Farmers should not have to pay for wider political issues
billion in the EU agri-food sector, due to his generous offers in ill-fated world trade proposals. Presumably, the agri-food losses would have been acceptable to the EU because there was scope for gains in other economic sectors.
So it’s not such a big surprise now that farmers don’t want the EU to dip into their pockets to pay for another diplomatic misadventure.
They are saying hands-off the 1% of their EU payments, which farmers contributed into a crisis fund last year, and which might now be spent by the EU to help farmers hit by the Russian food import ban.
That ban was caused by the EU pushing for a trade deal with Ukraine, and backing sanctions against Russia, say farmers. So why should their money be used to ease the effects?
In Ireland, the co-ops and main farmer organisations have warned the EU not to use the crisis fund, which is more than €400m, on this occasion.
Representing the co-ops, ICOS President Bertie O’Leary said EU farmers and food processors should not be expected to bear the brunt of the cost of the Russian ban on food imports. Instead, the cost of funding the market consequences of the EU diplomatic stance against Russia should come from outside the CAP budget, in view of the geo-political nature of the stance taken by the EU on relations with the Ukraine.
Introducing supports for farmers in sectors hit by the Russian ban, while at the same cutting their Single Farm Payment to fund it, is totally unacceptable, said ICMSA President John Comer.
He said it highlights bad decisions by successive EU farm ministers, in dismantling EU price support instruments, and leaving very few measures to deal with a trade crisis, along with totally inadequate price support.
Farmers should not be the fall guys for a political ban, said Mr Comer. He warned against the more powerful links further up the supply chain passing the negative implications from the ban back to farmers. Instead, the focus should be on finding new markets for product turned back from Russia, and on price supports, if necessary.
Farmers should not have to pay the cost of what is a wider political issue; the cost must be borne by all EU citizens, given that political stability is required by all sectors of society, concluded Mr Comer.
IFA President Eddie Downey also insisted that EU financial resources outside the CAP budget must be used to support markets, because the Russian trade ban is neither a normal market disturbance nor a natural disaster as envisioned in the CAP crisis fund legislation.
Irish farmers must get the 1% of their Single Farm Payment which went into the crisis fund refunded in full, said Mr Downey.
Irish and EU farmers should not bear the economic burden in the EU’s geo-political dispute with Russia.
Farmers have a strong point. While they suffer due to the Russian food import ban, there will be scope for supermarkets and consumers across the EU to gain significantly, because prices will fall for food which is diverted from the Russian market, leading to a glut in the EU market.
Already, the cost of fruit and veg in France has fallen, after two years of rising prices.
In Finland, farmers have special cause to resent the use of the crisis fund they contributed to being spent by the EU in response to the Russian ban.
While they lose out due to the devastating blow to Finland’s export trade, supermarkets in areas along their 1,300 kilometre-long border with Russia are doing well, thanks to travelling Russian grocery shoppers who face empty shelves in their home supermarkets, due to the ban on EU produce.
Supermarkets in the east of Finland are now bilingual, with all goods are advertised in both Finnish and Russian.
