FLF, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 303: Henvendelse og udtalelse vedr. reform af CAP fra det irske parlament af 7/6-12

JOINTCOMMITTEE ONCOMMUNICATIONS, NATURALRESOURCES ANDAGRICULTUREREFORM OF THECOMMONAGRICULTURALPOLICY(CAP) 2014TO20201. BackgroundThe Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturehas considered the European Commission‘s proposals regarding the Reform ofthe Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2014 to 2020 (COMS (2012) 625to 629 inclusive). It has also had public hearings on the issue of CAP Reformwith the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development; Departmentof Agriculture, Food and the Marine Officials; 3 Irish MEP‘s (Ms. Marian Harkin,Ms.MairéadMcGuiness andMs.PhilPrendergast);the Irish FarmersAssociation (IFA); the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers‘ Association (ICSA); theIrish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) and Macra na Feirme.Copies of the relevant presentations are contained atAppendix 1.Links to thetranscripts of the Committee meetings are contained atAppendix 2.Following its deliberations, the Committee has prepared this contribution whichseeks to address the key issues and asks that the Commission take intoaccount the views and positions set out in this contribution as part of thenegotiations.2. General Comments on the key issuesThe Committee supports the three objectives given by the EU Commission forits reform proposals:viable food production in the EU,sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, andbalanced rural development,

would have adverse effects on allocations for agriculture through the CAP. It isimperative that an early decision is reached on the MFF budget to dispel thecurrent uncertainty regarding the future CAP budget. Uncertainty will inevitablylead to market instability and is disadvantageous to both producers andconsumers.A strong CAP is fundamentally important forfood security, environmentalsustainabilityandindigenous job creation,which impact on all EU citizensto some degree. Moreover, the CAP can be seen to be engaged in ‗public goods‘provision and this deserves a value such as is the case with carbon credits. The2014 to 2020 CAP will need to be properly resourced if it is to continue to buildon the solid foundations laid by the previous CAP‘s and to ensure that it candeliver on the 3 key areas stated above.The Committee believes the retention of at least the existing levels ofbudgetary expenditure on CAP is a prerequisite to achieving the objectives thathave been set out for the CAP in the 2014 to 2020 period. In that context,Ireland will need to retain at the very least its existing share of the CAP if it candeliver on the ambitious targets set out in the Proposals.2.2 The distribution of Direct Payments.The distribution of Direct Payments both between and within Member States isa critical issue to get agreement on and will be a key determinant of howeffective the CAP will be in the coming years. The Committee accepts that thereis broad agreement that there would be a move towards convergence of DirectPayments. It contends, however, that this should be done in a more gradual orphased way than is envisaged in the current Proposals – both between andwithin Member States.Ireland‘s historic production model is outdated as a means of entitlementassessment, but the current proposal seeks to move to a flat rate at anaccelerated pace that would have severe negative consequences for Irishfarmers and other sectors of the Irish economy. Based on the criteria in theProposal, it is estimated 76,000 Irish farmers would gain 86% on their currentpayments while 57,000 would lose 33%. More significantly, the figures indicate

contravention of the spirit of the CAP.It is proposed, therefore, that there should be a‘limit‘on losses to any farmerin the redistribution of funds by using theapproximation approachwhere allpayments move towards, but not fully, to the average. A key principle wouldbe that it only applies when lands are in production. This is in effect the samemodel as the ‗PragmaticApproach’adopted by the Commission in the currentCAP. The approximation approach is a model that would promote equity, createa level playing field and protect small farmers, particularly those farming inareas of natural constraint.Finally, it is envisaged that National Allocation Proposals will be based on PastPerformance and Objective Criteria. While this sounds good in theory, theidentification of Objective Criteria that fits all Member States is veryproblematic. This underlines the need for greaterflexibility/autonomyforMember States to make decisions that reflect local conditions. A key principle isthat entitlements would activate only when land is in production.2.3 Greening of Direct PaymentsThere are serious concerns that the greening of direct payments proposals asthey stand will create significant additional bureaucracy. This does not accordwith the simplification of the CAP, which is a key priority in the reformproposals. In that context, it is proposed that the green payments should bepart of the Direct Payment rather than ‗decoupled‘ as a way of reducing theadministrative burden.Furthermore, the CAP is already a ‗greened‘ programme as evidenced bymeasures in both Pillars and by the implementation of the EU Water FrameworkDirective (WFD), the Nitrates Directive et al. The proposal to allocate a full 30%of the national envelope for greening measures may be misguided and needs tobe examined further.It is recognised internationally that Ireland operates extremely high greeningstandards as evidenced by the high demand for Irish agricultural productsworldwide and our enviable natural habitat throughout the Island. Greening4

measures in a reformed CAP should recognise Member States such as Irelandthat have consistently operated a greening regime. This recognition should takethe form of giving Member States greater flexibility in the way payments aremade.There is also considerable scope to incorporate greening into normal farmingpractices and be included as part of the Cross Compliance and GoodAgricultural Environmental Conditions (GEAC) measures. Farmers should beable to choose from amenu of greening optionsas a way of overcoming thecurrent limitations of the Proposal that seeks to impose a ‗one size fits all‘solution.2.4 Definitions of a) an Active Farmer and b) Areas of NaturalConstraint (disadvantaged areas).The definition of an Active Farmer is a key issue but also a very complex oneand needs careful consideration. The Committee‘s opinion, and one shared bythe main stakeholders, is that an active farmer is one who is engaged inproductive work and who may be involved in reinvesting in their business orcreating employment. Part time farmers should also be recognised in thisdefinition given that a significant number of farmers, through necessity, haveanother employment and the income from that employment is often reinvestedin their farm. One suggestion would be that there be an ―exclusion lot‖ asopposed to ―qualifying criteria‖.ThedefinitionandfuturedirectionofAreasofNaturalConstraint

(disadvantaged areas) needs careful consideration in the ensuing negotiations.Ireland has specific concerns over the criteria proposed to identify such areasand has put forward an additional ‗wet soil‘ criteria reflecting this country‘sdistinctive wet climate. Farmers who farm in natura and restricted areas needspecial protection in any redefinition of these areas.2.5 Attracting Young Farmers into the Industry.There is universal agreement that encouraging young farmers to remain in theindustry or to become new entrants must be actively encouraged throughoutthe European Union.5

At present, for instance, only 5% of Irish farmers are under 35 years of age, afigure that is replicated throughout the EU. There are a number of specificmeasures under CAP reform that should be utilised effectively to address thisproblem as outlined below.The Committee supports the proposed measure of aTop-Up Payment of25%for young farmers, paid as part of their Single Farm Payment. In Ireland,however, there is a need for greater flexibility to ensure Ireland can fully accessthe support that is already provided in the CAP proposals (up to 2% of Pillar 1).The restrictive criteria proposed would render it impossible to draw down thefull amount available.The Committee fully supports aSingle Payment National Reservethatprioritises young farmers who are staring out in the farming industry.Furthermore, it believes it is essential as a mechanism to ensure young farmershave access to direct payments in an equitable way. It will be important tomanage the Reserve effectively so that adequate funds are available each yearfor young farmers. It is also important that the 2011 reference year containedin the Proposals does not act as a barrier to new entrants applying forentitlements from 2014 onwards. In this regard, the Committee suggests thatconsideration is given to introducing a ‗rolling‘ reference year where theprevious year is the reference year in a 3 year cycle and payments are notmade if farming activity ceases.The Committee fully supports the proposedYoung Farmer InstallationPackagecontained under the Rural Development proposals in Pillar 2 of CAP.Farming is a capital intensive industry particularly in the early years. Thismeasure should prove a catalyst to deliver on increased new entrants intofarming and encourage young farmers to invest in dynamic and sustainablefamily businesses. It should be mandatory on Member States to implement allyoung farmer measures, such as this, that are ultimately agreed under theRural Development Programme.The proposed co-funding of 80% at EU level and 20% at national level is also apositive proposal.

The Committee fully supports the measure regardingPartnerships, ShareFarming and Joint Arrangements.In particular, this measure should assistyoung farmers who have no family farm to inherit and older farmers who haveno successor. It should go some way to address this serious structural deficitthat exists throughout the EU and threatens the future viability of theagriculture industry.In tandem with this, there is a need to develop proposals to encourage olderfarmers to retire and thereby pass on their farms to a new generation. It isperhaps a missed opportunity that the current Proposals do not contain anEarly Retirement Schemefor EU farmers. Ireland has administered an EarlyRetirement Scheme in recent years and the model used could be examined withthe possibility of developing a similar Scheme for inclusion in the currentproposals.2.6. Rural Development Programme: Pillar 2.It is fundamentally important that the Rural Development Programme (Pillar 2)is adequately funded as a means of building on from the notable achievementsin previous Programmes. In Ireland, Rural Development Programmes haveplayedpivotalrolesinregeneratingruralcommunitiesandpromotingenvironmental sustainability. In that context, there are a number of key issuesthat need to be considered in the ensuing negotiations.Significant funds are needed to set up companies under the Rural DevelopmentProgramme that can have the potential to trade internationally and createsustainable employment. Imposing a€200,000 limiton grant aid couldmitigate against a company achieving its full potential. The Committee believesthis limit should be increased very significantly and a more flexible approachtaken to co-funding.In defining ‗rural areas‘, the Committee supports the definition used for ruralareas for the Leader Programme for 2007-2013 and believes that the samedefinition should stay in place for the next Leader Programme for 2014-2020.There should be a mechanism totransfer fundsfrom Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 if thatis where the funding is needed most. For example, there is a need to7

determine, through further analysis, if 33% of total funding should be set asidefor greening measures. Again, this demonstrates the need for greater flexibilityto reflect local conditions in the Member States.In Ireland, it is widely acknowledged thatLEADER Groupshave done valuablework under the Rural Development Programme. The Proposal to bring thesegroups under the aegis of Irish Local Authorities is not supported by theCommittee. The Committee believes such a move would undermine theirindependence and spirit of community development and innovation.2.7. Determining a Reference Year.The determination of a fixed reference/base year (2014) is a serious issue ofconcern. In Ireland, it is creating major distortions in the land leasing marketand it is active farmers renting land who are affected the worst. Ireland hasspecific and unique difficulties in that the leasing arrangements are muchshorter than in many other Member States.In this regard, the Committee suggests that consideration is again given tointroducing a ‗rolling‘ reference year where the previous year is the referenceyear in a 3 year cycle. The fundamental objective here must be to move to asituation where land is used by active farmers who have a progressive longterm plan that results in effective agricultural production.2.8. Market Control/Emergency Market Support Mechanisms.The Committee believes consideration should be given to the establishment of aStatutory Monitoring Agency with the powers to implement Market ControlMechanisms if necessary. There is a real danger in milk production, forinstance, that the absence of a ‗floor‘ on milk prices could have seriousconsequences for otherwise viable farming businesses. In particular, youngfarmers and those who have invested heavily in their businesses, would bevulnerable to price fluctuations in the market place.In addition, schemes such as private storage, export funds and intervention canbe effective in easing market difficulties in times of crisis. While the Committee

is fully cognisant of the competing demands on limited budgets, there needs tobe funds put aside for potential crisis situations.2.9. Simplification of CAP.The Committee views the simplification of CAP as the single most importantissue that should be taken into account at all stages of the negotiations.Simplification of the CAP is an absolute imperative for all the key stakeholdersinvolvedfromthefarmerstotheEUInstitutionsandthenationaladministrations. In this context, the Committee suggests that all CAP Proposalsare ‗simplification proofed‘ before final agreement is reached.The Committee looks forward to receiving the Commission‘s response to itsobservations and it hopes that the Committee‘s recommendations can be takeninto account. The Committee also intends to directly contact our counterpartsinothernationalparliamentstoshareourviewsonthismatter.

It was agreed that –the Contribution of the Committee will be laid before both Houses of theOireachtas, and published on the Oireachtas website;a copy will be forwarded to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and theMarine to be taken into account as part of Ireland‘s negotiating positionon the proposal;a copy will be sent to Mr. Dacian Ciolos, the European Commissioner forAgriculture and Rural Development, as a considered response by theIrish Parliament to the proposed reform and seek the Commissioner‘sviews on the concerns raised;a copy will be sent to Mr. Paolo de Castro, Chairperson of the EuropeanParliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as aContribution by the Irish Parliament to the proposed reform, forinformation purposes; anda copy will be sent to the Chairpersons of the relevant NationalParliamentary Committees, as a Contribution by the Irish Parliament tothe proposed reform, for information purposes.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureAppendix 2Orders of Reference of the Joint CommitteeFunctions of the Committee – derived from Standing Orders (SO)[Dáil SO 82A; Seanad SO 70A](1)The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dáil on—(a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of therelevant Government Department or Departments and associated publicbodies as the Committee may select, and(b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Departmentor Departments.(2)The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointed bySeanad Éireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of the functionsset out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to bothHouses of the Oireachtas.Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committeeshall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments, such—(a) Bills,(b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within themeaning of Standing Order 164,(c) Estimates for Public Services, and(d) other mattersas shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil, and(e) Annual Output Statements, and(f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committeemay select.(4)The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of therelevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, andreport thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas:(a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible,(b) public affairs administered by the Department,

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture(c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviewsconducted or commissioned by the Department,(d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of theDepartment,(e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded bythe State or which are established or appointed by a member of theGovernment or the Oireachtas,(f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by theMinister,(g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft beforeeither House or both Houses and those made under the EuropeanCommunities Acts 1972 to 2009,(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of theOireachtas pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997,(i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, andlaid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of theDepartment or bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and theoverall operational results, statements of strategy and corporateplans of such bodies, and(j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dáil and/or Seanadfrom time to time.(5)Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committeeshall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments—(a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committeeunder Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts withthe principle of subsidiarity,(b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, includingprogrammes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission asa basis of possible legislative action,(c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relationto EU policy matters, and(d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of therelevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.(6)A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Department within theremit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlined in paragraph (3),and the following arrangements apply to such sub-Committees:

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture(a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to the SelectCommittee by the Dáil may be referred directly to such sub-Committees,and(b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1)and (2) and may report directly to the Dáil, including by way of Messageunder Standing Order 87.(7)The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of DáilÉireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of any sub-Committee or Committees standing established in respect of the SelectCommittee.The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, for thepurposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part inproceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions andamendments:(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies inIreland, including Northern Ireland,(b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe, and(c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the EuropeanParliament.b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees as derived from Standing Orders [DSO82; SSO 70](1)The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities,exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorisedunder its orders of reference and under Standing Orders.Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall ariseonly in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dáil and/or Seanad.It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred thatthey shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet toconsider a Bill on any given day, unless the Dáil, after due notice given by theChairman of the Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by theTaoiseach pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 26. The Chairmen of SelectCommittees shall have responsibility for compliance with this instruction.The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, orof which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee ofPublic Accounts pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 163 and/or the Comptroller andAuditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture(5)The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session orpublishing confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, forstated reasons given in writing, by—(a)(b)a member of the Government or a Minister of State, orthe principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department orwhich is partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed bya member of the Government or by the Oireachtas:

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureAppendix 3CAP Reform: Discussion with EU Commissioner Dacian CiolosThursday, 19 January 2012Mr. Dacian Ciolos: I will be very happy to answer any questions members mayhave following my brief introduction. I am here in Ireland for the second timeduring my mandate as Commissioner in the context of the proposals set out inOctober 2011 for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Members are nodoubt already aware of the objectives of this reform, but I wish to detail themfor the benefit of the committee.For me, an essential element in encouraging this process of reform was the factthat the Commission proposed a strong budget for the Common AgriculturalPolicy. In other words, even in these difficult economic conditions, theCommission considered that the European Union must maintain a strong budgetfor agriculture, taking into account not only our ambitions in regard to foodproduction, but also, in the meantime, to ensure a better management ofnatural resources. It is our view that agriculture and the agrifood sector cancreate jobs and contribute to green and smart growth in the European Union.The results the agrifood sector in Ireland is attaining are encouraging of theambition we have for all of the European Union in regard to the CommonAgricultural Policy.We have decided to maintain a strong Common Agricultural Policy with a directpayment system, albeit a new system of direct payments, and with a strongrural development policy which is more open than in the past. The objective isnot only to preserve and develop economic activity in rural areas, but also tostimulate the farming and agrifood sector to play a more important role ineconomic development of rural areas. We are also seeking to maintain marketmeasures in order to be able to act very quickly in crisis situations and tocontribute to increased competitiveness in the agricultural sector, especially bystimulating farmer organisations.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureRegarding direct payments, I have said since the beginning of my mandate thatif we want to maintain direct payments, we must be credible in our attitude tohistorical references. We cannot justify for the next period, 2014-2010, asituation where farmers have a level of payment linked to the historical levelfrom ten or 15 years ago. I am aware of Ireland‘s specific difficulties inimplementing the flat payment at regional level. However, it is clear in ourproposal that member states already have a flexibility in regard to the definitionof the flat-rate payment. It is not the case, for example, that we have only onelevel of payment for all hectares in Ireland. Rather, each member state has theright and possibility to define regions, taking into account several types ofcriteria or combinations of criteria. It will be up to member states to define thelevel of a region, the number of regions and the criteria they wish to use,including administrative or economic criteria, natural condition of productioncriteria, and so on. We have also allowed for a transitional period whereby weare not asking that the flat payment be implemented in a region from the verybeginning, that is, from 2014. Instead, we are offering a flexibility until the endof the budgetary period to progress through the flat payment.Together with the direct payment system to support basic income for farmers,we are also introducing a green payment. The objective of this is not to affectthe competitiveness of our farmers; we have many instruments within theCommon Agricultural Policy to deal with competitiveness. When we talk about30% of direct payments for the greening component, it should be clear that the30% is for farmers, not for other stakeholders in rural areas. My objective in thiswas to keep all of the budget in the CAP instead of moving it through otherpolicies such as environmental policy or climate change policy and to have otherinstruments dealing eventually, perhaps, with farmers in order to attend to thisobjective. The 30% remains for farmers but will be linked to some agriculturalpractices enforced across the Union. This is the difference between greeningunder the first pillar and agri-environmental issues under the second pillar.Our objective under the first pillar is to use three simple measures which,because they will be enforced in all member states, will have a mass effect. The

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureagri-environmental measures in the rural development programme will allow usto deal with specific situations in an area and to pay farmers more for thesespecific agri-environmental measures. We decided to propose three measuresand not a menu of measures in order to have the same treatment for all farmersin the Union. If we proposed a menu of measures, we risked a situation whereone member state‘s measure is under the first pillar, that is, greening, while inanother member state the same measure would be under the second pillar, thatis, agri-environmental measures. Farmers might complain that their memberstate had imposed a more complicated measure by which they were obliged toabide.Instead, we wanted a uniform system. As such, we proposed three simplemeasures that could be easily enforced from Spain to Finland and from Irelandto Poland. There was some argument that the measures were too simple, couldnot obtain a result and that it would not be a great effort for some farmers - inIreland, for example - to maintain permanent pasture because permanentpasture is already there. However, this is the very point. Our objective in usingthese simple measures is to avoid influencing too much the decisions of farmersin terms of structure of crops and so on. The intention is to obtain a mass effectand to show that agriculture across the European Union can meet the commoneconomic objectives and encourage greater competitiveness on the market in asustainable manner.This objective was one of the main points I put to the college of the Commissionwhen I asked it to maintain the budget for the Common Agricultural Policy. Itwas not easy, but I succeeded because we could prove that the future CAP canoffer economic competitiveness in a sustainable way and allow us to introducenew measures and elements in order to increase competitiveness, such asresearch and innovation. I finally secured a strong majority in the college tomaintain the budget.There has been a great deal of discussion on the question of maintaining 7% ofthe overall area of farms as ecological focus areas. It has been stated this meansthere would be 7% less land available for agricultural production, but that is not18

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturethe case because a certain proportion of agricultural land already does notqualify for payment. This is owing to the fact that there may be vegetation -trees, etc. - on the land and it is, therefore, not eligible to be considered forpayment. My proposal is to make this land eligible and support farmers inmaintaining it. This matter does not relate to the 7% of land set aside but ratherto land which is less fertile. Such land may be less important when it comes toproduction, but it can be important in maintaining, for example, balanceddevelopment in the context of biodiversity.The three measures we have proposed will not create further administrativebureaucracy because when completing application forms for direct payments,farmers will be able to list matters relating to crop production, areaspermanently devoted to pasture, etc. The three measures can be checked whenthe requirements relating to the rest of the payment are being examined. Wetook a cautious approach in this regard when we made the decision to proposethese measures.On entitlements, we proposed 2014 as the new reference year for eligibilityrequirements relating to land. Owing to the fact that I was aware of theproblems to which this reference year could give rise in Ireland, just before theadoption of the legislative package we gave a commitment to introduce a secondreference year - 2011 - for farmers. Only a farmer who was already involvedwith the system of payments in 2011 could request a new entitlement in respectof his land in 2014. We took this action in order to prevent people who mightuse the new reference year of 2014 to claim entitlements, even if they were notworking as farmers in 2011. We tried to deal with the specific matters affectingIreland in this regard. I am aware that particular legislation applies in thiscountry in the context of the utilisation of land. However, the new reference yearis required because it cannot be the case that someone who was or is working asa farmer in 2010, 2011 or 2012 and who will not have land in 2014 can requesta new entitlement in the latter year for a period of a further seven years. That iswhy we need to take into account the position in 2014 in the context of landbeing used for agricultural purposes.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureOn the flat payment, I have explained that both regionalisation and the criteriathat will apply are the responsibility of individual member states. I took notesyesterday during several discussions and meetings in which I was involved withthe Minister, Deputy Coveney, and farmers. I am aware that even inhomogenous areas there can be differences and that people do not want thecompetitiveness of farms to be overly affected in a very short period as a resultof the redistribution. We will consider how we might deal with this matter nextmonth in the context of the negotiations due to take place.We want to maintain a strong rural development policy. We have given moreflexibility to member states because under the system of axes, there iscompulsory utilisation of budgets in respect of axes or orders. Some memberstates have encountered difficulties in the context of moving budgets from axesto orders. We are now proposing only six priorities and each member state willtake these into account when defining its strategy for rural development. Iaccept that member states will deal with these priorities in differing proportionsin the context of both their objectives and specificities.We have also introduced new instruments under the second pillar in order tosupportfarmingorganisationsinthecreationofproducergroupsandorganisations. This is essential for all sectors in the European Union, not onlythat which produces fruit and vegetables. There is already a system in place tosupport producer groups and organisations in that sector. It is vital that allsectors encourage farmers to work together. In the context of propermanagement of volatility of prices and particular crises and the bargaining powerof farmers, the organisations to which I refer are essential. With the newmeasures, we want to stimulate farmers to organise themselves in order thatmember states can finance the creation of the producer organisations to which Irefer. In addition, it might also be possible to fund common activities amongthese organisations.We have also introduced a new instrument to ensure the results of research andinnovation will be taken into account in the context of the Common AgriculturalPolicy. It is a completely new development to have a clear deal - not only in20

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureterms of procedure but also in the context of budgets - and a clear link betweenresearch and innovation policy at European level and the Common AgriculturalPolicy.I workedwellandin an extremely efficientmannerwith theCommissioner, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, on this matter. For the comingperiod we have in place a specific research and innovation policy for agricultureand the agrifood sector. Attached to this is a specific budget and particularprocedures. In addition, there will be a clear link between the decisions andchoices of member states, in the context of the rural development programme,to support investment in one sector or another. This will assist in stimulatingwork in the area of research and development. The new instrument will bemanaged at European level and we will deal with the priorities alreadyestablished under the Common Agricultural Policy.There remain some matters to mention in the context of the market orientationof the Common Agricultural Policy into the future. Members will be aware thatwe have some mechanisms in place which are specifically designed to deal withcrises. There is also a separate budgetary line devoted to dealing with suchcrises.I will be happy to answer any questions members may wish to pose.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureOpening Statement by Mr Aidan O’Driscoll,Assistant Secretary General,Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.Tuesday 1 May 2012I would like to thank the Committee for its invitation to address it today on thesubject of CAP reform. I know that Minister Coveney would welcome anopportunity to discuss this issue with the Committee in the near future. In thisshort statement I hope to bring the Committee up to date with the current stateof play in relation to the negotiations, and will be happy to attempt to answerany questions that Members may have and to listen to Members comments andadvice on the negotiations.In very broad terms, the challenge for the current round of CAP reform is todeliver, in good time, a Common Agricultural Policy that is fit for purpose, that iscoherent with the Europe 2020 strategy for recovery and growth, and thatsupportsthetwingoalsofcompetitivenessandsustainability.Theserequirements in turn create further challenges in the form of crucial questionsabout how much money will be made available for the CAP in the period up to2020, how these funds will be allocated both between and within MemberStates, and how the policy content will help to shape and serve the developmentof European agriculture. I would like to focus my comments on each of thesekey issues.Process and TimeframeSince their publication last October, the Commission‘s proposals have undergonetwo rounds of detailed technical examination at Council Working Group level.The Danish Presidency has begun to produce revised texts in some areas, whichreflect where it feels Member States are broadly in agreement on some issues,but which do not yet necessarily equate to final compromise texts.In the meantime, key policy issues within the reform such as direct payments,greening and simplification have also been discussed by the Council of Ministers

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureand by the Special Committee on Agriculture. Negotiations will continue attechnical and political level over the next year or more, and it is very likely thatthe current texts will change considerably before final agreement is reached.These issues are also being discussed in the European Parliament and will be thesubject of reports from rapporteurs on each of the four draft CAP regulations. Itis very important to remember that the CAP reform is subject to co-decision, andtherefore the Parliament will be a full partner in any final agreement that isreached.In a parallel process, negotiations on the new Multiannual Financial Framework(MFF) for the EU budget for the period 2014 to 2020 have begun to gather pace.Early drafts of the MFF ―Negotiating Box‖ (that is the draft text of an agreementon the MFF) have been circulated by the presidency.Affairs Council on 24 April.It is important to note that key CAP issues will now continue to be discussed inthese two parallel tracks – that is:In the CAP reform negotiations in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, andat official level in the Special Committee on Agriculture and four separateworking groups, andIn the MFF negotiations in the General Affairs Council, and ultimately inthe European Council, with in this case discussion at official levelhappening at Coreper and a ―Friends of the Presidency‖ group.And, as I have already mentioned, the key role of the European Parliament inthis process, and in final decision making, must also be recognised.As aMember State taking over the reins of the EU Presidency in January 2013,Ireland is committed to playing an active and constructive role in securingagreement on the reform of the CAP.However, to do this, three things need to be happen:there must be progress and ultimately agreement on the MFF23Heading 2 of the MFFcovers the CAP, and draft text on this heading has been discussed at the General

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturethere must be substantial progress during the Danish and Cypriotpresidencies, at least on technical issues, andall three institutions - the European Parliament, the Council and theCommission - need to engage actively in the negotiating process, with acommitment to seeking workable compromise.Minister Coveney assured Commissioner Ciolos during his visit to Dublin inJanuary that Ireland is willing to play a full role, both before and during ourpresidency, in seeking agreement on this vital issue, both for the EU and forIreland.Content of ReformIn terms of content, the key challenge is to deliver a policy that is fit for purposeand consistent with other EU policies. The outcome of this reform will essentiallyset the context and policy framework for the future of EU agriculture, so it isimportant that we get it right.The Europe 2020 strategy for economic recovery is grounded on the principles ofsmart, sustainable and inclusive growth.priorities.The agri-food sector is hugelyimportant in the context of this strategy and it contributes to all three of itsIt follows, therefore, that the reformed CAP must also be based onthese three principles and must be coherent with the overall strategy forEurope‘s economic recovery.The objectives cited by the EU Commission in its reform proposals reflect this.These three objectives:viable food production in the EU,sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, andbalanced rural development

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureIn terms of overall policy objectives, therefore, it can be said that the currentCAP reform proposals are going in the right direction, and are broadly in linewith Ireland‘s national priorities for smart, green growth under our Food Harvest2020 strategy.Priorities for Ireland on delivering a well-resourced CAPIt is Ireland‘s view that a strong Common Agricultural Policy will make animportant contribution to European economic recovery in the years ahead.Inorder to guarantee a strong CAP, commensurate resources need to be devotedto it. Ireland believes that the funding proposals in the MFF, which maintain CAPspending at current levels in nominal terms post-2013, represent a good startingpoint. However, it is also our view that the amount proposed by the Commissionis the minimum required.In the MFF negotiations there are intense pressures for reductions in theproposed overall EU budget, and some Member States are seeking to cut theproposed CAP allocations. In this regard, Ireland has been emphasising the factthat the CAP is the budget heading showing most restraint when compared toexisting budgetary provisions, and in fact this will entail a small reduction indirect farm payments across the EU.Distribution of CAP funds between Member StatesThe issue of how to distribute CAP funds between Member States is obviously avery sensitive one and has preoccupied much of the discussion to date. We havecalled for the principles of equity and pragmatism to be applied. The priorityfrom an Irish perspective is to ensure that we retain our levels of funding forboth direct payments and rural development, i.e. pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP.The Commission has proposed using what is known as a ―pragmatic method‖ toreallocate Pillar 1 funds (which mainly cover direct payments), using as a basethe average payment per eligible hectare in each Member State. This is anapproach which was originally proposed by Ireland and which largely protectsour funding.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureIn relation to rural development funds, the Commission have not yet revealedtheir proposals for national allocations but have said that they intend to basethem on a combination of objective criteria and past performance. We have realconcerns about this as some of the criteria being considered could lead to asignificant reduction in Ireland‘s allocation. We have made it clear that such anoutcome would not be fair or acceptable, and have expressed our preference forthe use of the same pragmatic method as the Commission have adopted in pillar1 – preferably looking at both pillars of the CAP together.We have called on the Commission to bring their proposal on this issue to thetable as soon as possible, and made the point that it is not realistic to expectMember States to agree Pillar 1 allocations, in the absence of proposals on Pillar2.Distribution of direct payments within Member StatesIn relation to the distribution of direct payments to farmers within MemberStates, the Commission proposal is to gradually move away from paymentsbased on historical production references towards a system of uniform perhectare payments, or flat rates by 2019, in each Member State or region of aMember State. Many Member States already have such flat rates or are evolvingtowards them.In response, the Minister has said that we recognise that we cannot continue tobase our payments on outdated historic production references. Nevertheless, wehave major difficulties with the pace and extent of convergence in theCommission‘s proposal.Under a national flat rate around 76,000 Irish farmers would gain an average of86% on their current payments, while around 57,000 would lose an average of33%. These are average percentages, and some of the gains and losses wouldbe far larger than this. In general it is clear that the losses would be incurred bymore productive farmers. This would have undesirable consequences at a timewhen Ireland is trying to encourage sustainable intensification in the agri-foodsector, as we strive to achieve the objectives in the Food Harvest 2020 strategy.26

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureWe have accordingly been pressing for the maximum possible flexibility to begiven to Member States to design payment models that suit their own farmingconditions, and to adopt a more gradual, back-loaded transition process, ratherthan the very rapid, front-loaded approach proposed by the Commission.We would like to have the possibility of putting a limit on the amount any farmercould lose in any redistribution. This would be consistent with the Commission‘sdesire to achieve a more level playing field, but would avoid a disruptive level orpace of change. The ‗approximation‘ approach, by which all payments couldgradually move towards, but not fully to, the average, is one alternative that webelieve should be considered in this regard. The Commission‘s ―pragmatic‖proposalforredistributionbetweenmemberstatesis,ineffect,anapproximation approach and provides a useful precedent.The Minister and Department have been very active in seeking allies for thisposition and have been making significant progress, particularly with a group ofMember States with somewhat similar concerns.However it should also beunderstood that a majority of Member States have no difficulty with the idea offlat rate payments, although they have concerns about other aspects of theproposals.GreeningOne of the key policy issues in this CAP reform is the focus on the ―greening‖ ofdirect payments. This takes the form of the Commission‘s proposal to assign30% of the national payment envelope to a new per-hectare payment tofarmers. The Commission have set out three environmental criteria that must bemet to qualify for this payment, relating to maintaining grassland, diversifyingcrops and establishing ecological focus areas on farms.The Irish Government supports the idea of encouraging sustainable forms ofagriculture, which is at the heart of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, and cansupport the Commission in its desire to further enhance the green credentials ofdirect payments. However, it is preferable to do so in a way that avoids addingexcessive bureaucracy. The Commission‘s proposals give rise to concerns in this27

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturerespect, since the existence of separate greening conditions will add significantcomplications to the direct payment system. There are also concerns that theproposed structure of the greening payment would hasten the movementtowards uniform national or regional payment rates, with the undesirableconsequences I referred to earlier. There are also practical difficulties with thethree greening criteria proposed that need to be resolved.To resolve some of these difficulties, Minister Coveney proposed at a jointsession of the Council with Comagri of the European Parliament in Novemberthat we adopt a more flexible menu approach to the green criteria. Many otherMember States have now also come to this view, but there are a wide range ofideas about how to structure such flexibility and what specifically to include in amenu.In relation to the structure of a payment, we have suggested that it would beworth considering adding the green criteria to the current cross-compliance andGAEC provisions. This would have the effect of ―greening‖ 100% of the directpayment, at a much lower administrative cost while achieving, at least, anequivalent additional environmental benefit.It is also clear that there are important points of detail in the criteria for thegreen payment that will have to be adjusted and will be the focus of detailednegotiations.Other IssuesI want to just briefly touch on some other issues in relation to direct paymentsand rural development.The Commission‘sproposal to use 2014 asareference yearfortheWe have made a range of specific suggestions in this regard.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturequalification criterion, which has been further amended in the presidencyproposals. The issues are complex and may well change further before the finaltexts are agreed, and people should bear this in mind in relation to any action onexisting leases that they might contemplate.In relation to the proposals to establish a small farmers‘ scheme and a top-upfor young farmers, the main issues that have been raised relate to whetherthese measures should be mandatory or optional for member states. We favouran optional approach to the small farmer measure, but have no difficulty withthe mandatory nature of the young farmer proposal.In relation to the rural development proposals, we are broadly satisfied with thethrust of the specific menu of measures provided for in the proposals. We havesome specific concerns about forestry and investment measures and are glad tosee these being addressed in the presidency‘s proposals. Our main concerns onrural development relate to the very elaborate, and in our view overlybureaucratic, provisions relating to rural development planning – these willimpact more on the administration than the farmer. The long running question ofhow to define disadvantaged areas (now known as areas of natural constraint)has also been brought into the CAP reform package and is clearly also an issueof major interest to Ireland.In the time available I will not dwell on the proposals on market measures orcommodity market organisation, other than to note that we are supporting theCommission‘s proposal to abolish sugar quotas in 2015.There is however astrong current among some Member States to extend this to 2018 or 2020. Weare also supporting the proposals to provide for a €500m per annum crisis fundfor agriculture.ConclusionIn summary, the priorities for Ireland in these CAP reform negotiations remain:a strong and well-resourced CAP,

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureretention of our levels of funding for both direct payments and for ruraldevelopment,maximum possible flexibility for Member States to implement the paymentsystems and transitional arrangements that best suit their farmingconditions.as much simplification as possible for the farmer and the administration,subject to proper financial and operational controls.The negotiation process on CAP is a complex and difficult one, but all our effortsare focused on achieving the best possible outcome for Ireland. These effortscontinued last week when the Minister used his attendance at the Council ofAgriculture Ministers meeting in Luxembourg to further press the Irish positionwith his colleagues and to work on building strategic alliances. They will berepeated over the coming months as the process evolves, and will furtherintensify during our Presidency, during which Ireland will work with otherMember States, and with the European Parliament and the Commission, tosecure an agreement that will provide an appropriate policy structure for theagri-food sector over the coming years.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureOpening Statements by Irish MEPS(Made following the earlier presentation above by Mr Aidan O’Driscoll)Ms. Mairead McGuinness MEP, Ms. Marian Harkin MEPand Ms. Phil Prendergast MEPTuesday 1stMay 2012Chairman: I welcome the MEPs and know they have busy schedules but this isan important process for them in which to be engaged. It is also important forthe committee to hear their perspectives on the CAP reforms.Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP:I thank the Chairman for inviting us to

participate in the committee‘s work on CAP reform. It is important toacknowledge the work of the departmental officials in this regard. They havebeen consistent and excellent in their engagement not just with the Council offarm Ministers but also with the European Parliament. I also acknowledge theiractive engagement with all Members of the European Parliament. There hasbeen real recognition by officials and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and theMarine, Deputy Coveney, of the role of the Parliament in co-decision.I am glad the issue of the budget has been raised as a serious matter that is stillnot resolved. I was concerned when I spoke to some Deputies recently that theythought this issue had been resolved and the deal was done. It is not. I amconcerned about what will happen around the overall budget for the EuropeanUnion. It will be influenced by the political climate of Europe which is not exactlywarm. We need to be conscious of the importance to Ireland of ensuring thebudget is adequate. Europe‘s politicians should see a European budget as aninstrument for growth and jobs but there is a tendency among member states toregard cutting their contributions to Europe as a badge of honour. That creates aserious danger for Ireland and the Common Agricultural Policy. If the budget isreduced overall there will be cuts to all policy areas. Agriculture will not escapeand the rural development budget may also be hit. The impact on directpayments may not be as large but rural development is vulnerable. It is31

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureimportant, therefore, that we participate fully in the budget discussions and workto improve the political climate of Europe. The European Parliament hasdemanded a good budget for agriculture and other policy areas but the EuropeanUnion does not raise taxes. We rely on Heads of State and Government to fundthe budgets for EU policy areas. The focus of CAP reform is on direct paymentsand their redistribution. However, we should not forget rural development, theorganisation of the marketplace and market supports.In regard to direct payments, I do not see greening as a major problem forIreland. The officials have provided clarity on the details of the proposals, someof which are problematic. We have not yet discussed the redirection of policytowards a public goods payment, the principle of which is that farmers not onlyproduce food but also perform environmental tasks for which the market doesnot pay them. Deputy Harrington pointed out that the direct payments proposalincludes an allocation of 30% for greening linked to the overall budget. Thosewho argue this is too much should be cautious in seeking a reduction to 20% or10% in case they endanger the overall budget for direct payments. There areconsequences to our actions. There is no doubt that the greening proposal willincrease bureaucracy. The Commission has estimated that member states willface a cost increase of 15% in implementing the new system. That issue needsto be addressed.We have not yet discussed the Commission‘s plans to abandon the currententitlement system in order to reinvent an entirely new payment entitlement.The field of horses comprises 27 member states but their starting points differ.Some have already introduced flat rate payments and others operate simplifiedsystems or, like Ireland, base their payments on the historic model. TheCommission wants all the horses to reach the finish line by 2019 despite theirdifferent starting points. That will be practically impossible to achieve but it isdifficult to see how flexibility can be translated into a text that member stateswill be able to implement. I accept it will be difficult for Ireland to move to a flatrate but certain member states which have already made the change do notunderstand our position. The discussion around 2011 and 2014 is academic

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturebecause we will not change minds that have already been made up. TheDepartment and I have warned repeatedly this is a proposal rather than adecision.The European Parliament has great expectations for the Irish Presidency. Wemay have to resolve the overall budget issue, the fisheries issue and theagriculture issue during the Irish Presidency in first six months of next year. It isa lot to ask but officials have indicated a willingness to deliver. If the politicalclimate is better, we can deliver because we will be able to put the budget inplace and discuss the details. The Council of Ministers is discussing the detailsbut the Parliament is also involved in that process. As a member of the EPP‘snegotiating team, I find it extremely difficult to achieve consensus within politicalgroups because of the complexity of the document. The more one reads thegreater the difficulty in getting a handle on the detail. Certain proposals, such asactive farmer, have already been changed, however, and we can reachagreement quickly in other areas.The most difficult issue is redistribution, whether between or within memberstates. Some of the member states which are on low payments, such as theBaltic countries and Portugal, are actively campaigning to get better paymentsbut they are willing to sacrifice agriculture in favour of cohesion if they do notachieve a better redistribution.We are also holding parallel discussions at Commission level on the issue offairness in the food supply chain. A report will issue in June from the stakeholderworking groups and another major report will be prepared by the end of thisyear. The outcome of these almost non-political deliberations are as important tothe future of Irish agriculture and farm incomes as the issues we are discussingtoday. The Chairman might bear that in mind because farmers and consumerswill be interested in knowing what is happening in that regard.Ms Marian Harkin, MEP:I endorse what Ms McGuinness has said about theDepartment‘s officials and our permanent representation in Brussels. I havefound them very helpful and knowledgeable. It is a big help to us as MEPs that33

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturethey have their finger on the pulse because, as Mr. O‘Driscoll has pointed out,the details of these proposals are intimidating. We often hear generalisationsabout different aspects of them but our role as parliamentarians is to amend theminutiae of the documents that come before us. Members of all political partiesand none can play a role in these debates thanks to co-decision. They can workwith MEPs of all parties to understand the details or at least offer their views.That is a role this Parliament can play for the first time because it now has co-decision with the Council.Deputy O‘Mahony asked about the size of the budget. The best estimate anyonecan give is that it is approximately 1% of Europe‘s wealth. The budget proposedfor 2013 is €138 billion, which represents an increase on 7% on previousbudgets. While the Commission and the Parliament will support this increase onecan be sure the Council will seek to cut it. It is difficult to estimate over a sevenyear period. All I can say is that it will be less than €1 trillion and that Germanyand some of the other large countries want to shave significant amounts from it.If we have a smaller cake, the portion for agriculture will also be smaller. We willbe supporting a large budget but we do not have the same influence because wedo not raise the taxes. The Parliament has always been strong in supporting anadequate budget for agriculture and I have no reason to believe this will change.The other issues of concern to people will be the flat rate payments andredistribution. Countries such as Romania, Poland and Bulgaria want us to beeven more ambitious than we are while Germany and Belgium prefer that wehave a proper adjustment period. The view of the agriculture committee of theparliament is that we should have a long enough adjustment period to allowmember states to get that point.I do not need to add to the greening issue. However, there is a great deal ofconcern in Ireland about it but I do not know that it will create as manyproblems as we think. The Parliament has strong views on this with the provisionfor 7% of land to be set aside. Significant amendments to these proposals will bemade by the committee and the Parliament. It is something Ireland can probably

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturewill live it whereas the issue of the redistribution of payments is of greaterconcern.Ms McGuinness, MEP, mentioned the active farmers issue. We can forget aboutthat because the Commission has had to admit defeat on it. We will have toconsider something else, which is a positive move as well. In the past week ortwo, the European Court of Auditors produced a report on the CAP and there wasa presentation last week. I read that representatives of the court will appearbefore the committee at the end of the month.Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP: They appeared before us last week.Ms Marian Harkin, MEP: Obviously, what I read was out of date. They say that,for example, the level of bureaucracy within the rural development programme,even to them, is mind boggling. There are six layers of rules, which confirmswhat Deputy Ó Cuív said and that is no way to go about our business. They alsohad a problem with the definition of ―active farmers‖ and the issue of capping.The committee is interested in what the Parliament thinks. Recently, we votedon a non-legislative report on greening in Strasbourg. That was a good indicationof what the Parliament is thinking. We voted that mandatory greening practicesshould be adapted to suit the specificities of different member states and theyshould be workable and not entail too much bureaucracy. That gives an outlineof where the Parliament is coming from on those issues.The Court of Auditors report stated the CAP is too input and expenditureoriented rather than looking at performance and outcomes. This is what theCommission tells us it wants to do but the Court of Auditors report says the wayit is designed will not allow for that. They also referred to the additionaladministrative burden on farmers and member states. They reckon the currentadministrative budget could increase by 15% to implement the Commission‘sproposals. All these issues will be taken into consideration by the Parliamentwhen we deal with the reports and the minutiae.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureMs McGuinness, MEP, mentioned the foodchain but the debate is ongoing in theCommission and it is very important for farmers. The agri-environment optionsscheme was mentioned. I acknowledge the significant impact the scheme hashad not only on farmers along the west coast from Donegal to Kerry, but acrossthe country. For the first time in 18 years, there will not be an agri-environmental scheme and I wonder whether that will have an impact onIreland‘s allocation from the rural development fund. There may be noconnection but I would be interested in the committee‘s comments on that.Deputy Ó Cuív mentionedde minimusaid earlier. Negotiations are ongoing but Iam more than hopeful that the directorate general for competition will not seethe €200,000 threshold as a problem. On the basis of communications I havehad with officials, they do not say this. I acknowledge the Deputy referred to anincrease but we will deal with what is there now. I agree with him that we canlook to the next Leader programme. That issue will be sorted and it will taketime but I acknowledge it has taken too long.I refer to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Commission hasmade a proposal that farmers may be included under this for the first time. Ithas a budget of approximately €3 billion and up to €2.5 billion could be availablefor farmers but that money will only be available if trade deals provedisadvantageous to agriculture, in particular the Mercosur trade agreement.What are the committee‘s view on that? There are differing views in theParliament as to whether this is a suitable and sufficient instrument if a tradedeal significantly damages agriculture.Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP:Like my colleagues, I am grateful for the

opportunity to address the committee. During my year in the Parliament, I havemet the representatives of many farming organisation and families to discussissues affecting farmers and I have used my position on the agriculturecommitteetoconveytheirconcernsandprioritiesduringtheongoingnegotiations. Ireland has participated in the CAP since 1973 and, over the past40 years, has received more than €45 billion in funding. That has paled intoinsignificance recently as we talk about billions of euro as if they are just36

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturehundreds of euro. However, the CAP has provided farmers with great incomesecurity and has allowed Europe to become largely self-sufficient and less relianton food imports. Ireland receives the highest amount per capita of memberstates and that is a reflection of both the success of previous Governments innegotiating the policy and the strength of the agriculture sector here. Irelandreceives just under €2 billion in support from the Union every year and theimportance of this funding cannot be overstated. In a political discoursedominated by euroscepticism, it is worthwhile to point to the CAP as an exampleof Europe contributing to improving our communities, increasing rural standardsof living and providing employment through Ireland.I will break my submission down into two parts. I will address issues related todirect payments to farmers under the reforms proposed to pilar 1 and theimportance of maintaining a strong focus on rural development post-2013through pillar 2 supports. There have been many difficulties with the proposalsfor pillar 1 reform, most notably as they relate to reform of the single farmpayment and the so-called the greening of the CAP, which has been covered bythe colleagues. However, these changes must take account of the variousnational contexts in member states. A one-size-fits-all approach would be theruination of the CAP and it would dilute its potential to bring about genuineimprovements in the European agricultural sector. A practical example is theproposals announced to update the small farmer scheme. Many of them, such asthe drastically reduced administrative burden through a single defined paymentof between €500 and €1,000 to farms of less than 3 hectares, have beendiscussed by the previous contributors. The number of small farmers variesgreatly and, therefore, the Commission cannot be overtly prescriptive when itcomes to the percentage of the national envelope that must go to the scheme.There are also problems in Ireland and throughout Europe with how to define an―active farmer‖. We are all in agreement that golf courses and airports are non-agricultural and industries should not receive pillar 1 supports. However,precisely defining the term ―active farmer‖ is cumbersome.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureThe current proposals seem to kick the can down the road. They say that aninactive farmer is one whose direct payment equals less than 5% of incomereceived from non-agricultural sources. However, the problem then is whether anon-agricultural source of income can be correctly defined. Can a definition befound which comfortably fits all 27 member states? The expert is Ms McGuinnessand, therefore, all questions should be put to her. We agreed this in advance inthe interest of brevity. However, we had a chat recently. She said that in thedirect negotiations in a committee it comes down to nuances. The use of ―a‖,―is‖, ―them‖ or ―on‖ could make a difference to the interpretation of what we arediscussing. It is that defined and refined. It is also one of the difficulties whenthere are many languages and interpreters. How things are interpreted ormisinterpreted can cause problems for us. There have been some questionsregarding creating positive or negative lists outlining criteria for establishing whois an active farmer. While there could be a reasonable compromise we wouldneed to see the specifics of that. The most sensible thing to do in this instance isto allow the individual member states establish their own definition of what anactive farmer is, taking into account the peculiarities and nuances of the state inquestion.Greening of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, has been one of the mostdifficult areas in the current negotiations. The priority for Ireland should be theintroduction of a system which is flexible and adaptable and does not put undueburdens on individual farmers. This will mean ensuring the greening measuresare realistic. I was particularly happy last week to hear my party colleague, LuisCapoulos Santos, MEP, who is one of the European Parliament‘s rapporteurs forthis legislation, state that he is in favour of the Commission proposals to allowtransfers from pillar 1 to pillar 2 up to a maximum of 10%. I believe it is asensible move which gives power to member states and will improve the overalleffectiveness of the reforms.The final issue on pillar 1 relates to the top-up payment for young farmers.Greater clarity is needed on the specific definitions contained in chapter 1 of theproposals. There is considerable uncertainty about the precise requirements for

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agricultureaccess to the programme. I have received queries from constituents who areconcerned that the requirement to have activation entitlement under the singlefarm payment might prevent new entrants. That is definitely a difficulty andneeds to be examined more closely with a usable system put in place. Regardingpillar 2, one of the best things I did since becoming an MEP was to visit variousLeader programmes and partnerships across Munster. Since January I havevisited IRD in Duhallow, West Limerick Resources and on Thursday I will visitAvondhu Blackwater Partnership in east Cork. I have seen really fantastic workdone by these programmes. It has been a pleasure to visit and see aprogramme in action with such positive benefit for the entire community.I use this platform to highlight the dangers of diluting the impact for local actiongroups through alignment. While I favour greater co-operation between localauthorities and the action groups, I vehemently oppose bringing these actiongroups under the control of local authorities, which would destroy the bottom-upapproach envisaged in the rural development programme. If some of themeasures currently under the control of the LAGs were taken away and given tothe local authorities, it would not be in line with the Commission requirementthat rural development be undertaken in an integrated fashion. We know of verygreat successes. If something is not broken we certainly do not need to fix it.The proposals for reform of pillar 2 have stated that the Commission favoursincreased integration after 2013 with all aspects of rural development working insynergy. Having seen the work of these organisations and their transformativeeffect on local communities, I will continue to advocate this position at home andabroad in the European Parliament. I thank the committee for the opportunity tospeak here today.

Presentation by IFA President John Bryan‘Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Post 2013’Thursday 3rdMay 2012Chairman and members of the Oireachtas, I want to thank you for giving the IFAthe opportunity to make this presentation.Background to CAP reformSince its inception, the CAP has been of vital importance for producers andprovides European consumers with a plentiful supply of high quality, sustainablyproduced food. The CAP has undergone significant reforms since its inception,prompted by the demands of European consumers. Farmers have responded byproviding high quality, sustainably produced food, at reasonable prices.The CAP has a multi-functional policy role, and provides benefits in a number ofkey areas:-Consumers – the CAP provides security of food supply, price stability, andguarantees on food safety and traceability and assured environmental andanimal welfare standards ;-Rural Economy – the CAP, through the Rural Development Policy inparticular, maintains economic activity in remote areas, thereby providing avital support to rural society in Europe;-Environment – farmers under the CAP meet high environmental standardsfor sustainable food production and land management.40

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureIn return, the CAP provides support for the continuation of the family farmmodel of production in the EU. The EU plays a leading role in internationalagricultural trade. It is the biggest global importer of agricultural products, withEU imports valued at €70 billion annually. EU imports from Developing and LessDeveloped Countries are greater than that amount imported by the USA, Japan,Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined.With the world population set to reach 9 billion by 2050, and demand for foodset to double, a strong CAP focused on food production is essential. The bestway to achieve food security for Europe‘s 500m consumers is to maintain ourproduction capacity in Europe. Preserving the EU family farm model ofproduction is key to this.Commission proposals on CAP post 2013At the IFA AGM in January, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Dacian Ciolos wentthrough his proposals for reform of the CAP post 2013. In his proposals, heoutlines three core principles for the CAP after 2013; viable food production,environmental balance and territorial cohesion.However, the text of the proposals does not support the achievement of theseprinciples. IFA highlighted to Commissioner Ciolos the very damaging impact onagricultural production, farm income, exports and jobs of his proposals. It isdisappointing that the Commissioner remained wedded to his proposals for a flatrate payment system to replace the existing model.IFA is determined that the CAP must support active farmers, and must supportthe role that the agriculture sector is playing in contributingrecovery and delivering on theFood Harvest 2020targets.With exports of €9b from the agri-food sector in 2011, it is in Ireland‘s intereststhat the growth continues. The Government has been strong in looking for a fullCAP budget for Ireland and to ensure that funding supports the productive base.It is critical that significant changes are made to the Ciolos proposals in orderthat CAP reform works for Ireland.41to our economic

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureThe CAP BudgetThe context for reform of the CAP is different to previous years in that the CAPbudget itself is not yet known, as negotiations on the overall EU Budget from2014-2020 have not yet concluded.With lower growth prospects pressure may return on the overall EU budget for2014-2020. However, the opposite must be argued as a well-funded CAP budgetunderpins economic activity across rural Europe.It‘s critical that, in the event of their being downward pressure on the EU budgetafter 2014, policymakers must maintain a fully funded CAP budget. Indeed, itcan be justifiably argued that increasing the CAP and EU Budget is a credibleway of stimulating badly needed economic activity and jobs in Europe.The Single PaymentIt is vital that Ireland retains its full funding allocation of over €1.2b for theSingle Farm Payment. Once the CAP budget and Member State allocations aredecided, the issue that is occupying the minds of many farmers is how the SinglePayment will be distributed internally.The Commission proposals, as currently set out, will undermine active producersand interfere with farmer‘s normal business decisions. First and foremost, theproposal for a uniform per hectare payment on a national or regional level is ofgreat concern. It takes no account of major differences in the productivecapacity of land or levels of investment and commitment by individual farmersIn general the current payment model in Ireland closely matches productionlevel on farms. This fact is supported by the Department of Agriculture‘s figures.At the simplest level, given the variance in the existing distribution of payments,the result of this proposal would be a major disruption in payments for individualfarmers, and across a very short time period.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureThis income effect has been identified by many commentators. The speed andscale of the income drop alone would impact on the production decisions ofmany farmers, their capacity to repay investments and the viability of theirbusiness. It has been suggested by some commentators that this may not be aproblem. Some farmers would lose out, some would gain and, overall the impactnationally won‘t be negative. This is clearly not correct.A uniform payment only makes sense in the context where there is uniformity inthe other factors that impact on farm output and income, such as land andreturns from the market. Clearly this is not the case for Irish agriculture.Therefore a flexible payment system linked to the original system, allowing forgradual adjustments, provides an option that will minimise disruption at farmlevel, and maximise production at national level.IFA is supportive of a national reserve fund to target to extra supports toproductivefarmerswhoexpandedtheirbusinessandmayhavelowentitlements. The Association is also in favour of supporting young farmersbased on objective criteria and for the option of a coupled payment of up to 10%to underpin the viability of vulnerable sectors.The Commission‘s proposal to use 2014 as a reference year is creating majordisruption of the land-leasing market in Ireland. To address this issue, furtherchanges are required that should allow Member States to set their own referenceyear.I would like to turn briefly to the other issues that are of importance for Irishfarmers, namely the proposed greening measures, Rural Development and theimportance of Emergency Market Support measures.GreeningThe EU proposal to use 30% of the Single Farm Payment for greening measuresand allocate this on a flat per hectare basis in the first year will cause asignificant reduction in payments immediately for farmers and is totallyunacceptable.43

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureA separate payment on greening, as proposed, would involve significantadditional bureaucracy, administration and processing, leading to substantialpayment delays.The existing cross compliance and particularly GAEC measures, which arecurrently applied by all farmers in respect of direct payments, contain verysignificant greening measures. These include prevention of soil erosion,maintenance of soil organic matte and protection of groundwater.Greening must be incorporated into normal farming practices and included aspart of the cross compliance and GAEC measures for the Single Farm Payment.Farmers should be able to choose from a menu of practical ‗greening options‘ onan annual basis.Rural DevelopmentIreland has traditionally participated strongly in the Rural Developmentprogramme. In the discussions on the Single Farm Payment, it must not beforgotten that Rural Development funding brings in almost €600m annually,through EU funding and national co-financing. Funding in the next programmemust take into account past performance of Member States as well as objectivecriteria.In addition, the level of co-financing must remain at a standard 50%EU/National Exchequer funding for all measures. Adequate funding must beprovided to ensure payment rates across all measures are at a level whichallows effective implementation.The key priority areas for Rural Development must be Agri-environmentmeasures, Support for Less Favoured Areas, On-farm investment and innovationprogrammes to modernise and improve efficiency across all sectors. The LFAreview must allow flexibility at Member State level to reflect country-specificNatural Handicaps.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureEmergency Market SupportEmergency Market Support measures are effectively used to put a floor on pricesat times of price collapse. We saw this in action during the dairy crisis in 2009.Schemes such as private storage, intervention and export refunds are effectivein easing market difficulties.However, additional funding must be allocated. The Agricultural Crises ReserveFund is not sufficient.ConclusionReform of the Common Agricultural Policy is nothing new. Farmers have showntheir ability to adapt and respond to consumer demands and a changing policyenvironments.I believe that the current proposals are inflexible and have the potential toseriously undermine the growth potential of Irish agriculture and the viability ofthousands of full time productive farmers.However, with the correctamendments and flexibilities and the smart utilisation of the entire CAP budgetIrish farmers will again adapt and continue to deliver for their families,communities and country.

CAP Reform- where do we stand now?PresentationMr Gabriel Gilmartin (President)Mr Eddie Punch (General Secretary)Tuesday 8thMay 2012Chairman, Members of the CommitteeThank you for the invitation to address you on the CAP reform proposal, which isundoubtedly the most critical policy issue facing farmers at the moment.ICSA, as you know, was the association that took the lead on CAP reform in2003, as the first, and for a long time, the only farm association, to supportdecoupled payments.So it‘s no surprise that we have worked very hard to make the case for thehistoric Single Payment, and we continue to argue, that if change must come,then change must be gradual, phased in over a long period, and in a way thatdoes not result in significant losses for farmers who have continued to farm in aproductive manner since the last reform in 2003.I think it‘s fair to say that there is a lot of concern among our members aboutthe implications of what Commissioner Ciolos has proposed.farmers are especially dependent on the Single Payment.Cattle and sheepIn 2010, direct

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureThe key concerns are:1. Concern that the EU budget will be sufficient to retain the current level ofCAP across Europe and that Ireland gets at least a similar amount to whatwe get at present.2. Concern that the flat rate payment will not work in Ireland and that anysignificant flattening of payments across the board will hit too manyfarmers too severely.3. Concern that we don‘t end up with a whole new regime of extrabureaucracy and restrictions, particularly in relation to greening.4. Concern over what is happening to the land rental market as a result ofthe uncertainty around reference years.The budget remains undecided and it seems that there is no great urgency toget a decision on this. The economic crisis and elections in France are partiallyto blame.But there is also a range of views on whether the European Unionbudget should be reduced at a time when austerity is the prescription for manymember states.The problem is that progress on negotiations is delayed in the absence ofcertainty on the budget. As it stands, it seems to us that we are not on targetfor a deal to be done under the Irish presidency of the EU in the first half of nextyear. In turn, it is increasingly possible that the reform will not be in place for2014 as planned.This raises questions about reference years.In the Ciolosproposal, 2014 is the base year, with eligibility also linked to whether a farmermade an area aid application in 2011. This begs the question; will the relevantyears actually be 2012 and 2015 rather than 2011 and 2014?One thing we are clear on is that there is no possible justification for going backto any form of coupled payments. There is a campaign being run by the meatindustry who would like to see some reversal of the implementation of fulldecoupling.This is precisely because decoupling has created the conditions that has allowedbeef to pass the €4 mark and given us much improved sheep prices over the47

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculturepast 12 months. The sharp drop in recent weeks in lamb price shows that weare still very vulnerable to fluctuations in supply and demand.The critical point is that the only sensible means of increased output is inresponse to improved markets. Putting in place artificial incentives to increasenumbers is a roadmap for disaster for farmers.In any event the options for re-coupling are limited. The proposal would allowIreland to use 5% of the total national envelope for coupled payments. This isless than €65 million.payment of €65.allocate it to the ewe.But would this be of any benefit to farmers?live-weight compared with €2.50 to €3 this year.The problem is that if you go back to a coupled payment, farmers tend to all runin the same direction with the inevitable consequences of over supply benefitingthe factories but no-one else.The alternative is to strictly limit it with a sucklerquota but all of this is a return to needless bureaucracy for a very smallpayment, which of course is not actually extra money but a deduction from thedecoupled national envelope. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter.What we wantICSA believes that the only strategy is build alliances to ensure that theproposals are watered down sufficiently.At the April Farm Council, Portugalproposed that no member state or no individual beneficiary should be subject toa cut greater than 8%. This was supported by Italy and by our own Minister.ICSA believes that this is a positive development that needs to be built on.Contrary to our worst fears, there are grounds to believe that the Commissionerwill have to compromise a lot more than he intended and that we can retainmore than we hoped for.When we had the suckler cowIf it was allocated to the suckler cow, it would be aHowever, there would also be an equally strong case to

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureWe accept that some re-distribution may have merit particularly in the case ofyoung farmers or farmers that had enterprises that attracted little or no premia,such as calf-rearing enterprises. However, we are clear that the gains should belimited.Limited in the sense that only those who are actively farming and continue toactively farm will get an increase.Limited in terms of the total hectaresinvolved. We believe that it is inappropriate to increase payments significantlyon more than 100 ha, when there will be farmers with smaller holdings sufferingcuts.Regarding cutting per hectare payments, we think that the EU proposal isactually revolution not evolution.It is unacceptable that Europe wants a flatrate payment within member states by 2019, yet has admitted that a flat ratebetween member states is not attainable till 2027.Therefore, we believe that the objective must be that reform is about reducingthe extremes between now and 2019- not about a flat rate that sounds plausiblein theory but which won‘t work in practice.An acceptable arrangement would be one where farmers who possessentitlements in excess of €270/ ha would have some adjustment on a graduatedscale.In this model, farmers with entitlements worth between €270-600/hawould be cut by 3% per annum on the amount above €270 and those withentitlements above €600 would be cut by 5% per annum on the balance above€600. Entitlements above €800/ha would be cut by 10%.In this way, there isa gradual move towards more even payments while respecting the principle thatalmost no beneficiary should lose more than 8%, in the period 2014-2019.The money saved by these cuts would obviously be much less than the cutsenvisaged by Commissioner Ciolos. Accordingly, we would limit the beneficiariesto only deserving cases using objective criteria to limit gains to active farmersand in terms of setting a maximum of 100 ha on which extra rates could bepaid.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureGreeningICSA believes that the Greening proposal is confused and unclear. The greeningelement was initially seen as a voluntary top-up but it now seems that it will becompulsory for all.This makes the setting aside of 30% for a greeningcomponent meaningless.The main concerns are that the 30% will be immediately re-constituted as a flatrate payment, thereby accelerating the move towards full flat rate payments.Second, there is a lot of concern that greening will lead to more red tape. Beingrequired to allocate 7% of area to greening measures is very worrying.just not workable on a typical sized Irish farm.In a strange way, we take some consolation from the reality that there is awidespread hostility to the greening details across a lot of the member statesand therefore they are likely to be watered down.One point on this is whether farmers will be allowed to re-submit land which iscurrently classed as ineligible such as hedgerows, scrub etc.included in the 7%?One thing which must happen is that the contradiction between Single Paymentand agri-environment schemes must be resolved.Farmers are losing groundand incurring penalties under the Single Payment for marginal land that is beingencroached on by scrub but they are blocked from dealing with this under REPS,designated areas and now under the land reclamation regulations.While a lot of focus is on Pillar 1, we must not lose sight of Pillar 2 reforms.Oireachtas members have a special role here in lobbying to ensure that theDepartment of Finance faces up to the need for co-funding in order to ensuremaximum draw down under Pillar 2.We would prioritise a return of a young farmer scheme, retention of theDisadvantaged Areas scheme and a new, more viable agri-environment schemethan AEOS, under Pillar 2.50Can this beInaddition, we see that an idea such as the compulsory rotation of three crops is

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureFinally, I might say a few words on the rental market. The disastrous decision toannounce a reference period of 2014 in advance has played havoc with rentalmarkets.The subsequent decision to announce that only those who made anapplication in 2011 has only marginally resolved the problem and it is storing upa whole lot of hardship cases in terms of farmers who start in 2012 or 2013.We would see that there is a growing need for a land use and tenants‘ rightsreform to give more protection to farmers who are renting ground. The currentsystem is not working. Around my part of the world land just is not availableand we are forced to travel to rent ground. With land making up to €200 peracre, there is no sense that we are facing up to this problem. What are young,trained farmers to do?As a general principle, reference periods should only be announced when theperiod is passed to avoid the mess we have here.However, I fear that thedamage is already done in terms of CAP proposals but I do believe that placinglimits on who gains from this reform will be an essential part of tackling thisproblem so that land is in the hands of active farmers who have a progressiveplan for the long term.In conclusion, Deputies & Senators, I want to commend this committee for itsinterest in this vital topic. We will be working closely with the Minister and theMEPs, as well as lobbying officials here and in Brussels.We need a strongcampaign by the Taoiseach to get movement on the issue of the budget and weneed to continue to work to reverse the more extreme elements of this CAPreform proposal.

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureMr Tom Moran, Secretary General,Department of Agriculture, Food and the MarineThursday 17thMay 2012I thank the committee for its invitation to address the key issues in the sixmonthly progress report on developments in the EU from July to December2011.Moving on to developments in the EU, as the Committee is aware there havebeen a number of important policy developments in the agri-food sector during2011. Of most significance to Ireland was the publication by the Commission ofproposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in July 2011 and proposalsfor reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in October 2011.CAP/CFP ReformThe CAP reform process is of particular importance in an Irish context and I ampleased to say that the Commission proposals are broadly in line with ournational priorities for smart, green growth as set out in our Food Harvest 2020strategy. Our priorities in the negotiations will be to:Deliver a well-resourced CAP,Retain Ireland‘s share of CAP funds,Maximise payment model flexibility for Member States,Ensureruraldevelopmentpolicysupportscompetitivenessandsustainability,Keep the CAP as simple and as effective as possible for farmers andMember States.The CFP reform package is of equal importance to Ireland in achieving ouroverall goal of a sustainable, profitable and self reliant fishing industry. The keyissues for us in these negotiations will be:

You will recall that the Minister, I and other Department officials have appearedbefore the Committee on several occasions in recent times to update it ondevelopments in these negotiations. I don‘t propose to dwell too much on thesetopics today but to concentrate on other aspects of our involvement at EU level.Legislative proceduresThe Agri-food sector, in general, is a highly regulated sector with a continuousflow of proposals being put forward by the Commission.Since the LisbonTreaty, the majority of these proposals fall under the Ordinary LegislativeProcedure requiring agreement across the three EU Institutions; the Council, theCommission and the Parliament.This of course adds a new dimension to thenegotiation process and requires that the Department must engage fully with allthree institutions to secure the best possible outcomes for Ireland.Commission proposalsI would like to briefly touch on some of the proposals presented by theCommission during the latter part of 2011 starting with the proposal to increasethe annual quota for imports of high quality beef from the US into EU.Thisproposal has been adopted by Council and agreed by Parliament and is awaitingfinal signature. We were not particularly happy with the increased quota but itresolved a long standing dispute between the EU and the US and possibly pavedthe way for the publication of a draft revised US BSE Rule in March 2012. As theCommittee is aware, EU beef does not currently have access to the US marketdue to the current BSE rule and that we believe that this is an important step ina process which should allow for the resumption in Irish and EU beef exports tothe US.53

Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and AgricultureDuring 2011, the Commission commenced the process of reviewing promotionalmeasures for agricultural products publishing a summary report of the greenpaper in December 2011. Agriculture Ministers adopted views on the paper atthe December Council and it is expected that the Commission will bring forwardlegislative proposals towards the end of 2012.We have welcomed the broadthrust of the Commission views to date as they acknowledge the need to simplifyand remodel the current EU promotion regime and provide for greater cohesionin promoting EU produce in Third Countries. This focus on the image of EU foodis of direct interest to our exports.Also in the food sector, the Polish Presidency put in a major effort towards theend of December to find a compromise in the discussions to conclude thenegotiations on the food aid for the most deprived persons in the Union. Themain contentious issues with this dossier revolved around how the programmehas evolved, whether or not the programme should be financed under CAP or ismore appropriate to social policy. Agreement was reached at Council and by theParliament in early 2012 resulting in the safeguarding of the programme to 2013and the Commission will evaluate whether or not this programme should rightlyfall within EU social policies.A key area of particular interest to Ireland is the simplification of processes anda reduction in administrative burdens and compliance costs for the farmingcommunity.We are working closely with the Commission and other MemberStates to bring forward constructive proposals particularly in relation to the CAPin order to reduce those burdens.Presidency of the Council of the EUWe are now approaching the end of the Danish Presidency of the EU Council andthe main focus of this 6 month Presidency has involved intense discussion on theCAP and CFP dossiers.It is widely expected that the conclusion of thenegotiations on these important dossiers will fall under the remit of the IrishPresidency in the first half of 2013. For this to happen it will be necessary forthe next Multiannual Financial Framework to be agreed and it will also be

Presidency will be the 1stin the trio of Presidencies that we share with LithuaniaPreparations are well under way in the Department with myofficials actively participating in the various preparatory bodies. In addition tothe main reform packages, it is expected that the Commission will publish somemajor dossiers this year and early next year covering Animal Health law, animalwelfare, a new plant health strategy, review of the meat inspection aspect offood and feed law and a review of the seeds package. Chair persons have beenidentified for the various Council working groups that we anticipate will beconvened and they are currently participating in specialised training organisedby the Taoiseach‘s Department.We have intensified our interaction with key players through numerous meetingswith relevant Commission officials and key Parliament players particularly theRapporteurs for the major dossiers.The Minister, I and senior officials areengaged in ongoing meetings with our counterparts in other Member States bothto emphasise the issues of importance to Ireland and to gauge the issues ofconcern to them so that we can be well placed to facilitate compromise positionsin order to conclude negotiations on as many dossiers as possible.Concluding remarksTo conclude, the six monthly report provides the Committee with a summary ofproposals published by the Commission during each Presidency term.In thereport we highlight the major developments across the various sectorsparticularly those that impact on Ireland. Any questions or clarification that theCommittee would like to pose now, I will be happy to discuss.

Commissioner Dacian Ciolos 19thof January 2012Reform of Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with Officials fromthe Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine and Irish MEP’s 1stof May 2012Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with the IrishFarmers Association 3rd of May 2012Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with the IrishCattle and Sheep Farmer’s Association (ICSA) 8thof May 2012Reform of Common Agricultural Policy: Discussion with ICMSA andMacra na Feirme 15thof May 2012