Our main recommendations for a better CAP

Having discussed and critically analysed the Commission’s proposals, we want to conclude
by offering four sets of our main recommendations to improve the CAP proposals.

1. What’s good, but needs improving

 Eligible hectare: it is good to (gradually) abolish the historic reference systems and to connect direct payments with land, as land is the basis for the provision of public goods. The definition of regions by MS should correctly reflect the substantial subregional differences in territories and farming systems and not merely be based on administrative boundaries

 Re-distribution: a better and fairer distribution of direct payments between MS is necessary and the CAP proposals introduce a concrete proposal to achieve this. However, the measure proposed will mean that it will take at least two decades to sufficiently close the gap , giving old MS an advantage for too long a period of time

 Greening: the introduction of a greening component in the direct payment system is a policy innovation and a clear and positive rupture with the past. The proposed greening measures, however, seem random, rigid, ill targeted and lack incentives for farmers to keep on improving their ‘green’ performance over time. A better system would be to have, at a European level, a ‘menu’ of greening options from which MS (or regions) and farmers must choose a certain number. This system could be applied both to the greening component of the direct payments as well as to the agroenvironmental measures in Pillar II (see annexe 1 for further explanation).

 Capping of direct payments: as proposed by the Commission does make sense from the point of a fairer distribution of income support among different categories of farmers. The opportunity to reduce capping when more people find employment on the farm is good, but will lead to additional paperwork. In addition, capping should not reduce incentives to deliver public goods when using our proposed ‘menu’ approach.

 Pillar II: the new RD regulation is to be considered an important improvement
compared to the current one. The measures are tailored and targeted, based on
(better) delivery and multi-annual contracts. Some new measures are being
introduced that seem promising at first glance, but should be clarified further before implementation in the context of the proposed Common Strategic Framework. In particular the introduction of Partnership Contracts that cover all support from the CSF Funds concerned is also an interesting policy innovation, whose aim is to come, at regional level, to a better integration of a number of European policy domains. It allows, in theory, to better achieve the objective of integrated territorial development and could close the existing gap between agricultural policies and other economic policies. However, safeguards should be established to guarantee that programming will lead to a real integration of interventions at a territorial-based level, advantaging community-led bottom-up local development, such as through the LEADER Local Action Groups. Furthermore, integration of these policies should also lead to improvement in delivery concerning the social and economic integration of both internal and international rural migrant workers

 Producer organisations should be welcomed as one of the instruments for farmers to strengthen their position in the food supply chain vis-à-vis an ever decreasing number of processors, traders, wholesalers and retailers. It should be noted however that while cooperation is a positive and well accepted notion in most of the old MSs, it still has negative connotations in most of the new MS.

Again, an integrated approach is necessary here to accompany this measure and to help, through education and coaching, the new generation of farmers in these MS to overcome this historically justifiable mindset

 Risk management schemes are welcomed, but should be part of the new CMO regulation instead of the RD Regulation and in that case be eligible for full European funding

 Common Strategic Framework agricultural research and innovation: the introduction of a Common Strategic Framework for agricultural research and innovation and the creation of European Innovation Partnerships is in principle an excellent proposal. However, the proposed budget is minimal compared to the budget for direct payments (only 1.1% of total CAP budget, while direct payments still absorb a massive 72%). A budget of at least 3%, parallel to the percentage that MS are supposed to spend in general on innovation, seems reasonable, justifiable and necessary. Concerning the implementation, safeguards should be established to ensure that all partnerships are multi-actor involving practitioners and that all categories of farmers have full access to these partnerships and to the results of research that is being carried out in this context.