In this letter to the editor, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association (ICMSA) president Denis Drennan responds to an Irish Times article by environmental commentator and former Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) chairperson Prof. John Fitzgerald.

Prof. Fitzgerald is never less than interesting and his [recent] article displays why.

In the prevailing atmosphere, where far too many problems and challenges are presented as arriving ‘Out of the Wide Blue Yonder’, suspended in intellectual mid-air, without any sense of where and how these problems have developed - and even less of any likely destination should they continue on the present course and at present speed - then his insistence on ‘plotting the course’ on context is to be admired and cheered to the rafters.

So, when he turns his formidable attention to the question of farm subsidies (Common Agricultural Policy) and their usefulness and role, we in ICMSA are happy to give him the attention his record and unimpeachable credentials merit.

Prof. Fitzgerald, it seems undeniable to us, is completely correct in setting out the continuing economically important role the agri-food sector plays.

We particularly welcome his recognition that there are hugely positive social dimensions to that role that are less amenable to statistical measure, but no less important.

But his statement that the "the next Common Agricultural Policy needs to make a clear link between farming subsidies and achieving reductions in emissions from farming" is not just wrong, but emphatically so, and directly contradicted by the record.

It seems to us that in making this connection, Prof. Fitzgerald is breaking his own ‘golden rule’ and disregarding the critical role played by context; where we look to see what problem a policy was originally set up to address and then judge against that original ambition.

It is demonstrably impossible to judge the efficiency or otherwise of any policy if we are unsure what problem it was set up to solve.

What was the problem the policy was set up to deal with and has it addressed the problem adequately?

Examination of CAP

We think that any worthwhile examination of farm subsidies (CAP) should follow the same procedure.

And if anyone can be bothered to pose the key questions - what was the problem farm subsidies were set up to deal with and have they addressed the problem adequately - then the answers emerge very quickly and clearly.

CAP was designed to bridge the gap between what the populations of the great European cities wanted to pay for their food and what the producers of that food, the farmers, needed to keep farming and producing that food.

In the decades after 1945, there was massive migration to the ruined cities that needed to be rebuilt and there was a recognition on the part of individual governments and the early EEC that getting adequate amounts of food into those cities at affordable prices was the indispensable element.

CAP was invented to establish food security and to bridge the gap between the ‘cheap food’ policy at retail level and the real costs of producing that food and keeping sufficient farmers on the land to keep the food going into the cities.

That’s not a matter of opinion or interpretation; it’s a matter of historical record.

For just so long as that original purpose and understanding was accepted and acted on, CAP functioned.

EU

The problems began - and again, this is a matter of record - when the EU decided that the handiest way of introducing environmental, biodiversity and sustainability targets and restrictions was via CAP.

What followed - and is still ongoing - was clumsy ‘bolt-on’ and policy ‘retrofitting’ that effectively cancelled out the original purpose and mechanism, and has left the EU floundering on both fronts: affordable and sustainable indigenous food production; and attaining emissions-lowering environmental, biodiversity and sustainability targets.

CAP was a special purpose vehicle designed to support food producers and ‘top up’ their income through direct supports in order for high quality food to be made available to urban and suburban populations at affordable prices.

As the environmental ‘bolt-on’ requirements were added, its effectiveness in meeting that original aim has declined.

The irony here is that the 'green' lobby would argue that it isn’t working for them either and they, too, see that CAP is ‘falling between two stools’ i.e., support for food production and attaining environmental targets.

It isn’t fulfilling either function and is falling short on both.

Food security

Food security should not be taken for granted and the future of farming itself is becoming more uncertain and questionable; the average age of our dairy farmer members - the ones that Prof. Fitzgerald has earning "a good living" - is now in excess of 60.

If they are earning such a "good living", how come we can’t get anyone to follow us into farming?

The purpose of CAP and farm subsidies might resolve itself - there won’t be any farmers to subsidise.

CAP was designed for the farmers producing the food that fed those original urban and suburban populations.

That was its original purpose and that is still the purpose for which it is most suitable.

In fact, and in light of the highly combustive and uncertain international political situation, we might need to ‘double-down’ on our own internal EU capacity to feed ourselves.

The time for parsing these issues is gone. ICMSA does not intend wasting time trying to ‘square a circle’ that can never be achieved.

CAP must revert to being a fund that supports food producers through meaningful supports and if the EU wants to support people to achieve environmental aims and ambitions, then it should introduce a 'CEP' – a Common Environmental Policy – and fund that separately.

What is intolerable is the present attitude where we try and use the same policy mechanisms for two widely differing purposes - and fail miserably on both.