The shape of farm payments and schemes for most of the next decade was effectively decided on Friday.
Next Monday and Tuesday, as farmers herd their sheep and cattle, milk their cows, and tend their crops, Charlie McConalogue and his 26 EU farm ministerial colleagues will sign off on a deal agreed between the three legs of the EU stool.
There might be small tweaks, but the final shape of a comprehensive deal that will have a profound impact on all of our farms was brokered between negotiation teams for the Parliament, the Commission and the ministerial council.
And yet, most farmers are as interested this weekend in the weather as in the latest from Brussels.
Will they get their hay saved without more rain? Will the recent showers be enough to kick-start regrowth after silage, or curb the yield from crops that have promise? Will the promised heat come to drive that growth?
It’s understandable in a way.
Farmers have no more control over the events of Brussels than they do over the weather
Farmers have no more control over the events of Brussels than they do over the weather. While the weather will have an immediate impact on their farms, the new CAP won’t take effect until 2023. It’s over the horizon and hard to feel as yet.
That dynamic is, in part, due to the pandemic. The “crush telegraph”, where farmers exchange views and information not only at farm meetings but in marts, farmyards, matches, mass and in the pub, has been shut down for over a year now.
It has had the feel of a medieval war, where 10 miles from a battlefield, life continued as normal until the battle was over. Then a change in regime could turn life upside down.
Gear change in the debate
That dynamic will change quickly. Models of the effect on farms of these proposals, which up to now were abstract and speculative, are now based on reality.
It’s now a case of this will be happening, rather than this might happen.
For many farmers it will mean a cut in direct payments of between 30% and 60%. Few will be significantly better off through direct payments, because of the loss of €300m to eco schemes.
That is money farmers will have to stretch to reach.
And farmers are already stretched, many to breaking point.
Winners and losers
It’s a little trite in one way to look at this as some kind of contest, but CAP reform is a political process, and politics is a sport - a blood sport at that.
Any analysis has to start with the three decision-making bodies, and it’s clear that the European Parliament and European Commission are the big winners this time, in that order.
The European Parliament has not got everything that it wanted, but it has set the agenda.
When Phil Hogan, as commissioner, pushed for gentle evolution of the Ciolos reforms, the parliament voted through a much more radical policy package. The final outcome looks more like the MEPs’ vision.
Council of Ministers
Last time out, the ministerial council, chaired by Simon Coveney, significantly watered down the proposals of the Ciolos commission. They played the Parliament and Commission off each other to a certain extent, taking advantage of the Parliament’s status as first-time partner in negotiations.
This time, the ministerial council has seemed squeezed between Commission and Parliament. The best member states could do is retain as much flexibility as possible.
That gives Charlie McConalogue and his colleagues the chance to influence the outcome, but some difficult choices are ahead, as there simply isn’t enough money to go around.
For many farmers it will mean a cut in direct payments of between 30% and 60%.
Farm organisations
The IFA will feel disappointed with the outcome, as none of the red lines it drew have been realised. Convergence is set at 85%, not 75%. Eco schemes will be 25% of Pillar I, not 20%. Front-loading for smaller farms is in, not out.
And the IFA can hardly call on Minister McConalogue to veto the deal - the political consequences for any one country of holding the rest of the union to ransom would be severe.
The IFA might say that its policy position has been partially effective, that if it had accepted 85% convergence, the outcome might have been closer to the 100% sought by MEPs. It could be right, too.
Young farmers
The enhancement of the mandatory young farmer fund to 3% means about €36m a year has now been set apart for young farmers. To this must be added the further 3% for the National Reserve, which will largely be delivered to younger farmers.
One question for Macra and others to consider will be which young farmers are prioritised.
Will a 35-year-old with 200 cows be the net beneficiary of funding levied from smaller, older farmers? How does this tie in with convergence and front-loading? There seems to be a contradiction at play here.
Which young farmers will be prioritised for additional funding? / Damien Eagers
Tillage farmers
The package announced on Friday was big on broad policy instruments and less specific on sectoral measures - with one exception.
The tillage sector will be required to meet a number of new criteria. These include mandatory minimum areas of biodiversity and a cropping diversity action that seems to mean not sowing the same crop in the same parcel two years running.
What Irish farmers need to remember is that these measures are primarily aimed at the vast prairies of grain in countries like France, Germany and Romania.
Ecological focus areas (EFAs) have proven an easy hurdle for Irish farms and, with less than 10% of our farmed area under crops, we may find ways to meet the requirements of GAEC 8 that won’t hit those farms where malting barley or wheat are predominant.
That said, there will be a battle to keep cover crops from becoming a mandatory action, as that would rule out schemes such as GLAS from incentivising them.
The tillage sector will be required to meet a number of new criteria on rotations and cover crops. \ Donal O'Leary
What happens next?
Assuming this package is accepted by ministers, the political arena moves from Brussels and Strasbourg to Dublin.
Chris McManus, the Sinn Fein MEP, was out of the blocks early. On Friday, he called on the Government to deliver 100% convergence, that is full flattening of payments, with 20% of front-loading, double the EU-agreed requirement.
He says it is to protect the “small and medium” family farm income. Whether that rings true depends on your definition of what exactly a “small and medium” family farm is.
So far, Sinn Féin has been reluctant to define the term, except to contrast it with “industrial” or “factory” farming.
As the debate becomes more focused, this will become a narrower line to walk.
The simple truth is that many family farms will lose out substantially from this reform. The reason is simple.
One quarter of Pillar I payments, which up to now have been paid directly to farmers, are being invested into eco schemes.
That is €300m of money taken away from farmers before convergence, front-loading or any of the other measures come into effect.
The redistribution that takes place will simply recover some of the lost payments to lower-value entitlement holders through convergence, and to lower-acreage farmers through front-loading.
Only those at the very bottom of the ladder will be net beneficiaries, and to be at the very bottom of the ladder they are either forgotten farmers or on farms that had very little activity through the reference years.
To fund convergence and front-loading, farmers on above average payments will see further cuts.
As has been said many times, most of these are drystock farmers, and most have incomes from their farms that are both below the national average wage and utterly dependent on direct payments.
At some point, Chris McManus or Matt Carthy or other advocates of full flattening and front-loading will be confronted at a public meeting by just such a farmer, spelling out the effect of such policies on their own farm, income and family. That my prove a telling moment.
Green division?
Meanwhile, Irish Green MEP Grace O’Sullivan has indicated that she will vote against the CAP package. She is a parliamentary party colleague of Pippa Hackett, the Minister of State for Agriculture, who must surely support the Government's negotiated position.
How will that play out? The Green Party and the Government already face a monumental challenge in delivering a climate action plan for our sector that farming can live with. Mixed messaging on CAP is politically acceptable when in opposition, but is distinctly unhelpful from the Government benches.
The international CAP season is all but over, but the domestic season is about to explode into life.
The shape of farm payments and schemes for most of the next decade was effectively decided on Friday.
Next Monday and Tuesday, as farmers herd their sheep and cattle, milk their cows, and tend their crops, Charlie McConalogue and his 26 EU farm ministerial colleagues will sign off on a deal agreed between the three legs of the EU stool.
There might be small tweaks, but the final shape of a comprehensive deal that will have a profound impact on all of our farms was brokered between negotiation teams for the Parliament, the Commission and the ministerial council.
And yet, most farmers are as interested this weekend in the weather as in the latest from Brussels.
Will they get their hay saved without more rain? Will the recent showers be enough to kick-start regrowth after silage, or curb the yield from crops that have promise? Will the promised heat come to drive that growth?
It’s understandable in a way.
Farmers have no more control over the events of Brussels than they do over the weather
Farmers have no more control over the events of Brussels than they do over the weather. While the weather will have an immediate impact on their farms, the new CAP won’t take effect until 2023. It’s over the horizon and hard to feel as yet.
That dynamic is, in part, due to the pandemic. The “crush telegraph”, where farmers exchange views and information not only at farm meetings but in marts, farmyards, matches, mass and in the pub, has been shut down for over a year now.
It has had the feel of a medieval war, where 10 miles from a battlefield, life continued as normal until the battle was over. Then a change in regime could turn life upside down.
Gear change in the debate
That dynamic will change quickly. Models of the effect on farms of these proposals, which up to now were abstract and speculative, are now based on reality.
It’s now a case of this will be happening, rather than this might happen.
For many farmers it will mean a cut in direct payments of between 30% and 60%. Few will be significantly better off through direct payments, because of the loss of €300m to eco schemes.
That is money farmers will have to stretch to reach.
And farmers are already stretched, many to breaking point.
Winners and losers
It’s a little trite in one way to look at this as some kind of contest, but CAP reform is a political process, and politics is a sport - a blood sport at that.
Any analysis has to start with the three decision-making bodies, and it’s clear that the European Parliament and European Commission are the big winners this time, in that order.
The European Parliament has not got everything that it wanted, but it has set the agenda.
When Phil Hogan, as commissioner, pushed for gentle evolution of the Ciolos reforms, the parliament voted through a much more radical policy package. The final outcome looks more like the MEPs’ vision.
Council of Ministers
Last time out, the ministerial council, chaired by Simon Coveney, significantly watered down the proposals of the Ciolos commission. They played the Parliament and Commission off each other to a certain extent, taking advantage of the Parliament’s status as first-time partner in negotiations.
This time, the ministerial council has seemed squeezed between Commission and Parliament. The best member states could do is retain as much flexibility as possible.
That gives Charlie McConalogue and his colleagues the chance to influence the outcome, but some difficult choices are ahead, as there simply isn’t enough money to go around.
For many farmers it will mean a cut in direct payments of between 30% and 60%.
Farm organisations
The IFA will feel disappointed with the outcome, as none of the red lines it drew have been realised. Convergence is set at 85%, not 75%. Eco schemes will be 25% of Pillar I, not 20%. Front-loading for smaller farms is in, not out.
And the IFA can hardly call on Minister McConalogue to veto the deal - the political consequences for any one country of holding the rest of the union to ransom would be severe.
The IFA might say that its policy position has been partially effective, that if it had accepted 85% convergence, the outcome might have been closer to the 100% sought by MEPs. It could be right, too.
Young farmers
The enhancement of the mandatory young farmer fund to 3% means about €36m a year has now been set apart for young farmers. To this must be added the further 3% for the National Reserve, which will largely be delivered to younger farmers.
One question for Macra and others to consider will be which young farmers are prioritised.
Will a 35-year-old with 200 cows be the net beneficiary of funding levied from smaller, older farmers? How does this tie in with convergence and front-loading? There seems to be a contradiction at play here.
Which young farmers will be prioritised for additional funding? / Damien Eagers
Tillage farmers
The package announced on Friday was big on broad policy instruments and less specific on sectoral measures - with one exception.
The tillage sector will be required to meet a number of new criteria. These include mandatory minimum areas of biodiversity and a cropping diversity action that seems to mean not sowing the same crop in the same parcel two years running.
What Irish farmers need to remember is that these measures are primarily aimed at the vast prairies of grain in countries like France, Germany and Romania.
Ecological focus areas (EFAs) have proven an easy hurdle for Irish farms and, with less than 10% of our farmed area under crops, we may find ways to meet the requirements of GAEC 8 that won’t hit those farms where malting barley or wheat are predominant.
That said, there will be a battle to keep cover crops from becoming a mandatory action, as that would rule out schemes such as GLAS from incentivising them.
The tillage sector will be required to meet a number of new criteria on rotations and cover crops. \ Donal O'Leary
What happens next?
Assuming this package is accepted by ministers, the political arena moves from Brussels and Strasbourg to Dublin.
Chris McManus, the Sinn Fein MEP, was out of the blocks early. On Friday, he called on the Government to deliver 100% convergence, that is full flattening of payments, with 20% of front-loading, double the EU-agreed requirement.
He says it is to protect the “small and medium” family farm income. Whether that rings true depends on your definition of what exactly a “small and medium” family farm is.
So far, Sinn Féin has been reluctant to define the term, except to contrast it with “industrial” or “factory” farming.
As the debate becomes more focused, this will become a narrower line to walk.
The simple truth is that many family farms will lose out substantially from this reform. The reason is simple.
One quarter of Pillar I payments, which up to now have been paid directly to farmers, are being invested into eco schemes.
That is €300m of money taken away from farmers before convergence, front-loading or any of the other measures come into effect.
The redistribution that takes place will simply recover some of the lost payments to lower-value entitlement holders through convergence, and to lower-acreage farmers through front-loading.
Only those at the very bottom of the ladder will be net beneficiaries, and to be at the very bottom of the ladder they are either forgotten farmers or on farms that had very little activity through the reference years.
To fund convergence and front-loading, farmers on above average payments will see further cuts.
As has been said many times, most of these are drystock farmers, and most have incomes from their farms that are both below the national average wage and utterly dependent on direct payments.
At some point, Chris McManus or Matt Carthy or other advocates of full flattening and front-loading will be confronted at a public meeting by just such a farmer, spelling out the effect of such policies on their own farm, income and family. That my prove a telling moment.
Green division?
Meanwhile, Irish Green MEP Grace O’Sullivan has indicated that she will vote against the CAP package. She is a parliamentary party colleague of Pippa Hackett, the Minister of State for Agriculture, who must surely support the Government's negotiated position.
How will that play out? The Green Party and the Government already face a monumental challenge in delivering a climate action plan for our sector that farming can live with. Mixed messaging on CAP is politically acceptable when in opposition, but is distinctly unhelpful from the Government benches.
The international CAP season is all but over, but the domestic season is about to explode into life.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: