Mr. Daniel Bakker:

It is a great honour to be in the Seanad Chamber. I will speak about the CAP for a few minutes.

In June 2018 the European Commission put forward its legislative proposals for the future of the CAP post 2020. Previous reforms of the CAP had been driven by political and economic change. It is important, therefore, for all concerned to look at the political challenges facing the European Union and what the future of the CAP might look like.

The European Union is facing the challenges of UK withdrawal, the rise of a Eurosceptic tide across member states, global market instability, particularly in agricultural prices, and greater pressure to respond and adapt to climate change. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is crucial because it has contributed significantly to a forecasted reduction in the CAP budget for the period 2021 to 2027. The cut proposed is 5%, but it will be around 12% in real terms. As the CAP is one of the cornerstones of European integration, it is important that the Commission’s proposals be considered and scrutinised.

The proposed legislation retains the current two pillar structure of direct payments and rural development but allows much greater flexibility for member states to choose where their allocation of funds will go. The Commission’s rationale is to streamline the CAP and increase overall efficiency. Member states will be better able to target their interventions to suit their specific contexts. The proposals also have revised greening architecture for pillar 1 payments and put strong emphasis on the CAP’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

Member states will be responsible for drawing up strategic plans which will then be approved by the Commission to ensure they stay within the CAP’s overall objectives. Some see this as a step in the right direction, but others, including some member states, have raised concerns as strategic plans might place a further administrative burden on national governments. Many agricultural stakeholders have criticised the idea as it could potentially lead to an undermining of the Single Market and compromise a level playing field for farmers. Some fear the proposals amount to a renationalisation of agriculture and will increase bureaucracy and market distortions, resulting from differences in implementation across the European Union. Affording member states too much flexibility has also been criticised by environmentalists. As well as criticising the continuation of "perverse subsidies", environmentalists argue that flexibility with no real incentives to have ambitious targets could lead to declining environmental standards across the European Union. The proposed "enhanced conditionality" clause in the new legislative proposals has been viewed as more greenwashing of the CAP, without sufficient accountability mechanisms to ensure adherence to environmental regulations.

It is important to stress that the proposals are in their very early stages.

As we saw with the previous CAP reform in 2013, nothing is likely to be passed until the EU budget is agreed. There will be a new European Parliament and perhaps a new European Commissioner by the time the legislation enters into force, but as the proposal stands, there are several steps that could be taken to ensure a successful CAP.

There could be greater promotion of dialogue between environmentalist organisations and agricultural stakeholders. At least since the 1992 reform of CAP, we have seen the struggle to merge agricultural production with environmental protection, which, unfortunately, sometimes leads to conflicting and contradictory interests. Helping to promote common ground at EU and national levels could result in a more coherent policy. The approval process for strategic plans needs to be transparent and as strong as possible, as this is essentially the only mechanism for ensuring that national priorities do not conflict with EU-wide objectives. Maintaining the common aspect of the CAP is essential. Furthermore, the proposals allow for only the Commission to approve strategic plans, but to improve accountability, that process could be based formally on widespread consultation and should involve input from the co-legislators and various stakeholders. What happens if there is an impasse between national priorities and CAP objectives should be spelled out by the Commission. As the Commission views the next CAP as a move towards evidence-based policy, which prioritises results over compliance, it is important the quality of data sources are to an appropriate standard and that national Governments have the technical capacity to construct and defend a strategic plan. This might involve greater investment in technical assistance and upgrading of skills, which will be difficult if the current budget predictions are accurate.

The period for the next CAP is one of learning for the European Union as it experiments with this new delivery model. It is important for all concerned that there is an awareness of the challenges facing the upcoming reform, which will be shaped by competing interests among stakeholders within a potentially reduced budget. It is important to stress the crucial role of dialogue and consultation to ensure an efficient and coherent CAP.