How to get out of the ‘CAP trap’ 

We have to move forward in the debate on the Common Agricultural (CAP) policy post-2027 on two principles. The first is that the budget must be sufficient to ensure that the key issues for EU farm policy can be adequately addressed, and that means an increased CAP budget. The second issue, and no less important, is that CAP must be firmly focussed on ‘active’ farmers producing food in a sustainable manner. By ‘active’ farmers, ICMSA refers to those who satisfy our minimum 1 LU/hectare stocking density. We’ll repeat that for emphasis: CAP payments should be going to farmers who are producing food and dependent on food production for income. They are the people who must be supported. 

 We believe in the value of debate and will listen to objections and other definitions. But we cannot continue with a status quo that is failing the present generation of food-producing farmers and shutting out the next generation by rewarding those who accumulate land for the purposes of ‘farming the schemes’. We need a real and workable definition of an ‘active’ farmer in the next CAP and ICMSA believes a minimum stocking density is the correct and most practical method of arriving at that definition. Here are the measures that the ICMSA believes will make CAP work again.

Budget

• An increased budget is critical – CAP needs to focus on farmers.
• To sustain family farms, the CAP budget needs to be increased significantly and index-linked. Other sources of funding need to be found to fund environment targets and nature restoration. 
• Both Pillar I and Pillar II need to be retained.

Pillar I

• We believe that land-based payments reflecting current per-hectare rates should be maintained. Farmers who are actively farming the land must retain this payment.
• Active farmers only should be allowed to claim payments. The definition of an active farmer needs to be tightened from the current CAP. We propose 1 LU per hectare on all land except commonage where a lower stocking rate SR would be reasonable.
• Eco scheme monies must be kept with BISS and CRISS funding in a Pillar I type scheme.

Pillar II

• A young farmer installation aid coupled with a retirement scheme to incentive generational renewal introduced.
• There needs to be a suitable agri-environmental scheme (AES) of €15,000 for all farmers. All farmers should be part of this scheme irrespective of how few actions they complete. Farmers’ time is not currently rewarded adequately at present and needs to reflect the hourly rate of a dairy manager with Farm Relief Services.
• The new AES should only be paid on owned land or land that was leased prior to the opening of the new CAP scheme.
• There should be fewer overall schemes with options available for farmers to partake if they wish, get paid for what element they participate in, but receive no penalty if do not fulfil that element of the scheme
• Pillar II schemes should include ANC, a retirement scheme, an installation scheme, and an on-farm investment scheme. All other schemes should be an action in the farm level AES.
• A dairy-beef scheme with higher payments should be part of the new AES.
• Leader and knowledge transfer need to be reformed.

Market interventions

• A voluntary milk supply reduction scheme should be introduced if milk price drops below a certain price.
• Crisis payments need to be speedily activated, and thresholds below which farm viability is impaired.
• A risk management scheme should be trialled to ensure milk prices remain above the average costs of production in the EU.
• EU regulations should be amended to allow farmers to seek independent adjudication on terms and conditions on the purchase of their produce.
• A payment should be made to farmers who are partaking in sustainability schemes.

Compliance

• There needs to be simplification and rearrangement of schemes and more based on collaboration rather than compliance.
• There needs to be fewer on-the-spot inspections with a greater notice period for those inspections.
• There should also be a fairer penalty system introduced, particularly in relation to the punitive two-year exclusion from the nitrates derogation.