The enthusiasm Commissioner Hansen brought to Ireland last week at the 70th IFA Annual General Meeting (AGM) must be applauded. He comes across as a very hands on, in touch Commissioner, that knows his brief very well and clearly knows the challenges. No doubt, in these early months of his term, he is leaning heavily on his time in the EU international trade committee and from his farming background in Luxembourg. He’s not yet two months in the role, but he speaks with clarity and authority as if he has five years of experience behind him.
The reality for Irish farmers and food production is that the key challenges facing Irish farmers right now straddle the briefs of at least five Commissioners.
When I put it to him that this seems disjointed at the very least, he said that farmers can be assured that he is working in very close co-operation and discussion with his colleagues, namely the Commissioners for Trade, Environment, Health and Animal Welfare, and Climate.
As if to displace some of the responsibility, he also made the point that while the multiple Commissioner side of things is one aspect, the changing face of national ministers and authorities in each member state adds another layer of complexity.
It’s something that frustrates farmers, because issues like the nitrates derogation, the Nature Restoration Law, the net zero theory, have huge impacts on farm livelihoods and the future of food production in countries like Ireland. If these don’t fall under the remit of the Commissioner for agriculture and food, then it significantly diminishes the impact he has on farmers.
The Commissioner didn’t let the fact it was outside his brief prevent him for commenting on some questions from farmers at the IFA AGM.
In terms of the future of CAP, which is very much within his brief and particularly the funding of the Common Agriculture Programme, the Commissioner was clear in terms of his preference.
He wants to see it index linked, he wants a bigger pot of money for food and farming, and he wants a separate fund for issues like Nature Restoration Law, etc.
This is all music to the ears of farmers, but will it be the reality or even on the table at the end of 2025 when the framework for the next round of CAP funding is established?
Think about the wider European and global geopolitical dynamics of immigration, health services and defence. All are of broad appeal to a much wider population and will garner support much easier than farmers and food producers, unless the farmer and rural voice is heard loud and clear.
On the nitrates, while outside his brief, the Commissioner was clear and methodical. We need to allow time for the actions of farmers to impact on water quality and we need a vision, so that farmers can invest in new technologies.
He also emphasised the difference between member states, suggesting an EU rule governing Romania, Greece and Ireland makes little or no sense given the completely different forms of food production in each country. He was of course alluding to the ‘one size fits all’ stocking rate derogation rule of 170kg per hectare across all member states, that makes no sense.
While his words and thoughts were comforting on CAP and nitrates, I didn’t feel as much love about the Irish position against the proposed Mercosur deal. I got the sense from him that he was in the camp of ‘fears’ are not always realised and that safety nets can kick in if necessary.
Since then, I see the Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maroš Šefcovic has come out and said that “in the unlikely event that the agricultural sector in Europe is negatively impacted, following the implementation of the agreement, we intend to set up a reserve worth at least €1bn”.
SHARING OPTIONS: