Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

697. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the additional actions required by participants if current funding levels were increased over the amount which has been ringfenced for the 2014-2020 rural development programme window under the beef data and genomics programme in order to increase payment rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11560/17]

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

The BDGP was agreed with the Commission as part of Ireland’s RDP (2014-2020) alongside a number of other schemes such as ANCs, GLAS and TAMS, which also benefit suckler farmers. I am very conscious of the positive effect that the programme is having on the Irish suckler herd. It will help to improve productivity, profitability and carbon efficiency in the national herd.

The BDGP was introduced under Article 28 (Agri-Environment Climate measures) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development. Any actions paid under this measure can only be paid, in accordance with the regulation, on agri-environment climate commitments. Furthermore payments may only be paid on the basis of income foregone or costs  incurred.

 As can be seen from the foregoing it is not simply a matter of saying that farmers would have to complete action X or action Y if the current funding levels for the BDGP were increased over the amount which has been ringfenced for the 2014-2020 RDP window under the BDGP to increase payment rates.  Any additional actions which participants would be required to undertake would have to be designed taking into account both their environmental impact the costs incurred or income foregone as a result of carrying out those actions.

In relation to any possible reopening of the scheme, this is currently being considered in the context of an assessment of budgetary priorities, the operation of the RDP and the potential impact upon the scheme itself and other schemes. Even if it were possible to reallocate resources from within the RDP, any increase in the level of payment to scheme participants would require the Department to submit an amendment of the RDP to the Commission, and an evaluation and approval by the relevant Directorates General.

The Department will continue to keep expenditure under the RDP under review on an ongoing basis. As with all such programmes, there are inevitably issues of timing around the scheduling of payments. Savings in one year do not necessarily imply savings over the lifetime of the programme.

The suckler sector is a vital component of Ireland’s rural economy and the provision of support for the suckler sector is critically important. The range of supports as currently configured represents a balance between direct income support for the sector and rural development measures designed to improve its competitiveness and sustainability. I believe that it is entirely appropriate to maintain this balance of developmental and income supports into the future.