Defra to shift CAP balance away from environment

THE proportion of CAP rural development funds going into environmental schemes is set to drop in favour of schemes to encourage farmers to be more competitive, Farm Minister Jim Paice has revealed.

Mr Paice said the previous Government dedicated 80 per cent of its CAP rural development (pillar two) pot to environmental schemes and only 10 per cent to ‘competitive agriculture’.

But he said there must be ‘a massive shake-up’ to help farmers compete in a liberal market.

“Our objective is to move more CAP money into schemes to encourage competitiveness,” said Mr Paice at a Family Farmers Association meeting in Westminster this week.

“This will give farmers access to grants to help them meet EU regulations and to invest in environmental schemes and energy saving projects.”

Mr Paice said it was his ‘absolute priority’ to make sure that domestic agricultural production did not go down and he identified small-scale farms as one key sector to be maintained.

“Perhaps most importantly grants will be available to help family farms to reduce their cost of production,” he said.

However, the Minister rejected any measures which would ‘distort the free market’ such as minimum prices.  

“I agree from a sentimental perspective that these farmers might need extra support,” said Mr Paice, “but when you try to turn it into a reality is much harder without distorting a fair and competitive market.”

He said the Government’s job should be to help farmers ‘innovate, invest and compete fairly’.

“We have to create the business and commercial environment where farmers can use their skills, ability and capital to be competitive and to produce something the market wants,” he said.

Readers' comments (2)

  • There should be greater balance between the three elements of economic, environmental and social benefits from the rural development programme, why not a 35%35%30% split?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Far more money is spent on the 'competitiveness' / 'income support' payments of Pillar 1 of the CAP than is spent on Pillar 2 (rural development). So in the grand scheme of things this move seems to marginalise further agri-environmental policy, which is already gets a tiny share of the pie.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory