Important not to create a division
Apparently, the IFA think the minister is not committed enough to protecting recipients of the highest value entitlements, in any reshuffle of the CAP.
It appears to me that by publicly focusing on protecting those with higher payments, the IFA have created the impression that the only issue worthy of debate in the revamp of the CAP is the maintenance of high payments to those already receiving them.
As an ordinary farmer looking in from the outside, the idea that the pre-eminent farm organisation in the country should risk creating a division within the farming community on the grounds of the size of entitlements astounds me.
While the farm organisations appear to have adopted the attitude of “What we have we hold”, they appear to have taken no cognisances of the fact the current SFP is nothing more than an averaging of payments made under the older, much criticised premium payment system of the 1990s. A system that was originally put in place to try to balance returns to farmers from the market place, because we were producing below the cost of production.
The single farm payment comes from a CAP budget which is a very, very easy target for certain politicians and media elements — and it’s fair to assume that, given Europe’s current economic difficulties, it could well attract increased, unwanted and even hysterical attention from those same elements in the run-in to the conclusion of any new deal.
That’s potentially the biggest challenge facing Minister Coveney and his colleagues across Europe.
At a time when taxpayers are being asked to take cut after cut in their wage packets, the thought that the farming community may actually benefit at their expense could well be a tricky sell. And that’s why I’m so annoyed at the IFA.
What is needed is a system that takes into account all those people who are currently actively farming, and whose efforts can be easily seen as positive for the whole economy.
While some may argue — contrary to IFA policy —that current farm prices in Ireland are such that it would be almost immoral to look for future direct assistance, I do not agree.
The reality is that the current strong market prices clearly show the need for a continued level of control to be exercised by Brussels.
Without inducements to maintain balanced farm production, Europe exposes itself to the possibility of chronic oversupply in certain areas, while shortages occur elsewhere. The aim of any new plan must be the stability of indigenous European agriculture, through maintenance of farm gate prices at a level to avoid the yo-yoing of supplies and prices.
For Ireland, that means a unified defence of our CAP budget, built on a plan that sees sustainable and profitable farming as a corner stone of our economy, a plan that gives incentives to all farmers, not just those with high entitlements.
While it has always been easier for farm organisations to argue against change, history has shown new ideas can be hugely beneficial.
I remember when the IFA vilified the Fischler proposals for the SFP; yet they would eventually embrace them. Possibly, at that time, the understanding shown by the newly reformed ICSA of what Fischler was really about pushed the IFA to recognise that change was inevitable.
As the clock hand turns slowly but inevitably towards a new deal next year, never was the saying “No farmers, no future” more appropriate.
