Addicts say: "We want more drugs"

The BBC has a rather extraordinary piece up on its website,

Farmers defend controversial EU subsidies

Well, errr of course they do.

It is about as controversial as say, 'Navy wants more ships', or maybe 'Dogs reported to be quite keen on bones'.

That is neither here nor there. What we have here is a couple of carefuly selected farnmers from France and the UK who have shown great entrepreneurial spirit, and asked them if they like to receive CAP money. They are paragon's in their fileds. So one canot criticise them individually, that would be mean after all. But they are entirely unrepresentative of the general situation within the farming industry.

Having subsidies set at betwen 40-60% of their annual income means that they are not ndependent dfarnmers, merely part of the last great nationalised industry, with all the problems that being directed from above entails.

The French farmer points to the problem,

He is paid according to the size of his farm - which is monitored by satellite - and the way in which he farms.

Under EU rules, he cannot turn to the cheap fertilisers or pesticides they might use in Latin America. His fields are surrounded by streams, grass borders and woodlands which he is paid to protect.

He cannot act in a way that woyuld maximise income because of various rules and regulations that impede his actions. He is paid as a custodian, not as a farmer. Fine if you want it that way, but is that what the vast sum of money handedc over by the taxpayers is for? The CAP and the rukles that surround it are bad for farming. But it would take a very brave farmer who revbels against it. They know that ist hampers their actions, they know that it has turned them into subsidy junkies and they know that in the ened it is bad for them and for the continuation of food production in the European countryside, but they would be mad to turn down such a massive slice of their income.

How worrying this all is is made clearly apparent by the caveat on the comment section,

Are you in the EU? What do you think of the EU's system of farm subsidies? What do you think of the points made by the farmers in this story? You can send us your views using the form below.
At no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.

Green farming damages Agriculture

Reported on Euractive, but very definately below the fold is a comment by Pekka Pesonen, head of EU farmers' lobby Copa-Cogeca. The article is ostensibly an attack on property ownership (specifically those nasty royals and aristos - where the hell are we? In Peru in the seventies or in Mugabe's Zimbabwe? - But I digress).

Farmers hampered by green goals
Regarding the delivery of environmental "public goods," Pesonen warned that farmers risk being overburdened with additional tasks while Europe opens its markets to third country imports.
"The reality is that European farmers simply cannot compete with the standards that are applied in third countries," he said.
"We have to have a level playing field with regards to what EU citizens expect and what the farmers are required to do," he added.
If future CAP money is redirected to environmental goals, it might simply add to the cost of food production in the EU and further weaken farmers' ability to compete, Pesonen warned.

Pekka also tries to reinvent protectionism for the modern era,

Would you be in favour of community preference?
Yes, we are. But we can't build a fortress around Europe, as we are dependent on international trade.

The absolute current reliance on subsidy in the agricultural sector is made clear,

The simple fact is that currently an average family farming income in the EU is on average about 50% of the income in other economic sectors. And of that 50%, two-thirds comes from support and one third from the market.

Essentially, farming is a nationalised industry. And coves like this Pekka chap want it to remian so, and wants to drive private landowners off the land to boot.

Agricultural Support System failure

The European Court of Auditors, is like many aspects of the EU made up largely of decent men and women trying to do a decent job.

However they, like so many here in Luxembourg and in Strasbourg are hamstrung by having to play the game, not rock the boat and generally make politics out of raw data. This is not what they should be doing of course given that they are auditors and they should, by all reason be providing clear, clean and transparent reports.

Today's report on the Agricultural support schemes within the CAP is a classic of its kind - following as it does this years annual CoA report on the General Budget. It is called in that special language, Commissionese, "Special Report No 8/2008 (pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC) Is cross compliance an effective policy?"

Here is a list of the chapter headings,

Audit Scope and Approach:

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of cross compliance

Observations

The objectives and the scope of cross compliance
The objectives are not defined in a “SMART” manner
The scope of cross compliance is not well defined
Only limited results can be expected at farm level
Implementation of the legal framework
The Member States implemented requirements and standards only partially
The SMRs farmers must comply with are numerous and complex
The framework for GAEC is restricted
More Commission guidance and control on requirements and standards was needed
Cross compliance and rural development
Certain key elements of the rural development control and sanction systems are weakened by the introduction of cross compliance
The separation between cross compliance and agri-environment measures is not always clear

The control and sanction systems

The control system provides insufficient assurance on farmers’ compliance
The sanction system is weak and the resulting reductions in direct payments are low

Monitoring and reporting

Data in some areas is not reliable and overestimates control and compliance rates
The Commission’s performance monitoring was found wanting

As you can see all pretty damning stuff.

But the Commission response is a paradigm of Euro think, if it don't work, apply more of the same,

Cross compliance has certainly contributed to a better respect of the relevant environment, food safety, health, and animal welfare Directives and Regulations.

However the Commission aknowledges (sic) that the effectiveness of cross compliance could be further improved and sees the best way to achieve this in pursuing and reinforcing the efforts already initiated.

That is it, "Reinforcing the efforts already initiated". No you don't get it. The system isn't working and billions of pounds of other people's money is being wasted.