HereS a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on the key concerns raised by the “Farmers’ Saeima” regarding the European Agricultural Policy:
Core Argument:
The central argument is that the proposed changes to the European Agricultural Policy are detrimental to farmers, particularly family farms, and represent a step backward in terms of simplification and support.The “Farmers’ Saeima” believes the current proposal will lead to increased bureaucracy, reduced support, and the destruction of the family farm model.
Key Concerns Raised:
- Bureaucracy Growth, Not Reduction:
The “Farmers’ Saeima” refutes the European Commission’s (EC) claim of bureaucracy reduction.
They highlight the EC’s proposal to eliminate the “second agricultural support” (rural advancement program) and integrate it into multiple other policies.
Consequences: This integration is seen as a recipe for increased bureaucracy because each new fund will have its own goals, compliance criteria, and reporting requirements, making it more complex for farmers to navigate.
Specific Examples of Lost Funding: Rural road reconstruction, drainage system maintenance, biologically valuable lawn care, and investment in environmental/climate-amiable technology are cited as areas that previously benefited from the rural development program and are now at risk.
- Lack of Progress on direct Payment Leveling:
A notable disappointment for local farmers is the absence of any mention of leveling direct payments in the new policy proposal.
Historical Context: Baltic farmers have received lower support for over 20 years, and previous policy discussions always included plans for faster leveling.
Broken Promises: The EC had promised to reduce demands on farmers while increasing support, allowing them to focus on their work rather than “meaningless reports.” The current proposal, according to the “Farmers’ Saeima,” preserves the existing support and requirement structure, merely changing the names of some requirements.
- Destruction of the Family Farm Model:
The proposal includes a 25% payment cut for farms with an annual turnover exceeding €20,000.
Impact on latvian Farms: This is considered “dramatic” because average support for Latvian farms is about 10-15% of their turnover.This cut would disproportionately affect smaller, family-run farms with turnovers around €200,000, including those with 50 dairy cows, 30 hectares of grassland, or 150 hectares of grain.
- “Start-up Whistle for a Boxing Match”:
While acknowledging that the EC’s offer can still be changed, the “Farmers’ Saeima” views the current proposal as a starting point for a major confrontation.
expectation of Protests: They are convinced that farmer pressure on the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee and the Council of Ministers will force basic changes. If not, they warn of “protests of unprecedented amounts” as farmers fight for their survival.
Context and Background:
The discussion is framed as a shift from whether agricultural policy should be maintained separately to how much farmer support is acceptable.
the text references previous large farmer protests across Europe. EC President Ursula von der Leyen initiated efforts for a simpler, understandable, and development-oriented agricultural policy, handing over the obligation to Commissioner K. Hansen, who was initially seen as a hopeful figure due to his farming background.
In essence, the “Farmers’ Saeima” is expressing strong opposition to the proposed European Agricultural Policy, viewing it as a step backward that will increase bureaucracy, reduce vital support, and threaten the viability of family farms. They are preparing for a significant fight to ensure the policy is fundamentally altered.
