Environmentalists and farmers working together to protect CAP

Given the EU budgetary pressures, it has never been more important to ensure EU consumers understand what is delivered through CAP. As Phelim O’Neill reports, European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan’s public consultation on modernising and simplifying CAP is yielding dividends.

The results of the public consultation were outlined at an oversubscribed conference in Brussels last Friday. The headline figures from the 58,520 submissions received from a broad spectrum of organisations, EU citizens and individuals included in the analysis showed that:

Ultimately, what we are seeing is widespread acceptance that CAP has delivered on its mission: to help safeguard a level of income for farmers and provide high-quality food for EU consumers.

For Commissioner Hogan, this should reinforce his position on the need to protect the percentage of the EU budget allocated to CAP.

Of course, this is only one part of the equation in ensuring farmers’ incomes are protected. A critical part of the jigsaw will be safeguarding the EU budget in the wake of Brexit. While estimates vary, it is thought that the UK leaving the EU will constrain the overall budget by 10%. It leaves the remaining member states in the invidious position of having to either increase their contributions or reduce spending.

On the fringes of last week’s CAP conference there were also suggestions that an alternative would be to give each member state the freedom to co-finance Pillar 1 along with Pillar 2 in order to bridge any shortfall in the EU budget. Such a move should be resisted not only by farmers but indeed by those committed to the long-term sustainability of the European project.

While it might be a quick fix, we must ensure that CAP remains largely a common policy. Any move away from this would see free trade break down over time due to trade-distorting supports being implemented in member states. It would also leave agri supports exposed to the whim of governments and competing demands on national exchequer funds.

With so many challenges to the CAP budget, all stakeholders need to work together to ensure that available funds are channelled into schemes that best deliver on farming and societal interests.

Despite this, the tension that exists between the environmental lobby and farmers was once again evident at last week’s conference. Few lessons appear to have been learned. This adversarial approach has repeatedly led to policies shaped by compromise, with the end result being schemes that deliver nothing for the farmer or the environmentalist – the best example being Greening measures hated on both sides of the fence.

Farmers and environmental groups have much more to gain from working together and presenting a consensus approach to Commissioner Hogan on CAP. Regardless of which side you approach the argument from, you have to accept the basic principle that environmental sustainability and economic sustainability go hand in hand.

As Paul Mooney reports, a new sustainability report published by Teagasc shows that the most profitable farmers have far lower agricultural greenhouse gas emissions per kilo of output than those at the lower end of the scale.

Accepting this principle would allow both groups to engage constructively in shaping policy. While unlikely to reach a common consensus across all areas, there is no reason why both sides cannot agree on a basic framework that would yield environmental and economic benefits. Such policy would promote soil and water quality through targeted and more efficient use of farm inputs. While recognising the need for increased biodiversity, this needs to be achieved while recognising the environmental benefits of promoting the development of Ireland’s grass-based beef and dairy systems.

Instead of putting the Commission in a position where it is trying to weave policy in a way that satisfies a diverse political agenda, perhaps farmers and environmentalists would now gain more by working together to maximise the benefit of what could be a reduced budget.