CAP as usual – killing HNV agriculture.


A beef farmer whom I know well informed me recently that he is facing penalties for claiming support on “ineligible” land. It is like deja-vu from 2006 that has also all too often repeated itself. The farmer in question is taking care of large coastal pastures – semi-natural habitats of high nature value. On his pastures some small patches have little juniper bushes. Let me be clear: it is not about GAEC or sufficient management. It is about “eligibility”: these small patches, integral part of his pastures that are not easy to distinguish from the remaining “eligible” meadow-land, are threatening him with severe penalty due to non compliance with “eligibility criteria”.


Looking at the official responsible for the on the spot check going with GPS around the small patches with tiny juniper bushes would have been hilarious if it would not be disgusting. The very real threat of withdrawal of “undue payments” is handicapping the High Nature Value farming – here and now, and in many other cases and places.

I am sick and tired of the endless irresponsibility game between the EU and national authorities, between “the problem lies with national implementation” and “it is the EU rules”. Having spent enough – much more than I would like – time reading both the EU regulations, and national legal texts and plans I know for sure: both parties are to blame. It is however the farmers who have to bear the burden.


CAP is often presented as necessary to maintain the “European agricultural model”, which implies also protection of HNV farming. The reality however is that HNV farming is discriminated by CAP payments all the time. Current CAP is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. It must be radically reformed – or scrapped altogether.

Author: Aleksei Lotman

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PRESS RELEASE: European Union’s agricultural policy needs a significant change

Image
Environmental and agricultural organisations, farmers, scientists, officials and other participants attended a conference on 1st and 2nd of September in Tallinn and Matsalu to discuss the future of the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP). Despite their versatile background, most speakers found that the CAP requires significant changes. Multiple participants signed an open letter addressed to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of the European Union and other relevant EU decision-makers with their proposals how to repair the policy. Speakers at the conference stressed the importance of agriculture in providing food and various public goods. At the same time negative sides of the present-day agriculture like impact on water, problems with pesticides, biodiversity loss, hardship faced by family farms and land grabbing were discussed. Positive examples of dealing with these problems were also presented. The overall conclusion shared by most speakers, however, was that CAP does secur
Read more

A piece of somewhat better news. Version 2.0.

Image
I have written a post with a similar name  and this is indeed something linked both in substance and in form. The two stories form an interesting pair of mosaic mirror images, where some aspects are almost identical and some more or less precisely opposite. Several chemicals, including many biocides and pesticides can disrupt the endocrine system. Such effects have been documented long ago and are now considered a major hazard. European Parliament held a vote on the subject of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the beginning of October. The Commission had, after long delay finally adopted a delegated regulation on EDCs – something that the European Court of Justice had demanded it to do long ago. The delegated regulation, however, fell short of what is necessary to protect our health and environment from the hazards of EDCs, and as such was not in accord with the delegated powers given to the Commission by the existing regulations on pesticides and biocide
Read more

Milline finantsraamistik tagaks Euroopa Liidu kestliku arengu pärast 2020. aastat?

Üle-eelmisespostituses kirjutasin Euroopa Komisjoni üllitatud aruteludokumendist ühenduse rahanduse tuleviku teemal. Vaadates otsa seal pakutud võimalikele tulevikustsenaariumitele leidsin, et ainus üldse pikemat arutelu vääriv lahendus on neljandana pakutav, millele oli pandud ambitsioonikas nimi „põhjalikud ümberkorraldused”. Siiski on ka selle näol tegemist pigem pisikeste sammudega õiges suunas kui tõelise tulevikuvaatega. Sestap siis võtan pakutud neljanda stsenaariumi aluseks ja sellest lähtudes visandan mõned mõtted tõeliselt jätkusuutliku Euroopa jaoks sobiva finantsraamistiku kohta. Nimetagem siis seda stsenaariumiks 4.1. „Säästva Euroopa rahandus. Põhjalikud ümberkorraldused – päriselt”. Kuivõrd käesoleva blogi eesmärk on töötada eelkõige säästva põllumajanduse nimel, on põllumajanduspoliitikaga seonduvad kulud veidi põhjalikumalt lahti kirjutatud võrreldes muude valdkondadega. Üldine suundumus 1. Maksed kavandatakse ainult sinna, kus need on vajaliku turu poolt mitt
Read more