The recent document from the EU Commission on the possible consequences of policy change over the next ten years makes for uncomfortable reading.
The report, which is an update of an earlier study in 2006, (the Scenar 2020 study), sets out three scenarios:
• A "reference" scenario, with a static CAP budget, a 30% cut in direct payments and a 105% increase in rural development funding
• A "conservative" scenario, with a static CAP budget, a 15% cut in direct payments and a 45% increase in rural development funding
• A "liberalisation" scenario, with a 55% cut in the CAP budget, the total removal of direct payments, market support and trade barriers, and a 100% increase in rural development funding...
The consequences of these actions are then spelt out in detail, but in a nutshell it claims that any cuts in direct payments will lead to falling farm incomes, increased intensification of agricultural production and land abandonment in more marginal areas.
And the deeper the cuts in direct payments, the more extreme the effects on the profitability of farming, the numbers of people engaged in the industry and the well-being of the environment.
Alarming stuff indeed - the more so when you consider that even the "conservative" scenario foresees cuts of 15% in farmers' direct payments, and this drops another 20% in real terms, once the effects of inflation are built in.
But what are the chances of this becoming reality?
The NFU insists that the political mood is changing and law makers are increasingly wary of doing anything that would undermine food production.
For example, French president Nicolas Sarkozy told French farmers this week that there was a need to reinstate strong market support mechanisms, with more restrictions on food imports.
And next week the European parliament will debate a new "working document" from Scottish MEP George Lyon in which he calls for a "substantial CAP budget" to meet the challenges of the future.
But the NFU is in danger of underestimating the persuasive powers of organisations such as the RSPB and Birdlife International in pushing a different agenda.
The fact these organisations have managed to bring bodies such as the CLA and the European Landowners' Organisation under their wing, so to speak, in calling for the phasing out of direct payments shows how influential they can be.
A spokesman for the NFU said he did not believe that, when push came to shove, EU politicians would accept any radical redeployment of funds under the next CAP reform.
Given the bleak conclusions of the latest EU Commission report, I can only hope he is right.
* For more blog posts click here. And why not sign up for email alerts?
| Tweet |
|
The short sightedness of the RSPB is breathtaking! If direct cuts to Farmers ( as opposed to Landowners ) happens there will such a devasting drop in income and profitability that the very thing that the RSPB yearns for, namely increases in environmental measures, will be swept aside as arable farmers struggle to survive. Ask the CLA and RSPB just how many Farmers they can find who actually make a nett profit before they receive their SFP?