Promising was successful in the CAP, but paying became difficult

Last Thursday (November 16), outgoing minister Piet Adema sent a letter to the House of Representatives in which he reported that he had to tinker with basic income support and the premium for the eco schemes introduced this season. A slap in the face for the participating farmers. After all the problems with rules that were changed at the last minute, a faltering IT system at the RVO and maps with errors - to name just a few obstacles - we now receive a discount on the amounts that were communicated in advance, to top it all off. . This does not come as a complete surprise when we look back at the path the ministry has taken on this file over the past two years.

Obstacle course
The run-up to the new CAP has been messy almost from the start. Due to the fall of Rutte 3 and the long formation of the Rutte 4 cabinet, little happened in the development of the new CAP for a long time. The fact that then outgoing Minister Schouten sat at the table as her party's negotiator during the cabinet formation did not do any good to the decisiveness of the Ministry of Agriculture. With the new cabinet in place, it seemed that progress could finally be made on the development of the CAP. However, Minister of Agriculture Henk Staghouwer proved to be ineffective and had to resign after just nine months. The nitrogen crisis received the most attention in the media, but little progress was made with the development of the CAP.

For example, last autumn, when the first crops for the 2023 harvest were already in the ground, growers were surprised by changed rules regarding buffer strips. A year ago around this time there was little more than some broad outline of what the agricultural sector could expect. Only in February of this year did a simulation tool become available in which farmers could see what the changes meant on their own farm and what measures were needed to meet the basic conditions and any eco-schemes.

Even during the completion period of the combined assignment, not everything had yet crystallized. For example, the list of winter crops was only published in mid-April, as was the changed effective date for the buffer strip with herbs to June 1, to name just a few examples. The instructions for the RVO helpdesk were also adjusted during the completion period. It is not surprising that the deadline for submission was postponed by one month to June 15. The final assignment must be submitted before December 1. What this effectively means is that if an eco-activity has not been carried out, farmers can withdraw it. It is not possible to replace it with another one. The basics have been known since June 15 and it is only the eco schemes that can be changed.

Too late, as we are used to
It can be said that Minister Adema only sounded the alarm about budget overruns last week. After all, farmers provided their (provisional) data five months ago. In the meantime, surely someone within the ministry has paid attention and noticed that there is a big difference between what was stated and what was expected? It was also expected that much more land would be given up for basic income support. In the old system, only the cultivated area was specified. From this year onwards, non-cultivated strips, ditch edges and other landscape elements may also be included. Apparently we have much more of that than the ministry assumed? The same problem applies to eco schemes. If you make the basic conditions strict enough and legally anchor them in such a way (for example mandatory cultivation-free zones) that the farmer has to participate, the step of doing just that little bit extra for the maximum payment is made a lot smaller. There is something to be said for later payment of the eco schemes. Aiming to pay all CAP funds in December, when the final submission date is November 30, is, as farmers will also have to admit, very ambitious. To make it sometime in 2024, as Adema states in his letter, is the other extreme.

By changing the amounts, Adema is perhaps hitting the farmer's confidence the hardest. The commitment was clear until last week. Approximately €220 per hectare basic premium with an additional €54 per hectare for the first 40 hectares. For the eco-premium, this ranges from €60 per hectare for bronze to €200 for gold. That is entirely in line with what politicians want. The basic conditions (conditionalities) have been considerably tightened compared to last year. Farmers who go the extra mile must be reimbursed for the additional costs involved, the sector has been told. Farmers have made their calculations on what to do and what not to do based on the above figures. The farmer has been presented with a sausage and the minister now thinks 'thin slicing preserves the sausage'. If you want to get farmers to switch to a different revenue model (from production to landscape and/or eco services), this will not build trust. 

The CAP is about serious money that forms a substantial part of the income for the average farmer. This may make it the instrument to implement or initiate changes in the sector desired by policymakers. You would therefore expect the ministry to treat this seriously. By acting like a bunch of comedians, the ministry almost forces farmers not to run too fast and to remain focused on the market for income.