware, EU Heads of State and Government tried unsuccessfully at the European Council last November to agree the MFF, and a further attempt will be made later this week. From an Irish perspective, the CAP remains our over-riding financial priority. The Government is therefore determined to protect the CAP to the maximum extent possible, and to defend Ireland’s share of direct payments and rural development funding.

The priority issues supplied by the Deputy relate more particularly to the reform of the CAP for the period post-2013. As President of the European Council of Agriculture Ministers, my objective is to negotiate a Council position on the reform package by the end of March, with a view to securing an interinstitutional political agreement with the European Parliament and the Commission by the end of June. Bearing this in mind, the position is broadly as follows:

Two of the most difficult issues in the negotiations arise in relation to the administration of the single farm payment. These are internal convergence and greening. As regards internal convergence, the Commission’s proposal to move to a system of flat-rate national or regional payments would, in the case of several Member States (including Ireland), result in significant transfers between farmers. These Member States are seeking a solution that will mitigate this impact and this is an issue on which Ireland too played a leading role. Other Member States - such as the newer Member States who already implement an area-based system - are seeking alternative solutions, while still others are happy with the flat rate system. I hope to be able to navigate a course through these diverging positions in the coming weeks and settle on a compromise acceptable to all Member States.

As regards greening, all Member States (including Ireland), support further greening of the CAP, as it is consistent with the need to develop the agriculture sector in a sustainable manner. However, there are concerns about the separate and distinct nature of the greening payment, and the fact that it is to be paid on a flat-rate basis. Member States also have issues with the three greening criteria (crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grassland and ecological focus areas) and favour flexibility to implement these in a simpler manner that is also more relevant to local conditions. Again, I hope to bring forward proposals on these issues in the coming weeks that will strike a balance between the different approaches favoured by Member States.

On the other direct payments issues raised by the Deputy, the main point outstanding, according to the Cyprus Presidency’s Progress Report, is the question of the young farmers’ scheme, and whether it will be voluntary or mandatory for Member States. I have stated my preference for a mandatory scheme, but can live with a voluntary scheme in the interests of securing agreement with my colleagues around the Council table. I would also like to see eligibility criteria applied in order to avoid potential abuse.

On rural development, apart from the question of funding, the main issues in the context of the CAP reform package are the effect of the greening of direct payments on the baseline for rural development payments, the delimitation of areas with natural constraints and the structure of risk management and income stabilisation tools. In addition, the Commission is pressing for greater coherence between the different EU funds and to ensure that all objectives are consistent with EU 2020 strategy priorities, which raises administrative difficulties for Member States. Some of these issues will again prove difficult to resolve, but I hope to make rapid progress over the coming weeks,

As regards the common organisation of the market, I agree that adequate funding is an important prerequisite for the effective functioning of the various elements of the safety net mechanism. Particularly difficult issues in this dossier will be control measures in the form of sugar quotas and vine planting rights. Member States are pretty evenly divided on the question of whether sugar quotas should be abolished or extended, although the European Parliament generally favours extension. On vine planting rights, the report of the High Level Group will inform the next phase of the discussions, but again the question will be whether to extend the regime or allow the planned expiry in 2015 to proceed. Compensation for reduced milk supply, as proposed by the European Parliament, will also be a difficult issue as it too touches on the organisation of the market, on which there are contrasting views. On producer organisations, some progress has been achieved, with the Special Agriculture Committee this week reaching agreement on the issue of recognition. On exceptional measures and the crisis reserve, the key requirement is that funding is available to deal with whatever emergency situations might arise.