Andrew Arbuckle: Politicians’ words and actions on CAP do not match up

THERE is a great clamour from scientists, farming leaders and those in the food industry for more food to be produced in the world. I have even heard some European politicians claim they support that aspiration, or at least want food security in their own country.

But the voices of the world’s truly hungry are seldom heard in the corridors of power, which are instead clogged with the invention of artificial regulations, plans and subsidy schemes that reduce production.

At the weekend, Alan McNaughton, newly elected president of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW), said he could not overstate the seriousness of the supply problems and pressures in the red meat processing industry in this country.

He warned of the dangers of Scottish producers cashing in on the current high prices for livestock by selling their breeding cattle and sheep, saying that unless this ceased the processing industry was heading for big problems with a severely reduced throughput. Basically, they need more cattle and sheep through the abattoirs.

Although he did not mention them specifically, the recent financial problems of two SAMW members resulting in closures and cutbacks in their businesses added weight to his comments.

On hearing these comments on the state of the red meat processing sector, my mind drifted to the Scottish Government’s much-publicised aim of increasing food and drink exports. With some £100 million of red meat exports going out of this country last year, there is another imperative to keeping critical mass within the livestock sector.

The meat wholesalers want to see a reconnection between the subsidies farmers get and the numbers of cattle and sheep they keep, but current Brussels thinking leaves that idea hovering around zero per cent. Apart from the existing Scottish beef calf scheme, there is a defined limit on support linkage as far as existing Common Agricultural Policy terms go.

Instead, European politicians and civil servants are considering how to ensure farmers work for their subsidies. Learning a lesson from the present farce where people can pocket large amounts of money for little effort, they are putting a great deal of faith in being able to define “active farmers.”

The idea is fine, but so far there has been a problem in how activity will be defined. Scotland has suggested minimum stocking levels as one way forward, but that would require check dates and high levels of scrutiny.

Then there is a suggestion to audit the books of every claimant and then make a decision as to whether they have been actively producing food. On a superficial level, this has merit but think of the practicalities of checking several million European farmers. Then think of the counter-claims of those who have been excluded. (And add to that the certainty that some member states would be unable to carry out the audits.)

There is also the suggestion from the Danes, who currently hold the EC presidency. This idea – backed by EU Agricultural Commissioner Dacian Ciolos – is to have a list of activities that would be ineligible for aid. Again think of the checks needed to monitor this, think of the wheezes created to circumvent it.

And that is before we get to this week’s performance where politicians, conservationists and farming leaders are meeting in Edinburgh at a seminar convened by NFU Scotland to discuss how to make the next CAP more environmentally friendly.

The three main “greening” themes put forward by the Commission so far are: putting 7 per cent of all productive land into environmental focus areas, penalising those farmers who grow three or less crops, and restrictions on permanent grassland.

All have several things in common: farmers do not like them; they will have a negative effect on food production; if they come into being we will have a conflict between the political desire to simplify the CAP and these suggestions, which promise more bureaucracy.

Back at the SAMW conference George Lyon MEP said there was a need for an urgent recall of the Pack working group that had initially put forward the preferred road of CAP reform from the Scottish point of view.

I would support that view and also that of another former NFUS leader, Jim Walker, who has highlighted the need for politicians to get a grip on the situation and decide what they want – is it more food being produced and fewer bureaucratic hoops to be jumped through or shall we drift towards a CAP that satisfies only the civil servants?