CAP: ‘Commercial farming loses out’
The reallocation of CAP funds disadvantages productive farms, says ICOS. File Picture.
‘The reallocation of CAP funding disadvantages commercial farms, many of whom are already struggling with increasing regulatory cost’.
This was the sentiment expressed by the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society Ltd (ICOS) after a deal was reached in Brussels on CAP post-2020 earlier today.
ICOS also says the new arrangements will take further funding away from those under the greatest pressure to invest in climate and environmental actions, and the level of flexibility to manage unspent eco-scheme money risks potential loss of CAP funds.
“While we welcome today’s announcement that an agreement has been reached on the main issues within the CAP reform negotiations, ICOS is disappointed to see that the agreement includes a minimum 85% internal convergence and a 10% redistributive payment requirement,” President Jerry Long added.
“As such, we reiterate our concern that this significant reallocation of CAP funding disadvantages productive farms, most of which have made extensive investments based on the current payment entitlements and which are already struggling with increasing costs of regulatory compliance.
“It is commercial dairy, tillage, and drystock farmers who are losing out from this agreement, which fails to take into account the cost-intensive nature of their operations - incurred by specific demands concerning traceability, hygiene, etc.
“These are the farmers who are driving our export industry, and who are reinvesting in jobs and infrastructure in our rural communities.
“The CAP payments made to those farmers have a multiplier effect in their community and this decision on re-allocation will have knock-on economic implications on our rural economies.”
Mr Long went on to say that ICOS is awaiting clarification on whether the implementation of 85% internal convergence covers the 10% redistributive payment requirement or whether further measures will be required.
“Furthermore, while the 25% ring-fencing of eco-schemes which looks to be included within the agreement is unsurprising, the level of flexibility for unspent funds is,” he continued.
“Despite the extent of the unknowns in the content or operation of these schemes, a very minimum degree of flexibility will be possible to manage unspent funds, with a floor of 20% set for the first two years and just 2% flexibility possible from thereon.
“It is therefore of absolute importance that these schemes are accessible and practical to all farmers, to avoid this situation of lost funds.
“What we do welcome within the agreement is the flexibility introduced within the text regarding GAEC 9, an environmental requirement regarding a minimum share of agricultural land to be devoted to non-productive features, and the recognition it provides for permanent grassland, which we expect and hope to be applicable in an Irish context.
