Direct supports must be reserved for food producers

We were critical of the Irish Government’s timidity in putting forward the case for proper funding of CAP post 2028 – and we were right. Their approach has been defeatist and is more ‘cap in hand’ than the proper and reasoned argument highlighting the absolute necessity of the EU being able to feed itself out of its own indigenous farming and food sectors. There was – and is – a compelling argument to make for a reinvigorated CAP, but the Irish Government has failed to make it and the ‘frugals’ now seem set to push through a wholesale amputation of the CAP budget on the wholly ironic grounds that money must be diverted to increased defence spending.

Ireland should have been pointing out that there’s no point in having more tanks and battleships to defend ourselves if we are incapable of feeding ourselves. But it seems that that (battle)ship has sailed.

A hotch-potch

While continuing to argue, and we will do so vigorously, for proper funding of a reinvigorated CAP, we are duty bound to now consider the possibility that a hotch-potch CAP, with a massively reduced budget and more and more qualifications for reduced direct supports, looks much more likely to be the destination. The question then becomes: do we carry on doling out these reduced supports to the present number in the present haphazard fashion based largely on the vague idea of ‘land stewardship’? Or, do we move to a system that prioritises meaningful food production over ‘land stewardship’ and actually make meaningful payments to a smaller group of those farmers who are producing meaningful amounts of food? Or, do we carry on paying as much (or more) to someone with 500 acres of land with little or no animals, or do we cut that payment so that we can give meaningful support to the dairy, suckler, tillage or beef farmers producing raw materials that are 'backboning' our dairy and beef production and actually feeding populations? These are the questions looming as the reality of a hugely reduced (24 per cent with the possibility of a further reduction for a special young farmers' fund) CAP moves into view.

Solutions

Some people are pretending not to see the questions – much less coming up with the answers. That’s never been the ICMSA way; we deal with real decisions that will have real consequences. That’s why nearly six months ago, we started a debate about the criteria for receiving direct supports under a new greatly reduced CAP. We think that in those circumstances, CAP direct supports must be re-connected to food production and must be disconnected from the ever-increasing raft of environmental requirements.

It’s very fair to say that our proposals were not universally welcomed and that’s completely understandable but support for our proposal is growing; there are people who receive CAP payments who are completely uninterested in the idea of producing food. There are people who regard the receipt of CAP direct support as their rights as they pursue a form of ‘land stewardship’ that sits in complete opposition to the traditional model of producing food for sale. There is even a growing number of already wealthy people who regard the right to claim CAP payments as the ‘cherry on the top’ of elaborate tax avoidance schemes wherein they use farm succession and inheritance measures to pass on non-farming wealth to their family. 

Clarity

The ICMSA’s response has been clarity itself: there may have been a time when we could afford to pretend that all these positions and definitions were equally valid and that, indeed, there was no one single idea of a ‘farmer’ that should be prioritised over any other. But that time – and the budget that permitted that complacency – is now under real pressure in front of our eyes. The possibility of a much smaller budget is going to mean, in our view, much reduced – bordering-on-irrelevant – payments to everyone or it’s going to mean a much more stringent view of who is a farmer and what criteria we use to decide who is a farmer deserving of direct supports from a possibly hugely reduced CAP.

None of this is to be interpreted as ICMSA just ‘giving up the ghost’ on keeping the CAP budget at a realistic level, in which case we can go on fudging the idea of who is a farmer and who is therefore eligible to apply for direct supports. But there has been no indication that the Irish Government understands either the standalone importance of a properly resourced CAP or the implications that must follow a greatly reduced CAP post 2028. They’d better start understanding them – and fast.