This is a subscriber-only article
I admit because of my generation and farming system, I am not an unbiased observer when it comes to discussions on the Basic Farm Payment. Also, I am not sure how real the distinction is between Pillar I and Pillar II and whether people really care.
Normally, Pillar I payments are 100% funded by the Common CAP budget and are geared towards supporting food production in a European context.
We can overlook so easily that the greening element now accounts for 30% of the overall Pillar I Basic Farm Payment
A European context is beginning to mean more and more as active ingredients for tillage farmers are withdrawn and as the code of good farming practice becomes more detailed and demanding.
We can overlook so easily that the greening element now accounts for 30% of the overall Pillar I Basic Farm Payment.
But as well as the environmental and regulatory conditions attached to the basic farm payment, the actual quantity of money is directly related to the approximately 30% reduction in the guaranteed price levels applying to EU-produced beef, grain and, to a lesser extent, dairy products that took place.
This new-world price level now applies to EU farmers, coupled with much tougher environmental conditions as well as bans on GM crops and many normal agrochemicals and animal treatments.
The compensation for price reductions was directly tied to the output of individual farmers in the case of beef and to the yield of crops in individual regions, which is why there was such a significant difference in the payment per acre in the high-yielding winter crop areas of northern France, compared with the uniform spring barley rate that applied to Ireland.
When I mentioned this to a Government figure recently, he disarmingly replied, “yes, but that was all a long time ago” and, of course, he is right.
Some will lose significantly if the convergence proposals that the European Parliament’s agriculture committee voted for last week come to pass
This was all set in place over 20 years ago and there is no doubt that heifer and sheep farmers did badly out of the system but despite the length of time that has elapsed, it would be interesting to see what proportion of farmers have broadly continued with their production pattern and continuously invested accordingly.
As in most areas of controversy, there are several sides to the story. Some will lose significantly if the convergence proposals that the European Parliament’s agriculture committee voted for last week come to pass.
It will certainly nudge more arable land and well-structured beef farmers into dairying. It will particularly badly affect the intensive suckler farmer on limited acres.
It will also increase the return to basic land ownership rather than productive farming – I would be interested to see a few scenarios tested by the FAPRI analysis unit in Teagasc.
SHARING OPTIONS: