|
|
|
|
A. INTRODUCTION1.The Joint Committee examined the following documents:- -Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulations (EEC) No. 797/85, No. 270/79, No. 1360/78 and No. 355/77 as regards agricultural structures, the adjustment of agriculture to the new market situation and the preservation of the countryside. -Proposal for a Council Decision (EEC) amending Decision 83/641/EEC of 12 December, 1983 adopting joint research programmes and programmes for co-ordinating agricultural research. 2.These documents were examined for the Joint Committee by its Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fisheries Matters under the Chairmanship of Deputy Joe Walsh. The Joint Committee is indebted to Deputy Walsh for his work. The Joint Committee also wishes to express its appreciation of Dr. Tom Walsh’s (1) assistance in the compilation of this Report. The Joint Committee took into consideration a memorandum from the Department of Agriculture and written submissions from An Chomhairle Oiliuna Talmhaiochta (ACOT), the IFA and Macra na Feirme. An Foras Taluntais (AFT) were also consulted. The Joint Committee wishes to thank all these bodies for their assistance in the preparation of this Report. 3.The socio-structural policy proposals now under consideration to secure the adaptation of farming to new market developments and for the preservation of the countryside, come at a very critical time not only for Ireland but for our EEC partners and in effect for many other countries. While economists and others saw the recession, triggered off by the oil crisis in the early 70 s, as a cyclical event the fact that this was not so became obvious as the years went by. It has, in fact, emerged as a result of changes in the balance in the use of the world’s resources leading to the emergence of a new economic and social order, with its own distinctive characteristics. 4.In the situation which has developed the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), an instrument designed to secure agricultural productivity and provide a fair standard of living for farmers, has come under special pressure. This has arisen out of its very success in raising production through the development and use of technology and the regulation of marketing. The objective of achieving structural reform aimed at alleviating the lot of many affected by traditionally weak structures, consequential on imbalance between land and people, has only been secured to a very limited extent. In recent years this problem has become even more exacerbated with the main benefits of the CAP accruing to better off farmers with good structure and with a widening of the gap between farmers with high and low incomes. The CAP in a changing scene5.The position which now exists with regard to the developing disparities and structural imbalances has been very fully documented. In brief, the present dilemma which has developed in relation to the CAP arises simply from the fact that there are more farmers than are required to produce enough food. Products in surplus are being produced by relatively few farmers using intensive methods while there are many also contributing to surpluses with too low incomes but no alternative employment. If they migrate or emigrate they add further to the grave unemployment situation in urban locations, leading to a breakdown in the fabric of rural areas and communities and consequential difficulties in servicing them. 6.It is now generally accepted that the CAP must be reformed and that in this policy agricultural structures must be a key element. In this connection the changes proposed set the tasks, among others, of ensuring that farming remains competitive, that farmers fulfil their proper social and economic roles, that consumers be supplied with products at reasonable prices and that agriculture continues to make a significant contribution to trade and economic development. Furthermore, it is accepted that the reformed CAP must ensure that farming will continue to be the vital socio-economic activity in many under-developed regions. It must cater for emerging societal attitudes about the quality of life, consumer protection and environmental conservation. Structural Defects in Ireland7.The reform of the CAP is of particular significance to Ireland in view of our special dependence on agriculture, the very difficult position which exists income-wise on many of our farms, and the degree of disadvantage under which so many rural families now labour. The recent National Farm Survey Report for 1985 re-emphasises clearly our difficulties and weaknesses. Two-thirds of our farms had an income less than £5,000 while in the Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) 76% of the farms were in this category. Even in the east region just over half the farms were below that income level, while of the 90,000 full time farms some 25% were similarly placed. Only two-fifths of full time farmers had an income from farming above £10,000 and only one fifth have £15,000 i.e. some 14,000 farmers. Some 112,000 farms are classified on a standard man day (SMD) basis as part time, of which some 90% earned an income from farming less than £5,000. The structural problem is further highlighted by the fact that while full time farms made up some 36% of those in the survey, they held 60% of the land, accounted for 80% of total gross output, spent 80% of total expenditure on farm inputs and 75% of total family farm income. 8.Our relative farm income position in the EEC [10] (1983-84) taking 100 as the average was 88 compared with 248 for the Netherlands and 214 for the UK. Again in terms of earning level, our average farm size was less than half that of EEC [10] and slightly more than one-seventh of the Netherlands. Present Farming Problems9.Other problems now arise from the fact that dairying production, the most rewarding and promising source of income for farmers, especially small farmers, is now subject to quota and further reduction pressure while beef production, where some expansion possibilities exist, is in effect a low income enterprise requiring very substantial investment for further development. While prospects for sheep intensification are good on medium size farms, that of cereal production is again limited as an income source for the farms where our main structural problems exist. The position is well illustrated by the recent Farm Survey returns. Farmers with a substantial dairy enterprise accounted for some 70% of the full time farm category with specialist enterprises earning the highest average income per farm at £11,838, an increase of some 6% on previous returns. Mainly sheep enterprises located on some 4,000 full-time farms also showed a nominal increase of some 6%. Of the 90,000 farms classified as cattle only 9,000 exceeded the full-time farm threshold, while the average income was £6,804, a fall of 16%. An even more difficult position emerged for dry stock and tillage systems; a decline of nearly 59% in income with a 73% drop for specialised tillage enterprises. While the year in question was, weather-wise, an especially difficult one the returns clearly expose the overall weakness and vulnerably of our agriculture. 10.The changes in the CAP must now also be evaluated against the fact that at present our farming potential is about half developed. The EEC has failed to adopt the principle of comparative advantage in production. In effect our present enterprises and the alternative traditional farming ones, offering market expansion possibilities, can be intensified on less land, leaving a major land area for which effective use must be found. It is in this context that the socio-structural proposals for the reformed CAP must be considered and analysed. In any such analysis the principal objective to be achieved by reform i.e. “Gradually to reduce production in the sectors which are in surplus and to alleviate the resulting burden on the taxpayer” must be kept in mind. B. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION ON SOCIO-STRUCTURAL POLICY AND COUNCIL DECISION ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHIntroduction11.For this purpose it is proposed to create conditions under which:- (1)farmers are helped to adjust to the new conditions created by the price and markets policy, the essence of which is the correction in the imbalance between supply and demand for certain agricultural products and (2)farmers who are marginal in terms of production but whose function is essential for preserving the social balance for land use planning and for the preservation of the environment, are enabled to offset the effect of restrictive policy on prices and markets. 12.It has apparently been accepted that help must be provided for farmers to adapt to the proposed changes. For this purpose, especially, income aid will be granted to permanently handicapped areas and assistance may also be provided to change processing and marketing structures so that products may be disposed of more easily. 13.To effect the required reforms a number of substantial measures are proposed by the Commission which can be classified under the following headings:- (1)A pre-pension scheme for farmers. (2)Support for the installation of young farmers. (3)Extension of the system of compensatory allowance in less-favoured areas (headage payments). (4)Protection of the environment and preservation of the countryside. (5)Upvaluing agricultural production and in particular the promotion of afforestation. (6)Back up services for farmers including training, extension and research. 14.These measures will now be analysed against the background of the Commission’s proposals, the comments prepared by the IFA, Macra na Feirme and ACOT and the documentation provided by AFT, especially a recent paper on CAP Structural Policy by O’Hara from the last organisation, which is used here as a basic reference source. For convenience of interpretation the views of the Committee at each section are summarised under this section while these summaries are collated at the end of the Report. The Pre-Pension Proposal15.The proposals relating to this scheme are set out in Articles 1a-1k, of Document COM (86) 199 final 2 and provide for the permanent voluntary retirement of main occupation farmers aged 55 or more and agricultural workers aged 55-65. Such farmers can retire by abandoning production for the market for at least 5 years between the date of ceasing farming and the normal pension age. This would be achieved through (a) non-cultivation or land use for non-agricultural purposes including forestry and other relevant uses, (b) through acquisition of the abandoned farm by a young close “first degree relative”. In the case of non-cultivation the land must be kept in good heart for environmental purposes or to ensure its productive potential. In principle agricultural production would cease with some limited exceptions to safeguard tenancies. Incentives16.By way of incentive for retirement a number of aids will be available, i.e. a pension up to 4,000 ECU (IR£3,000 approx.) per year for married and 2,500 ECU (IR£1,900 approx.) for single farmers for which Community support would be provided. This allowance would be paid for up to 10 years and to the age of 70 with a deduction of the normal retirement pension. Where production is ceased an annual premium is designed to adapt the annual allowances to farm size at the productive value of the land, the maximum being fixed at 150 ECU (IR£115 approx.) per hectare during the time the land is left uncultivated. For afforestation this premium may be increased to cover tree maintenance cost. Where an early retirement restructuring based scheme is already in operation an additional 25% of the existing allowance must be provided where cultivation is discontinued. Relevance to Ireland17.The 1984 National Farm Survey Report showed some 64,000 Irish farmers (33% of total farms) between 55 and 70, controlled some 1.4m hectares and provided nearly a quarter of total gross output. O’Hara records that farm operators in the above age group were typically dry stock farmers on less intensive farms with no other employment. In LFAs the majority were on small low output, low intensive holdings, while even on the East there were still a substantial proportion on smaller poorly developed farms. Viewpoints of Farming Bodies18.It would appear from the reaction of the farming bodies which made submissions to the Joint Committee on this matter that this scheme has merit. The IFA expressed its dissatisfaction with the level of funding asking for a level of 7,000 ECU (IR£5,350 approx.) for married and 4,500 ECU (IR£3,440 approx.) for single beneficiaries and that there be annual indexation to prevent loss of value as occurred under the previous Farm Retirement Scheme. They also emphasise that existing social welfare payments and benefits should not be relatively more attractive as in the past. They consider that the scheme as proposed should apply to sons and daughters and that the scope for eligibility be widened. Macra na Feirme believes that the proposal should act as a base for a proper Farm Retirement Scheme. They ask that the proposed level of payment be doubled. 19.ACOT favours the introduction of this scheme as a necessary part of any effort to increase land mobility and to effect structural reform. They cite a number of reasons which militated against the working of the previous pensions’ scheme in the 1970 s and urge that the new pre-pension scheme should avoid these sources of failure. They emphasise that leasing is not covered but should be. ACOT points out, as do the IFA, that social welfare entitlements should not be at risk, emphasising however that state finances might benefit somewhat through substituting EEC money for existing unemployment assistance. O’Hara considers that while the scheme at first glance could be seen as an improvement on previous schemes in effect it is beset by a number of problems. Abandonment Option20.The abandonment option is not likely to appeal to Irish farmers. Moreover, it could be difficult to administer. The potential use of land for non-agricultural purposes is limited. In the case of transfer the stipulation that the farm have a labour requirement of 1 MWU prior to transfer excludes the majority of potential participants. The clause restricting transfer to a “first degree” successor and the fact that it does not include leasing would limit the scheme’s value for this country. 21.O’Hara considers that the up-take of this scheme would depend on the attitude of farmers to abandonment. Farming for many is a way of life and has an associated social status. It would take a considerable length of time to build a conservation attitude in farmers. On the benefit side there is undoubtedly the attraction which a generous pension could offer by comparison with present income. If the benefits are pitched too high especially for larger holdings the question of liability for income tax could be a disincentive. A political question arises as to how those outside of farming might view this development. Non-cultivation22.Non-cultivation is not clearly defined by the Commission. It is not clear whether it applies to good land (taking it out of the national production scene) or if it applies to more inferior land. It is difficult to visualise top-grade land being left idle, while inferior land is being farmed. Keeping land “in good heart” also lacks definition - some land left to nature can degrade easily resulting in substantial economic loss. Taking land out of farming, if carried out rationally, would mean identifying the less inherently productive types of land through classification based on scientific soil survey. This would require a major national policy decision on land use. 23.This then is not a simple matter. It involves decisions of a very basic nature, and the proposals are superficial in many respects. In general, while offering progress towards resolving our age old structural problem of imbalance between land and people, especially, in poor land areas, these proposals need much processing in terms of our needs and rather special agricultural and structural requirements before adoption as obligatory measures. It is ironic that our farmers are now to be offered premia for extensifying production when the agricultural support services have been trying to get them to do the opposite. Farm Transfer and Measures to Assist Young Farmers24.An important part of the pre-pension proposal but also interacting with proposals to benefit young farmers, relates to the acquisition of abandoned farms by young “first degree” successors. The young farmer must set up as a “main occupation” one requiring at least one MWU. O’Hara has pointed out that only 10,400 farms in this country had this labour content in the case of 55-70 year old operators. Of these there were only 62% with a possible heir while in LFAs there were only 2,700 farms with potential farm inheritors. The Joint Committee feels this part of the proposal would then be of limited application. 25.The Commission places much emphasis on the transfer of responsibility to young farmers able to make the substantial changes required to adapt the work of the farm to the new situation. It looks to the pre-pension scheme to increase land mobility for young farmers. This principle, while highly meritorious, has been coupled in Ireland with leasing for a considerable period with limited results. Under the new proposals to assist young farmers the latter must undertake, for a period of not less than five years, to gear production to market requirements and to introduce less intensive production methods, including in effect an annual “fallow” on part of his land. An annual premium per hectare will then be paid according to the contract, the maximum being 100 ECU (IR£76 approx.) per hectare per year. 26.Macra na Feirme considers the annual premium to be of real importance, advancing that the level of premium should be related to the size of most Irish farms while asking that the MWU be reduced to 0.5. The IFA supports the latter approach again stressing indexation. ACOT, in relation to the labour requirement, (referred to in Article 1 (d)) points out that the farm in the future could, with different enterprises-including farm processing, tourism, crafts, etc. - provide work for a one man unit. This is important in the overall context of the integrated rural development (IRD) implication of the proposals generally. ACOT especially points to the limitations of the maximum of the 100 ECU (IR£76 approx.) per hectare for switching to less intensive methods and states that it would be difficult to see how this sum could improve or even maintain the economic circumstances of the farmer. It is pointed out that with the expectancy by the Commission of some 10% only of young farmers opting for re-orientation/extensification of production this proposal will have limited value, and that with the prime need to maintain employment there is a good case for support below the threshold of the MWU. Views of the Joint Committee27.Taking, therefore, the proposals made under Article 1 and its various subheads, i.e. 1a to 1k, the Joint Committee considers that, while these proposals have merit, as present stated they have important limitations in relation to the rectification of Irish structural problems. They are largely negative insofar as they are primarily aimed at restricting production. The abandonment or land “setting aside” proposal lacks definition. It appears that production must be abandoned on all the farm. There is haziness regarding the quality of the land to be “set aside”. The Joint Committee feels that its relevance, while more appropriate to intensive tillage conditions, is limited in regard to the generality of our livestock, especially cattle and sheep, enterprises. These are already in the most difficult structural areas where pre-pension beneficiaries would in the main be located. Land use data shows that much of the land in areas likely to be most affected is already half abandoned. The Joint Committee believes that important economic and political questions arise in relation to the size of the benefits proposed, to their indexation, to interference with social welfare and income tax payments. The difficulties of farmers in their understanding of, and acceptance of “setting aside” measures will be difficult to resolve while the general perception by people other than the beneficiaries will also give rise to misconception. 28.In the Joint Committee’s view the long term effects on land use and rural development have not been assessed. The measures with regard to land transfer restricted to “first degree” successor does not allow for leasing. The stipulation that successors be “main occupation” farmers and that farms have at least 1 MWU labour requirement restricts the scope for multiple income sources on small farms and its rural area development possibilities. While a Member State can lay down the rules and criteria with regard to the re-orientation of production, the compensation available to a young farmer in this respect i.e. 100 ECU (Ir£76 approx.) per hectare per year, is unlikely to appeal. For many developmentoriented new generation, well trained young farmers, extensification would be a serious retrograde step. Overall, while these Article 1 proposals have merit, they need to be explored fully, modified and adjusted if they are to make a significant impact on the Irish structural problem. Extension of Compensatory Allowance in LFAs:29.This measure is in essence an extension of the level of compensatory allowance (headage payments) as provided for in Title 111 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 797/85. The main change is that it provides for payment in respect of types of production other than stock farming. At present the degree of natural handicap determines the allowance. In future, Member States would be authorised to consider the economic situation of the farm as a whole and adjust the allowance in relation to the farm income. The allowance as proposed will be increased by some 50% and payment will be continued where lands are afforested or otherwise withdrawn from production while recipients of headage payments who make qualitative improvement in or orientate production to market needs or extensify, can get 50% higher headage payments. This then is to some extent aligned to environmental conservation and the preservation of the countryside ensuring population stability. Viewpoints of Farming Bodies30.The IFA welcomes the proposed change and proposes an extension of the disadvantaged areas. ACOT sees this proposal as offering some possibilities for this country, again advancing consideration of an extension of disadvantaged areas referring especially to some hill and mountain lands now excluded. They propose, as does the IFA, that cereals and sugar beet should be included. They see the proposal that Member States can use the criterion of the economic situation of the farm outside the areas of natural handicap as a step towards a more generalised system of direct income aids within the CAP. ACOT feels that, while this a positive step at a time of economic and output difficulties, it may be moving in the direction of generalised national aids and thus create future problems. Ireland, as one of the poorer Member States, would be placed at a severe disadvantage in supporting farm income. In discussing this matter O’Hara of AFT essentially reiterates this view indicating that, as a measure to mitigate the worst effect of the current structural situation on a residual category of farmers, it can only have a limited impact. It is based on accepting the continuation of the present situation. Views of the Joint Committee31.While this measure presents some advantages and could strengthen the position of farmers in the areas concerned the Joint Committee feels that it would have limited enough value on real structural reform. Coupled with an extension of the disadvantaged areas its significance could be substantially increased, as soil survey has shown that such areas comprise some 50% of the national acreage. This measure is then a step in the right direction, if properly developed. The Protection of the Environment and Countryside Preservation32.Articles 19, 19a, 19b, 19c, 20 and 21 as they refer to the provision of aid in areas sensitive as regards the protection of the environment and the preservation of the countryside, while again deriving from the Commission’s basic purpose of restricting production, are an important step forward. They enable in effect the broad-based development of rural areas to become an essential component of the CAP. It is proposed that where a farmer in specially selected “sensitive areas” undertakes for 5 years to farm in a way which is “friendly” to the environment, or where such a farmer is compelled to do so, he can be given an annual allowance of up to £75 per hectare. This is an optional measure for a Member State. Viewpoints of Farming Bodies33.Neither Macra na Feirme or IFA referred specifically to this measure. ACOT, however, indicated that it is broadly acceptable and in the context of the Member State’s function to determine the areas to which aids should apply, that farmers in these area as they wish should be free to farm normally, subject only to environmental protection ordinances. ACOT states that at present investment under the Farm Improvements Programme must meet certain environmental requirements and in the circumstances aid should be provided even if no further investment is being contemplated. Views of the Joint Committee34.Today the “quality of life” factor has gained priority status for many and in this respect access to the countryside for leisure and recreation occupies an important part in the lives of citizens. The Joint Committee believes that Ireland has highly important resources to develop because of our rare scenic, wildlife and recreational attributes, to be found not only in our recognised beauty spots but in the countryside as a whole. Their further preservation and development is important, not only because of aesthetic values but as a source of rural employment through tourism, recreation and leisure, wildlife development and a host of other related activities. 35.Regarded in a positive way the Joint Committee feels that the measures now proposed open up opportunity for multipurpose land use enterprises, having a bearing on community viability and the economic and social welfare of rural people. The Commission has rightly acknowledged the service to society and the custodial role of farmers in this matter over the years and the proposals can provide a much needed further stimulus in this respect. 36.While the aid to be made available, with a maximum of 100 ECU (IR£76 approx.) per hectare per year, is being fixed at 50% of the maximum compensatory allowance, it does not take into account organisational costs contingent on community co-operation for “countryside” development purposes which are likely to arise. Environmental development of the kind specified will in the Joint Committee’s view require an area resource development approach which will involve considerable funding. A provision in this respect can be just as necessary as aid to the individual farmer. In addition environmental standards, taking into account the characteristics of any area, must be set and monitored. 37.The Joint Committee believes that this is an important provision which can play a highly important part not only in natural resource conservation but as an essential base for high quality food production. Accordingly, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the measure, if introduced, can be effective. There are many factors, human and physical involved. The proposal can set an important basis for an IRD approach based on multi purpose resource use and developed using a systems type methodology. The proposal as set out, however, lacks definition and depth, a deficiency which can be made good by pursuing some of the aspects raised. The operation of this measure would be very much in the hands of the Member State. Afforestation and Upvaluing Agricultural Production Afforestation38.Afforestation has emerged as a very important option in considering the proposals now tabled. Various aids for this purpose have been set out. This is important for this country where one of the main options for land use lies in a much expanded programme of tree growing. The position regarding forestry has been well documented by the Joint Committee (1) and was discussed recently by Kelleher of AFT. Within the EEC there is a major deficiency of timber and forest products. Ireland climatically and soil-wise has a high capacity to grow trees with yields much higher than elsewhere in the EEC. Substantial areas of our land, marginally suited for agriculture, are highly suited for forestry. For instance, the Resource Survey of County Leitrim revealed the fact that some 42% of the land there is capable of high yields while an additional 28% also ranks highly. This land is marginal for agriculture and reclamation for that purpose is costly and difficult. Lee of AFT has recently mapped the extensive forest-suitable areas. (2) In all he has pointed out that some 1.8 million hectares could be sown to trees to the national benefit and, looked on long term, could be economically rewarding for the individual farm. 39.Despite the capacity in this respect and the provision of attractive grants farmers have been slow to put land into trees - a range of reasons relating to land structure, inheritance, cultural conditions, economic factors and lack of institutional support, have been blamed for this position. The proposals now put forward are timely and attractive. As with the environmental proposals they can have a positive impact and indeed are interrelated insofar as afforestation can have a major environmental benefit. An important constraint listed by Kelleher was the length of time to economic return i.e. 20 years and opposition to whole farm planting. 40.Supplementing previous aids the measures now proposed cater for (a)An extension of aid to the beneficiaries of retirement allowance under the pre-pension scheme under Article 1. (b)An increase in the maximum eligible sum to meet the actual costs of afforestation more effectively. (c)Increased Community contribution to Member States aid to forestry associations and co-operatives. (d)To provide for forestry upkeep, an increase of one third in the annual premium proposed in connection with the pre-pension scheme and extension of the premium period to 20 years. Provision will also be made for the harmonisation of afforestation schemes, especially in regard to compensation of timber market need. Viewpoints of Farming Bodies41.Neither the IFA or Macra na Feirme made any specific comment on this proposal the former organisation having however a well defined forest policy. ACOT is in favour of increased support for afforestation as proposed underlining the need to ensure that information and technical advice required by farmers be adequately met. 42.Views of the Joint Committee Overall these proposals are to be welcomed. Like the other pre-pension related proposals they are subject to the same abandonment constraints. While it seems to be implied in Article 1(c) that the whole farm area surrendered is to be afforested, it specifies the allocation of the agricultural area of the holding to afforestation or a non-agricultural use. It is not totally clear then if part could be extensively farmed or left unsued or if a combination of uses other than agricultural production could operate. Elsewhere, it has been represented to the Joint Committee, especially in the Scandinavian countries, mixed farming and forestry have been traditional, one enterprise complementing the other. 43.In the Joint Committee’s view there is no appraisal indicated of the landscape and scenic impact of afforestation which can be an important factor. Neither do the proposals seem to be based on a system of land classification related to suitability for forestry. In other words a national land-use base related to areas most suited to tree growing as distinct from agriculture has not been yet proposed. The soils best suited to forestry have quite specific attributes. There soils are, as can be seen from the map,(1) located in distinct areas. It is not clear from the proposals if land of wide-use range for top class farming could, under this scheme, be afforested when surrendered for the pre-pension scheme. The Joint Committee wonders if this would lead to a free for all approach. Another aspect of some importance is the relationship in the future between State afforestation and farms in relation to land likely to be available. More details in this respect are desirable. 44.In the proposals no provision is made for timber processing. It would be desirable, as the growth period of 20 years is long, that long before that provision be made for the development of research, technology and forest products. Some of this work, especially the research, in the Joint Committee’s view, should commence at an early date. 45.Proposals on afforestation are involved in an integrated way in the other measures. Against the background of deficiency in timber supplies and the environmental and recreational significance, together with the long term income returns to farmers, these proposals, in the Joint Committee’s view, are important. To date there has been strong farmer resistance to afforestation and recent survey data shows little abatement in this. The aids now offered, including those of long term (20 years) income for farmers, are attractive. Again like the pre-pension proposals, the forestry measures suffer from abandonment constraints because of the requirement to plant the whole farm area with trees and also because the proposals are not related to the classification of land most suited to forestry. The relationship between State and farm forestry would need to be decided. More definitions and details are then required, especially as related to provision for processing and marketing. Up-Valuing Agricultural Production46.New proposals for changes in Regulation (EEC) No. 355/77, which deals with facilitating the disposal of production by more efficient marketing organisation and the development of processing, are minimal. An amendment provides that in certain circumstances a project under this heading need not form part of a programme and that a somewhat higher community contribution can be made. This is of limited value to Ireland however in that it provides under Article 17 for the creation of marketing and processing structures for alternative or organically grown crops. While there is now some attention being given to the latter here, with demand growing mainly from food faddists (based on as yet unestablished health giving attributes) the question of support for alternative crops as a source for diversifying production may be worth attention. Viewpoints of Farming Bodies47.ACOT in commenting on this measure have drawn attention to the fact that producer groups can have a role in improving production and the marketing of quality products and that it would favour a more concerted support for such groups under the relevant EEC regulations. Views of the Joint Committee48.As pointed out previously the question of product quality is closely related to environmental protection and in this respect the Joint Committee believes that it would have been interesting to have seen a provision for the development and operation of a scheme of food quality guarantee specification covering the entire chain from the soil to the table. This could be provided by the proposed new National Food Centre of AFT-IIRS. It is of importance also, if the overall measures are now to be availed of in an IRD programme, that the role of producer groups and co-operatives be strengthened. Attention should then be devoted to having appropriate proposals put before the Community for support in this respect. 49.The Joint Committee feels that the proposals for amending Regulations (EEC) 355/77 under Article 4 as they now stand are only of limited value to this country. But it considers, because of the importance of new initiatives in rural area development, that in order to ensure the provision and effective marketing of high quality food products in the future, producer group and co-operative action will need to be strengthened. In order then to guarantee quality production and marketing appropriate EEC aid should be sought. Back up Services for Farmers including Training, Extension and Research50.The proposals under the various headings discussed in the foregoing, if they are to be implemented effectively, will require new developments in education, advice, extension and research. They essentially mean that agricultural structures policy and related social and indeed societal development, become important elements in the CAP. To meet the demands of the latter, certain back up facilities and orientation had been instituted in relation to training, extension, advice and research and in other related organisational development. It is now recognised in the proposals that the appropriate services must be adapted, personnel-and facility-wise, to meet the new needs. The latter must be seen against the opportunity to move towards an IRD programme based on a multi-purpose land use approach. 51.The proposals discussed set the basis for the major elements - farming, forestry and environmental resources, which with other rural support activities of an economic nature, including mari and aquaculture, tourism, water gathering, wild life, recreation, crafts and other rural industries can be combined to create a dynamic IRD. This could have important employment, farm income and overall societal significance. We are concerned therefore with a wider scene than farming on an individual farm to one embracing a range of other activities.. 52.Consequently, in re-orientating training, extension and research services the need to underpin this scene arises. Obviously, for instance, there must be professionals working at local level trained to service and organise this broad spectrum of rural development - to educate, motivate and mobilise people to action to meet the new opportunities which the proposals make possible. 53.The Community has recognised the need to adapt to the new requirements through (a) extending Regulation (EEC) No. 797/85 and (b) through a separate proposal amending Council Decision 83/641/EEC, adopting joint research programmes and programmes for co-ordinating agricultural research. Both of these actions must be appraised together as part of the intellectual investment process basic to development. (a) Training and Extension 54.With respect to (a), it is regarded as being of primary importance to induce farmers to re-direct production towards quality and to gear production methods towards meeting environmental demands. This change in orientation requires, not only in addition to conventional agricultural know-how, a knowledge of plant protection, livestock health, residue disposal, land use, ecology and fertilisers but also a knowledge of the major physical elements influencing the environment. Moreover, it will involve a holistic approach to resource development coupled with new broadly-based education and training programmes to orientate rural people towards the new needs if these are to be met. 55.This in essence involves a major change in focus from a farm approach primarily about production, and incomes, to overall rural resources and community development. In this connection, for instance, the socio-economic service now primarily concentrated on mobility and transfer matters will need to expand into a wider field. Indeed, in this connection the functions of the now defunct Farm Home Management Service are relevant. It is of importance that the additional courses of training in qualitative improvement, re-orientation, environmental protection and forestry are to obtain an increase in subvention of £3,375 to £5,250 per participant. Moreover, as part of this development spectrum and with afforestation playing a major part, training advice and extension for forestry must be provided. In brief, appropriate under-graduate and in-service programmes must be instituted to provide the new type broad spectrum advisor coupled with the provision of new subject matter specialists. 56.ACOT in commenting on this provision indicates that its current programme is fully compatible with the need to redirect production towards quality and that proposals relating to this matter have been forwarded to the Commission. To meet afforestation development and the associated need for more extensive forestry training, ACOT considers that advisers who are promoting farmer forestry must be appropriately trained and that EEC assistance should be available for this purpose. This also applies to the retraining of advisors for new rural initiatives. It has been pointed out to the Joint Committee that a submission involving AFT, ACOT and the Forestry and Wildlife Service has been made for funds for demonstration and dissemination under Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) 797/85. 57.Macra na Feirme has proposed that Ireland should press to improve Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) 797/85 and have made a submission to the Minister for Agriculture asking for implementation in respect of co-operative leadership training courses and for a 75% reimbrusement for such courses instead of the current 25%. It is involved in the preparation of a proposal to have its intensive training courses accepted as part of this scheme. 58.Another important measure is that provided in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No. 797/85. This measure is proposed for adaptation to provide support for the establishment of agricultural associations, aimed at introducing farm management services by increasing the ceiling on aid eligibility from 12,000 ECUs (IR£9,200 approx.) to 36,000 ECUs (IR£27,600 approx.). ACOT considers that this should be available to farmer groups operating Management Information Systems (MIS) in recent years. This development would be of value. 59.(b) Providing for Research As for training and extension the implementation of these proposals would call for new research initiatives. In this respect it is important that, through resource surveys and various research projects in sociology, An Foras Taluntais has already available a substantial research bank to underpin these developments. This includes work on IRD subvented by the EEC. In evaluating these research proposals it is important to remember that they are aimed at providing Community required facts and that the various projects are contracted out to agencies in the different countries, for which this country must tender. Nationally then we must be competitive in this respect, requiring the provision of high calibre staff and facilities. The significance of the results for our own development purposes is important while acknowledging their benefit at a time of reducing resources from national sources. 60.The Commission is now concerned to define research work designed to overcome the problem of surplus, help farmers to adapt to change, convert to other products, improve product quality, increase efficiency, reduce production costs, conserve soil and water resources and preserve the environment. It is also concerned with effective dissemination of research results. These are already national research goals. The basic proposals in this respect as set out under specific measures, “the Utisilation and Conservation of Agricultural Resources” are comprehensive and generally applicable to our problems. Some of the implications of the research proposals are discussed below especially as they refer to the land use and rural space aspects as additional to maximising food production and sale. Adapting to Change61.Under this heading the proposals put the emphasis on new crops. However, adaptation to change will have to be made by all farmers even if, for some, adjustment involves leaving farming. Economic and social research should be finely tuned to the adaptation problems of different categories of farmers - not just those switching to new crops/varieties. There is now increasing heterogeneity within the farming population and blanket prescriptions have only limited application. Research should be more explicitly focussed on various sub-groups to identify their different resources, constraints, opportunities and capacities for change. Implicitly this also means a more perceptible concern for the problems of different areas or regions in the country. 62.The sets of problems facing farmers in the west and north-west are much different from those in the south or east. The restriction on milk production will give rise to a greater differentiation between various parts of the country. For example, there is need to re-appraise the research programmes relating to the LFAs, especially in the light of the shift to ‘non-conventional’ land uses (see below under ‘environment’). 63.Quality There is need for comprehensive and integrated research projects which will systematically link up information on market requirements to on-farm production systems. These would involve very close co-operation between AFT, the State marketing promotion agencies and ACOT. The present project on producing hill lamb for continental markets is an example of what is needed. In this project AFT and ACOT work in close collaboration in an action-research sequence which links sheep husbandry, farm economics and final-market research together, to improve hill sheep production in line with market requirement. Efficiency64.The overwhelming need in a cost-price squeeze is for greater efficiency. Studies on farm production efficiencies and on efficiencies in market/processing should be expanded. Environment65.The arguments about conservation are accepted but from Ireland’s viewpoint a very important statement in the documentation is that referring to ‘combination of agricultural and rural activities’ compatible with the need to protect the environment of the countryside (item 4(b) of COM (86) 199 final/2). While this combination is seen in the proposals as relating to conservation objectives, the point to be stressed here is that all rural areas should be included in IRD research programmes. In this respect, it is now necessary to make clearer distinction between, on the one hand, R & D concerned with agricultural production and marketing and, on the other hand, that directed towards rural and regional development. Hitherto, agricultural research and advisory services have been organised on the basis that rural development could be achieved through agricultural development or, even more narrowly, on-farm development. This could be justified when conventional agricultural development opportunities were not restricted. Under the new CAP proposals there is now more than ever a need to widen the focus from the individual farm to rural areas and to examine the relationships between farming and other activities in maintaining the economic and social fabric of these areas. Overall, in operation the combination of activities will require a systems synthesis approach based on resource surveys, including land classification and the development of suitable research based models. 66.A programme for IRD research would in summary incorporate the following elements:- -land-use appraisals in the light of the new CAP proposals -economic evaluations of different possibilities for local resource development -assessment of institutional arrangements for rural and regional development -determination of the combination of activities most likely to ensure local area viability -ways of promoting community enterprise and development. Most importantly, IRD should involve new collaborative arrangements at regional level between research, advisory and other public service organisations. 67.The research proposals concerned with production, processing and marketing are acceptable but as regards the latter more attention will need to be paid to developing quality guarantee specification systems to cover the chain from the soil to the consumer. This can be of special importance in relation to meat quality. This could be an important activity for the National Food Centre of AFT-IIRS now under consideration. In addition, more and continuing research will be required to understand consumer attitudes and needs, while in this respect also a much expanded programme on human nutrition as related to the attributes of our food is necessary. The different proposals point to the need for a more thorough quantification of our soil resources requiring new initiatives in scientific soil survey and land classification. 68.A highly important objective is to develop research in biotechnology - this being important in not alone using agricultural raw materials and farm residues but in providing for rural industries of various kinds and consequently fitting into IRD. Biotechnology must be seen as an integral part of agricultural technology as a whole and the necessary research and knowledge transfer process should now be subvented in AFT. An important need at this stage is to provide pioneering facilities, laboratories and otherwise, to underpin activities in the fermentation, protein extraction, pharmaceutical and other fields using agricultural raw material, if the new developments in this field are to be used effectively. The base for such facilities is there already. It is urgent that substantial funds be made available for this purpose and consequently there is an urgent need to have this matter advanced in the Commission. At present also alternative enterprises such as deer, poultry (including geese), rabbit, essential oils and essences and a number of other potential relevant farm home and farmyard enterprises are working on a very poor research base while being actively promoted by agencies such as SFADCo. 69.The various proposals now put forward will require considerably more funds than are now used - in fact research funds constitute much too low a proportion of those now devoted to the CAP. The Commission recognises this and have projected an increase from 30 to 50 million ECU. This should be regarded as a minimum. Extra national funds for research must now be given high priority also. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON BACK-UP SERVICES FOR FARMERS(a) Training and Extension70.The Commission regards it of primary importance to induce farmers to re-direct production towards quality and to gear production methods to environmental demands. In addition forestry training must be catered for, while overall there must be re-orientation towards broader rural focussed programmes. This means a major change from the position where rural development could be achieved through farming alone. Now various enterprises are involved, ie farming, forestry, tourism, wildlife mari and aquaculture, environmental development, crafts, rural industries and recreation. These must be organised, developed and integrated in a holistic sense. This will require new training and re-orientation programmes for trainees and advisors and new curricula for courses. The socio-economic service, for instance, now primarily focussed on mobility and transfer aspects, will be required to engage in much wider activities including some of those previously the function of the eliminated Farm Home Management Service. In effect it means a substantial extension and re-orientation of the ACOT services and those involved in other organisations including co-operatives and Macra na Feirme. This will require extra funding and release from the employment embargo now operating. (b) Research71.As for training and extensions the measure will require substantial new initiatives in research. The importance of this is clearly recognised in the research proposals outlined. While the latter are comprehensive and contain much of direct interest to this country, a re-orientation and new emphasis on rural and regional development will be necessary. This will especially require new initiatives in rural sociology and actions along the lines set out above with particular emphasis on factors which promote community enterprise and development. It will require a systems synthesis and model building approach and resources, especially land use appraisal, required for pilot project establishment. More generally much expanded work, based on new biotechnology techniques as part of agricultural research will be required and the setting up of pioneering facilities for this purpose set in train. From a societal and marketing angle expanded work on human nutrition linked to food quality, the establishment of clean cut specifications for quality guarantee and research on consumer attitudes and requirements both at home and abroad will be required. Alternative enterprises at farm home, farmyard and community level will require research support. While proposals have been made to expand the funds available they are unlikely to meet requirements. C. OVERALL VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE72.The Joint Committee considers that, while the proposals now presented in Com(86) 199 Final/2 would, if taken separately, be of limited value but if appraised in the context of an IRD (1) programme would represent an important advance. They would then secure a valuable re-orientation of the CAP (of special importance to this country). However, in order to contribute to progress in this direction, the Joint Committee believes that a number of actions are necessary. 73.It is obvious that in the context of IRD the convergence and indeed integration of policies concerned with agriculture, food, fisheries, social welfare, education and training, the environment and industry, would require to be considered. These policies are highly interactive in this context. In other words a holistic approach, as distinct from a fragmented strategy, would be required. The Joint Committee feels that in the past failure to approach rural development, especially our LFA s, (2) using various schemes, EEC and otherwise, in an integrated fashion has resulted in less than value for the investment. There has, as a result, been sizeable dissipation of valuable resources. For instance, if the Western Package had been approached (as advised at the time) in a “Mezzogiorno” fashion instead of a fragmented one involving at most a poorly co-ordinated effort by a number of different organisations, there is no doubt that more progress would have resulted. It is now clear that agricultural policies drawn up within the narrow perspective of a single sector cannot solve our farming and attendant structural problems. 74.The Joint Committee believes that if rational development is now to proceed there must be a committment by rural people - they must be more involved in helping themselves. This will require the creation of appropriate community activity so that people can be energised, stimulated and motivated to action. Local government structures must be strengthened while an overall IRD programme should be made the responsibility of an appropriate body representative of the various interests involved. This should not present any difficulties or extra financial input as most of the basic resources are already in place. The proposals considered will require financing. It is patent that while a considerable amount of aid will be forthcoming from the EEC that additional national resources will be required. The investment would however be highly productive, if it succeeds in improving the welfare of rural people through structural improvements and the removal of social disadvantage. 75.In this respect the Joint Committee considers that provision of additional resources for intellectual investment, which has been so seriously eroded in recent years, is especially necessary. When EEC resources are provided they must be used effectively. In this respect, while re-orientation in the training of educational and extension staff is so important, an important resource provided for this purpose at Mellows College at Athenry, County Galway is only partially used due to lack of national funding. In their submission to the Joint Committee some of the organisations have stressed the need for a higher level of EEC aid, such as the 100 per cent funding provided for certain aspects of the existing CAP. 76.The question now arises from the proposals as to whether the various institutions and agencies inherited from a different agricultural context are adequate to respond to a reformed CAP. In particular, the Joint Committee questions whether advisory and research services have now too narrow a technical bias as the major issues of change will hinge around economic and social problems. 77.The implementation of the proposals would involve substantial changes in existing schemes. For instance with the “setting aside” of land and with the development of farm forestry the need for land development especially as regards drainage would be substantially changed. If it is decided to move towards IRD with the opportunity now afforded the Joint Committee believes that it will be necessary to ‘pilot’ projects in suitably selected areas. The value of this approach was clearly shown previously in relation to farming, in the Western area. It will involve the preparation of blue prints, based on research synthesised models, using appropriate resource appraisal, the methodology for which is already available from the Leitrim Resource Survey and others. EEC funding for this project is provided for in the proposals. 78.It can be seen then that proceeding towards IRD at this stage of national development has much to recommend it and will however require attention to substantial initiatives in organisation, in policies’ concurrence, in co-ordination, in financing, in the re-appraisal of existing schemes and in implementation based on piloting. However, there now exists a substantial resource base for this purpose. Summary of Views on ProposalsPre-Pension Proposal, Farm Transfer and Measures to assist Young Farmers (Article 1 and its Sub-Heads).79.While the proposals have merit, as present stated they have important limitations in relation to rectifying Irish structural problems. These refer to land abandonment, the general lack of appeal to farmers due partly to insufficient incentives, to the “main occupation” requirement and to lack of definition in relation to the usage of land to be “set aside”. The latter is more relevant to intensive tillage economies rather than pastoral. The proposal, because of its negative production connotation, is unlikely to appeal to well trained energetic young farmers. Transfer will be restricted due to absence of leasing. 80.The Joint Committee feels that the measures proposed can have little impact on reducing the income gap in agriculture. Operated as a separate entity they can have little effect on the creation of employment in rural areas and the associated emigration with its serious effects on rural communities. Overall the Joint Committee believes that while the proposals have some merit they would need to be modified and adjusted if they are to make a significant indent on structural problems. Compensatory Allowances in LFA s81.The Joint Committee concludes that while this measure could benefit farmers in the areas concerned it would have little real impact on structural reform. However coupled with an extension of the disadvantaged areas its significance could be substantially increased. It is a step in the right direction. Protection of the Environment and Countryside Preservation82.This, the Joint Committee considers, will be an important measure if steps are taken to ensure its effective implementation. It can set a base for an IRD programme in the context of a multi-purpose resource approach and have significance in relation to the overall welfare of rural people providing a base for employment stabilisation. The proposal as at present set out lacks definition but as its operation is a matter for the Member States this deficiency could be easily rectified against the background of research on rural resources. Afforestation83.Proposals on afforestation are involved in an integrated way in the other measures. Against the background of deficiency in timber supplies and the environmental and recreational significance together with the long term income returns to farmers these proposals are in the Joint Committee’s view, important. To date there has been strong farmer resistence to afforestation and recent survey data shows little abatement in this. The aids now offered including those of long term (20 years) income for farmers are attractive. Again as for pre-pension, the proposals suffer from abandonment constraints, from the requirement to plant the whole farm area, with trees while the proposals are not related to the classification of land most suited to forestry. The relationship between state and farm forestry would need to be decided. More definitions and details then are required especially as related to provision and processing and marketing. Upvaluing Agricultural Production84.While the present proposals under this measure are of limited value the Joint Committee considers however, because of relevance to IRD that in order to ensure the effective marketing of high quality food in the future, producer groups and co-operative action, require strengthening and that, in the context of the general re-orientation of the CAP, aid be sought for quality guarantee specification. Back-Up Services for Farmers85.(a) Training and Extension: The Commission regards it of primary importance to induce farmers to re-direct production towards quality and to gear production methods to environmental demands. In addition forestry advice and training must be catered for while overall there must be re-orientation towards broader rural focussed programmes. This means a major change from the position where rural development could be achieved through farming alone. Now various enterprises are involved i.e. farming forestry, tourism, wildlife, mari and aquaculture, environmental development, crafts, rural industries and recreation. These must be organised, developed and integrated in a holistic sense. This will require new training and re-orientation programmes for trainees and advisors and new curricula for courses. The socio-economic service, for instance, now primarily focussed on mobility and transfer aspects, will be required to engage in much wider activities including some of those previously the function of the eliminated Farm Home Management Service. In effect it means a substantial extension and re-orientation of the ACOT services and those involved in other organisations including co-operatives and Macra na Feirme. This will require extra funding and release from the employment embargo now operating. 86.Research: As for training and extensions the measure will require substantial new initiatives in research. The importance of this is clearly recognised in the research proposals outlined. While the latter are comprehensive and contain much of direct interest to this country, a re-orientation and new emphasis on rural and regional development will be necessary. This will especially require new initiatives in rural sociology and actions along the lines set out above with particular emphasis on factors which promote community enterprise and development. It will require a systems synthesis and model building approach and research especially land use appraisal, required for pilot project establishment. More generally much expanded work, based on new biotechnology techniques as part of agricultural research will be required and the setting up of pioneering facilities for this purpose set in train. From a societal and marketing angle expanded work on human nutrition linked to food quality, the establishment of clear cut specifications for quality guarantee and research on consumer attitudes and requirements both at home and abroad will be required. Alternative enterprises at farm home, farmyard and community level will require research support. While proposals have been made to expand the funds available they are unlikely to meet requirements. D. GENERAL CONCLUSION87.If the proposals put forward are to be effective in resolving rural structural problems, a considerable re-organisation of policies and programmes will be necessary. They are considered to achieve most effect in the context of IRD, which will require the synchronisation of aspects of a number of policies as set out. A holistic approach will be necessary if resources are not to be dissipated. There is a question mark before the capacity of existing institutions to respond to the needs of the reformed CAP. Structures for development especially those to secure greater commitment from rural communities will be necessary while an overall Rural Areas Development Body will be required. This will primarly require organisation of existing resources and a decrease in centralised control. 88.While additional resources will be required it is considered, in view of the primary objectives which the Commission plans to achieve, that aid from that source must be stepped up with that for the new proposal on the same basis as those existing for production aspects of the CAP. In particular new resources will be required for intellectual investment aspects. The implementation of the proposals will entail attendant changes in existing schemes e.g. land reclamation. To underpin IRD a Pilot Project approach based on blue print models is considered necessary. A substantial resource base for this purpose is now available. 89.Finally, it is a fact that little progress has been made to date in the resolution of our structural problems. Today they are pervasive in their adverse effect on our rural economy - the larger farmers have benefited from the EEC, while small farmers have in effect income-wise, become smaller and more disadvantaged. If many rural communities are to survive action is now urgent. The structural measures now proposed, if applied as advised in an integrated way, can advance a solution to this long standing problem.
References:
(1) Former Chairman of AFT. (1) Fifteenth Report of Joint Committee: Forestry and Forest-based Products. (2) See Appendix 1. (1) See Appendix 1. (1) Integrated Rural Development. (2) Less Favoured Areas |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
