Support from the CLA

The CLA said that the European Commission was broadly on the right track with a leaked paper on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The leaked paper – which came into the public domain through reportage in industry newsletter Agrafacts – proposes a "greening" of the first pillar of the CAP, and champions the balanced approach of Food and Environmental Security that the CLA and its EU partner European Landowners' Organisation (ELO) have long advocated.

The CLA said the Commission was absolutely right to call for a "well-funded and strong" post-2013 Common Policy which addressed the "food and environmental challenges that will confront Europe for decades to come".

CLA President William Worsley said: "The Commission has tried to steer a course between those defending the status quo and those saying the CAP should only be about the environment, and this seems pretty sensible. 

"This paper contains many statements we wholeheartedly support, acknowledging the need to retain both pillars and that the CAP has to evolve further to face the food and environmental challenges ahead."

He said: "It stresses the balanced approach the CLA and ELO have been urging, maintaining the EU capacity to produce food, encouraging innovation and productivity, and yet also explaining that it is farmers who can provide more of the environmental public goods we want in Europe.

"There are intriguing suggestions about how these ideas can be built into Pillar 1, including stronger and more predictable support for the marginal farming areas, for example, the uplands."

The CLA President stressed that it was a leaked paper, setting out the Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development's ideas for the CAP.  "We have yet to see what the other Commissioners think of it especially the ones in Budget, Finance, Trade and Environment.  This paper is not necessarily the final word," he said.

He added that there were aspects of the paper with which the CLA disagrees such as "bringing payment capping back on the agenda" and talk of only so-called "active farmers" being the only beneficiaries, which does not recognise the environmental work that non-farming landowners provide.  

Mr Worsley said there was a lot more detailed work needed on this framework to get a suitable CAP for 2014-2020.

Disappointment from the NFU

The NFU, however, is urging caution in response, given the nature of the information. The draft is not very specific, partly because its purpose is to set a broad path for the next reform in 2011, but also because it outlines some broad themes without elaborating.

The document discusses the three challenges of food security, environment and climate change and territorial balance – which looks at economic and social issues for rural areas. It continues to follow a two pillar approach but blurs the ideological separation between the two pillars.

The report seeks more equitable and justifiable direct payments, calling for them to be more closely linked to environmental objectives, and suggests subjecting large payments to capping.

Broadly, three policy options are set out in the paper:

• An enhanced status quo, based on a more equitable distribution of direct payments
• More balanced and targeted support, based on an adjustment of direct payments
• The abolition of all market and income support.

The NFU does not believe any of the options would be perfect but believes the first to be the best approach while it seems the Commission views the second as the best route.

NFU Head of Economics and International Affairs Tom Hind said: “Although this is a leaked draft and not the final version of the communication from the Commission, it appears to be a disappointing document, taking the CAP off at a tangent.

“Compared with the principles the NFU set out in its policy document, this communication performs badly. It’s not very common or market orientated and certainly fails the simplicity test. As seductive as the idea of ‘greening’ the first pillar might be to some environmental NGOs, the ideas contained in the paper would seriously complicate the delivery of direct payments and would risk a repeat of the same kind of mess we saw in 2005 when the single payment was introduced.

“The paper moves away from being an agricultural policy to being one which concerns itself much more with the environment and rural societies. It seems more interested in preserving farming in aspic rather than encouraging economically sound restructuring.

“The paper has some good intentions, especially on the food chain, but there is little within it to help farmers become less reliant on support. And, at worst, some of the key proposals could be very detrimental to the UK farming industry. We hope that the EU Commission sees sense and moves back towards a reform path that builds on the success of previous reforms.”