Lack of planning in CAP reform a worry

A couple of weeks ago, I questioned the ability of our Department of Agriculture and farm organisations to deliver a clear vision of where the CAP reform might be going for Ireland.

I suggested if Roy Keane was a farmer, he would be getting seriously wound up by the apparent lack of planning. In the meantime, in conversations and correspondence on the subject, an email I received from a member of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association’s National Executive was quite revealing. The topic was their position, or lack of it, in relation to CAP reform.

Back in 2004, ICSA were well ahead of the curve in adopting the Fischler proposals which broadly mirrored their own long standing objective of decoupling premium payments.

It is surprising then to realise the farmers’ association that championed decoupling has this time decided to put none of its own proposals on the table, preferring instead to just add amendments to a report compiled by a Portuguese MEP, Luis Capolous Santos.

Mr Santos was appointed European Parliament rapporteur for the Ciolos proposals. (The rapporteur is the person appointed by the Parliament to investigate an issue or situation, or to author a report prepared by a parliament committee).

ICSA previously championed the drive for less red tape, and adopted as its own the slogan, “Freedom to Farm”. Now, they seem to be endorsing a document full of farming restrictions.

A national farm organisation should be able to come up with a more original viewpoint. By hoping to have amendments attached to pre-existing amendments in a document that has yet to be fully debated, they have in my eyes abdicated their responsibility as farmer representatives to truly reflect the needs of Irish farming. Instead, they favour a report that says we broadly accept the need to reduce budgets and re-establish more centralised control. Among their amendments is one that sets a ceiling of €150,000 on payments. The European Commission proposed €300,000 as the cut off, with graduated percentage reductions between €150,000 and €300,000. Applying such reductions to the ICSA proposals would see payments of €75,000 reduced to €60,000.

Manage it or divide it better, but don’t limit it. I don’t like the idea of a farm organisation attempting to limit the flow of money into the economy (I hasten to add that I don’t get anywhere near €75,000 or €60,000).

More startling was ICSA’s insistence in its amendment on land usage — that farmers would have to seek permission to change from grassland to tillage, on the grounds that it might cause damage to the soil structure or the climate change targets of a member state.

Santos, and the commission, weren’t much better, but they at least allowed 5%, and they didn’t hang climate change around our necks.

Also revealing was a conversation I had with a drystock farmer from up the country who questioned in a very serious way the role of Irish MEPs.

He wanted to know why, after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU in 2007, our representatives did not begin the process then of defending our cut of the EU agriculture budget. He also pointed out that the age profile of Europe’s farming population is one of the biggest worries Europe has. “There is a generation of farmers coming near the end of their working lives, and what does Europe decide to do to encourage the next generation? Cut the money to make the job look even less attractive.”