To find the NFU and the CLA at loggerheads over the future shape of the CAP comes as little surprise, given the organisations' track record in this area.
It's a little like history repeating itself, since the two bodies took a similarly divergent view six or seven years ago, when DEFRA was consulting on the best way to implement the Fischler reforms in the UK.
Back then the NFU was arguing for a historic receipts based system of single farm payment - insisting that such a system would minimise the redistribution of support, with the inevitable creation of winners and losers.
In contrast, the CLA advocated a flat rate regional payment, saying it would be simpler to organise and eliminate the need for a "spurious" trade in entitlements.
In the end, DEFRA went for a combination of the two - the dynamic hybrid model - with the aim of phasing out the historic element while jacking up the regional element. The logic was fair enough, though the outcome was a complete disaster.
With the next phase of CAP reform now on the horizon, the CLA has this week issued a joint paper with the RSPB, arguing for a policy that gives greater reward for rural development and agri-environment measures, at the expense of direct agricultural support.
The CLA/RSPB argue that there is a better chance of defending the overall CAP budget if more emphasis is put on the environment. "All payments should be based on a clear contract between the farmer and society, spelling out the public goods that the farmer is expected to deliver."
This has been like a red rag to a bull for the NFU, which has described the idea as "old school thinking" and "naïve". It takes the view that, since food security is at the top of the political agenda, the time is right to call for a policy that prioritises productive farming. Environmental protection is just an "important-side effect".
As was the case in 2003/04, the final outcome is likely to be somewhere between the two positions.
But while I can understand the CLA's rationale for wanting to get into bed with the RSPB, I'm not convinced it's the right tactic. Many policymakers in Brussels are already calling for a strong CAP that supports active food production, and the more organisations that get behind that message the better.
Experience also shows that farming does not always benefit from rural development policies, with funds often leaching out of the industry into the pockets of consultants and other regional agencies.
And unless there is some radical change in the way rural development funding is distributed among member states, there is a real danger that the total CAP budget available to UK producers and rural businesses will shrink even further if so-called Pillar 1 supports are wound down.
| Tweet |
|
What is particularly ironic about this dispute is that some people are members of both the NFU and the CLA!
Surely the CLA can sign up to the NFU's view that "The CAP needs to promote a productive, competitive agricultural sector..." and surely the NFU can agree with the CLA's realism that "in the current political and economic climate... farming orginisations acting alone are unlikely to make much headway in securing this sort of policy."
Scrapping between two important orginisations isn't going to help with lobbbying. Thankfully so far no one outside the industry seems to be paying much attention to the disagreement.