The European Commission’s proposed reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been slated by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).
In a scathing assessment of the Commission’s position, the EESC claimed its proposals had “no directional purpose, clear objectives or long-term vision for EU agriculture other than imposing a major CAP budget cut”.
In an opinion delivered in Brussels this week, the EESC rejected the proposed 20% cut to CAP funding and described the financial allocation for agriculture as “totally inadequate”.
The EESC also took issue with the proposed dismantling of CAP’s “successful and reliable two-pillar model”.
The overall thrust of the Commission’s proposals would result in the “erosion of some of the key common provisions of the CAP” and lead to the “re-nationalisation of agricultural policy and wearing down of the integrity and functioning of the single market”, the EESC maintained.
The committee represents employers, workers and civil society organisations across the EU and is described as “the voice of organised civil society in Europe”.
The EESC called on the Commission to:
Restore the CAP budget to a level of 0.5% of EU GDP;Retain the two-pillar model for CAP payments;Prevent the renationalisation of CAP by ensuring it remained an EU-wide policy as opposed to one based on national recommendations;Index-link the CAP budget and direct payments to keep pace with the cost of inflation, and help protect farm incomes and maintain stable food prices;Undertake a comprehensive economic, environmental and social impact assessment of the proposed EU budget and CAP reforms to identify viable alternatives and protective measures for farmers.The EESC contended that the Commission’s reforms should focus on securing “a strong CAP budget”, which rewards “active farmers and productive land use” and guarantees an “adequate and sustainable supply of high-quality, safe food and a sufficient income for farmers”.
Former IFA president Joe Healy was among the EESC rapporteurs who drafted the opinion.
The European Commission’s proposed reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been slated by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).
In a scathing assessment of the Commission’s position, the EESC claimed its proposals had “no directional purpose, clear objectives or long-term vision for EU agriculture other than imposing a major CAP budget cut”.
In an opinion delivered in Brussels this week, the EESC rejected the proposed 20% cut to CAP funding and described the financial allocation for agriculture as “totally inadequate”.
The EESC also took issue with the proposed dismantling of CAP’s “successful and reliable two-pillar model”.
The overall thrust of the Commission’s proposals would result in the “erosion of some of the key common provisions of the CAP” and lead to the “re-nationalisation of agricultural policy and wearing down of the integrity and functioning of the single market”, the EESC maintained.
The committee represents employers, workers and civil society organisations across the EU and is described as “the voice of organised civil society in Europe”.
The EESC called on the Commission to:
Restore the CAP budget to a level of 0.5% of EU GDP;Retain the two-pillar model for CAP payments;Prevent the renationalisation of CAP by ensuring it remained an EU-wide policy as opposed to one based on national recommendations;Index-link the CAP budget and direct payments to keep pace with the cost of inflation, and help protect farm incomes and maintain stable food prices;Undertake a comprehensive economic, environmental and social impact assessment of the proposed EU budget and CAP reforms to identify viable alternatives and protective measures for farmers.The EESC contended that the Commission’s reforms should focus on securing “a strong CAP budget”, which rewards “active farmers and productive land use” and guarantees an “adequate and sustainable supply of high-quality, safe food and a sufficient income for farmers”.
Former IFA president Joe Healy was among the EESC rapporteurs who drafted the opinion.
SHARING OPTIONS