By Martin Banks - 13th October 2011
This is not the reform we want
Brian Simpson
Radical plans to reform the EU farm policy have been met with a mixed response.
Opinion was split after the commission announced plans to reform its common agricultural policy (CAP) - the most expensive part of the budget and one of the most controversial.
The CAP cost €58bn last year – 47 per cent of the whole EU budget.
On Wednesday, the commission said it does not want to cut the budget, but change its priorities - including linking direct payments to environmental measures.
But farming, environmental and taxpayer groups all have their own concerns about the plans.
The proposals include keeping EU farm spending level until 2020, though it may be reduced by inflation; capping the total subsidy a large farm can receive at €300,000 and levelling imbalances in payments.
The commission also said it wants to subsidise acreage farmed rather than production totals and bring payments in the eastern EU up to levels in the west.
The proposals still need to be approved by parliament and EU ministers.
Reaction was swift with British S&D deputy Brian Simpson, spokesperson for Labour MEPs on agriculture, saying, "This is not the reform we want. In trying to please everyone, the commission has failed to come forward with the radical proposals we need to bring EU agriculture policy into the 21st century.
"Unfortunately many wasteful subsidies including those to tobacco growers still remain, and the commission has failed to get to grips with inefficient farming methods in other EU countries.
"In these difficult economic times reform of the CAP is urgently needed to bring down food prices, ensure fair farm gate prices for producers as well as delivering economic growth, rural sustainability and food security.
"We were told that the CAP would be reformed to deliver more sustainable farming, but there are real concerns that today's announcement offers little more than a greenwash."
Further comment came from Olivier Consolo, director of Concord, the European confederation of development NGOs, who said, "The last thing we need is for the CAP to go back in time and negatively affect the developing world.
"Until now in the reform process, all EU institutions had taken into account the principle that the CAP must seek to reduce its overseas impact through greater policy coherence for development. Yet the commission has dropped this from its proposals."
Elsewhere, the European Public Health and Agriculture Consortium (EPHAC) said it welcomed the commission's "recognition of the urgent challenges of climate change and increasing pressure on the world's resources".
However, EPHAC said it believes the proposals "largely ignore public health and do not go far enough towards a truly sustainable food and farming policy".
Clive Needle, of the European Public Health and Agriculture Consortium, said the legislative package "does not go far enough or adequately address the radical changes that will need to be made in production and consumption to address the challenges of chronic disease, climate change and feeding an increasing global population adequately".
The commission plans were also branded "insufficient" by Friends of the Earth Europe.
Stanka Becheva, its food campaigner said, "Agriculture in Europe is in a mess – with wildlife and farmers disappearing at an unprecedented rate.
"The commission's proposals include well-meaning initiatives, but they're simply not enough to address these problems, and the overall package is weak. Securing a viable future where farmers get a fair deal and our natural resources are protected is urgent and essential.
"Some of the simplest of measures are missing – ensuring arable farmers rotate crops on their fields with nitrogen-rich legumes would reduce our dependency on rainforest-damaging soy animal feeds.
"Its omission shows the influence of agri-business, pushing intensively-farmed monocultures at the expense of fairer and greener farming."
