Assessment of the public debate in Finland on the reform of the CAP after 2013

The aim of this research is to summarise and assess the public debate in Finland on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 following the publication of the EU Commission’s Communication entitled “The CAP towards 2020.” This research analysed various statements from the debate on the future EU agricultural policy by stakeholders like governments, farmers’ unions, food industry, scientists, environmental organisations and other non-governmental organisations. The most active stakeholders in the debate on the CAP after 2013 are the farmers’ unions -MTK and SLC. The support for the greening of Pillar 1 is unclear in Finland. The greening proposal is rejected by the farmers’ unions. The worry is that more stringent cross compliance will lead to more bureaucracy and administrative burden which is against the simplification objective of the future CAP. The same worry is shared by the food industry and the Ministry of Agriculture. There is strong support to maintain the current two pillars structure of the CAP. MTK stated that Pillar 2 policies have a big influence on the balance of development in rural areas. MTK insists that some elements of coupled support should be maintained in order to uphold production in less favoured areas (LFA). In addition to coupled support, the future CAP should also include strong market mechanisms to balance the markets if necessary. The Finnish government focuses on the issue of equitable distribution of direct payments among EU member states and the need to sustain agricultural production in the entire EU. However, Finland may not be able to increase its direct payments through more equitable distribution of direct payments among the EU-27 member states. At the moment, Finland’s per hectare direct payment is near the EU-27 average, whereby models for the future distribution of direct payments would not increase or decrease Finland’s direct payments substantially. Environmental organizations and organizations promoting animal rights have also been active, but their concerns are focused on the general issues relating to agriculture rather than on the future CAP reform. The environmental organizations consider directing CAP payments also to recipients in rural areas other than farmers and CAP payments should be paid for ecosystem services and conservation of nature in rural areas. Animal rights organization such as Animalia would like to promote livestock production only in small farms with the assumption that the standard of animal welfare is higher in smaller farms. Stakeholders who are involved in rural policy have not been actively participating in the public debate on the CAP after 2013. Only one statement was sent by the stakeholders of rural policy to the EU Commission through the official consultation process. The EU Commission’s communication did not suggest any major changes to the rural development policy and this may influence the inaction of the Finnish stakeholders. In the future CAP reform, the abolition of sugar quotas may have the largest impact on Finnish agriculture. This is because one of the major crops in Finland may not be cultivated anymore. Sugar beet may be the first crop which production would end after Finland’s accession to the EU in 1995. After the implementation of the 2006 reform in the sugar sector, national support payments have ensured the continuation of sugar beet growing in Finland. Overall, the biggest challenges from the future CAP reform in Finland would likely be the structural changes in Pillar 2 support. Changes in the co-financing of LFAand agri-environmental payments would have a major impact in Finnish agriculture. The right to continue the co-financed part of the LFA-support payments that cover the whole country is a major issue. Finally, the right to continue paying national support in southern Finland after 2013 will coincide with the implementation of the new CAP. The national support payments are critical in maintaining agriculture production in Finland in addition to the CAP payments because Finland is situated in the most northern part of the EU, where the production conditions are not as favourable as in the other parts of the EU.