Comment: CAP emphasis has switched from support to regulation: Families will be forced out of farming

Thousands will suffer substantial cuts to their direct payments, in addition to being subject to new and unsurpassed levels of inspection and regulation

ICMSA president Pat McCormack on his Tipperary farm.

At the risk of being prematurely pessimistic — and I sincerely hope I am — we have to say bluntly that the outcome of the current CAP negotiations looks increasingly likely to be not even neutral, but actually worse.

It’s important to stress that there’s still time to avoid this disaster but certainly based on the most up-to-date reports we are getting we seem headed towards a situation where thousands of farm families across the entire country will suffer substantial cuts to their direct payments, in addition to being subject to new and unsurpassed levels of inspection and regulation.

There really is no way or, indeed, point, in presenting this scenario as other than less payments for much more regulation and absolutely nothing for meaningful sustainability. 

The current CAP proposals will deliver for consultants and people involved in enforcement, but will critically undermine farmers.

That is the unavoidable conclusion unless the minister can bring a last-minute sense of realism to the debate and delivers a CAP for sustainable commercial farming. 

Vested interests

An equally unavoidable conclusion is that the CAP debate is being hijacked by vested interests — including within Government — which seems intent on turning CAP into an unworkable environmental exercise.

The Government in general, and our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine in particular, have to get a hold of this issue.

It could start by remembering that the primary purpose of CAP is to deliver safe and sustainable food from a farm sector while ensuring proportionate incomes for the farmer primary-producers.

That is what CAP was designed to do; that is what CAP is for.  But that is most certainly not the focus of the proposals that we have seen thus far.

The emphasis has demonstrably been switched from supporting farmers to supply highest standard food to regulating farmers and cutting direct supports till they exit farming completely.

Based on the documents presented at the CAP Consultative Committee, the current proposals from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine are heavily weighted towards consultant input at farm level, inspection, regulation and enforcement, while being notably light on the funding for the farmers expected to carry out this work. 

I find it quite shocking to have to write that the levels of informed debate around CAP — already frighteningly low — have actually declined as evidenced by these current proposals. 

We had thought that others would see that it was frankly unrealistic to ask farmers to do much, much, more for the same payment. But the proposal now is that the farmers do much, much, more for much, much less money. 

This is the kind of nonsense that’s just bringing the whole question of CAP into disrepute and making it absurd.

Convergence

Nowhere is the decline of logic more evident than on the question of convergence. The notion that convergence will deliver for small and medium sized farmers is just demonstrably wrong.

In fact, the big gainers under convergence would be those people — very often non-farmers — who own or lease substantial areas of land.

If people are serious about protecting small and medium sized farmers — the reason most usually cited for convergence — then the focus needs to move from the payment-per-hectare to the overall payment received by farmers. 

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

That, surely, is the real measure. For instance, the promoters of the current convergence model need to explain how they think it’s fair that a person who is receiving a total payment of €10,000 will see their payment cut, in many cases substantially, to fund a person receiving €50,000?

Because that’s going to be the net effect of the proposed change. Nor does the lack of logic stop there: how is it fair that a person leasing their entitlements will see their entitlements increase at the expense of people who are actually farming? The anomalies in the proposed convergence model are beyond reason.

Unreasonable demands

Meanwhile, the Eco-Schemes in Pillar 1 are in danger of simply not being taken up by farmers due to unreasonable demands. 

In terms of Pillar 11, farmers again appear to face a bureaucratic nightmare and, put bluntly, Pillar 11 also needs to be re-focused to those farmers producing food and contributing to their local economy. 

Overall, our worst suspicions that sustainable commercial farming is being undermined by ill-informed and unfair commentary are being borne out.

ICMSA feels that unrealistic and ridiculous demands are being placed on farmers and the current CAP proposals suggest that the Government endorses that policy.

It’s time for some realism and that realism must be matched by the maximum level of co-funding from our Government. 

We need a convergence model that protects farmers with a low overall payment. We need an ECO scheme that is simple and properly rewards farmers. We need a clear definition of a ‘genuine farmer’ that ensures only people genuinely farming get a payment.

And we need a refocused Pillar 11 supporting farmers who produce food sustainably from an economic, social and environmental perspective. 

It’s never too late to do the right thing.