
Farmer: Mr Commissioner, the voice of farmers, what last I observe on the platform X is such: subsidies this is a handout, psu on the budget, nothing worthwhile, unnecessary. Mr. claims – by entering often in discussions on the mentioned X, that such arguments only help the anti-farmer lobby and farmers shoot themselves – colloquially – shoot in the knee. Could you explain, what you had in mind, writing those words?
Janusz Wojciechowski: There is a battle about the future of agriculture in Europe, such a war about food security . I paraphrase in this moment such historical statement of Napoleon Bonaparte, that to win war there are three things needed: for first money, for second money, and for third most – money. I in agriculture is exactly the same. On that what will be the agricultural budget for the next years, that is the period 2028-2034 in agriculture depends very much, and may even everything. Agriculture nowhere in the world without subsidies does not function. This is why I am disturbed by such voices – especially farmers – because from the other side I know, I have a lot of such information, that there is very strong pressure on that, that the WPR, may not eliminate, but very limited, put agricultural money in one sack with other funds, subject those money to all restrictions related to the law (and this is the only fund, which has no milestones ), but this threatens, it may become quick. Such votes disparaging subsidies – because these are small – I know, that these are small, but they are and so higher than the EU average. Today farmers should with one voice, with one front speak: more budget for agriculture.
Farmer: One of the farmers considers on X, that direct payments should be compensated for increased costs of production, which is the result of WPR and “modern inventions, like the Green Lad.” And today the costs are more than the recompensation. Which is what? Despite every thing we should remain in this system? What for ? because how against this I have already mentioned…. A may leave everything to the laws of the free market?
Janusz Wojciechowski: Agriculture in principle never functions on pure market principles. And where it functions, it practically does have a hurried or later. Everywhere in the world subsidizes agriculture in different ways.way, in some countries significantly more than in the EU, and this must be accounted for. The subsidy system must remain, if in at all we want to have agriculture and food security. On the other hand does WPR cause increased costs? With this I would argue. In some measure, yes, but those costs increased by the war in Ukraine or by the pandemic. These were the main factors, which caused the increase in costs in agriculture. Secure elements of this green conditions, about which I consciously say: not Green Low, because this is an comprehensive category. There were green conditions and green incentives. I am satisfied, that thanks to cooperation with farmers, also their sure pressure, helping me, we have green incentives, how for example subsidies to animal welfare or to agriculture coal, a stop green promise, such as agriculture, the maintenance of crop rotation, winter cover, reduction of pesticides, flooding land. Of course, that payments for farmers, are before all payments for keeping the land in readiness for production, because we don’t pay for production, because we don’t free: World Organization Trade nam forbids this . Subsidies direct are very critically observed by this organization . Must continue this direction – subsidies direct, but addressed, on an example in the ecoschemes. This way is the way to go. Farmers are interested in ecoschemes, they want more measures, but the problem is that the budget for is not changed. I think, that the Polish government should very seriously consider such movement, that the decrease some the basic payment, and increase some on ecoschemicals.
Farmer: Would a sure increase recompensation (payment) that is the right way? How would you comment on the further dependence of farmers on drip from Brussels, instead of “incapacitating” farmers for beads?
Janusz Wojciechowski: This is one of those opinions, on which I would have requested, that they not present such arguments. This is not any favor. Is that it is dependence? We live in a world of dependence, everyone depends on something . If there is no grant from Brussels, there will have to be a grant, probably smaller, national. The farmer depends today on the whole processing sector, on how the market is organized, these dependencies are many. Let’s recognize WPR andits achievements: that the European agriculture is in the such place, as it is, and is performing much better, than the rest of the economy! EU in trade industrial articles has 500 billion euro deficit, in agricultural trade has 70 billion euro surplus! So this is success. I WPR has in that share. The only thing that is a problem is that it has a smaller share and that it needs to increase. It needs to now go to that, that – as at sometime – that support for farmers has a larger share of agricultural income. So request to farmers – don’t say yes, that this is a handout, a bead and that is unnecessary, because some just wipe their hands off: yes it is, farmers don’t want subsidies, we reduce WPR. So that it is that does not end.
Farmer: How does you assess the idea, would the money to this time spent on subsidies be spent more on support investment for a concrete purpose on the farm – so called targeted subsidy? I ask – because there is also an argument, that direct subsidies do not differ from 800+.
Janusz Wojciechowski: It is possible to compare direct subsidies with 800+, but is 800+ bad? It was a good impulse for the economy. But recurrently, a lot has changed in the system of subsidies, for example that directed a significant part of subsidies to really active farmers. About 400 thousand farmers are interested in ecoschemes. Beyond this think, that better is the enemy of good. Subsidies targeted as almost: in Poland less than more 10% of the budget for investment and that is the average level of Europe. I think that this is the correct level. JIf we put on targeted subsidies, then how percent of farmers will benefit from this. At the opportunity, I have this idea and I would request a vote of support, and there is a chance that
it will come to fruition. It is about introducing support for mixed farms and livestock based on most fodder from its own farm. I for such farms very willing I would exclude 10% of the general subsidy, as there is a redistributive payment for small and medium farms, there should be a similar for mixed farms. This has come in conclusions from Strategic Dialogue – now there needs to buy this iron while hot, by this payment in .future WPR is found.
Further part text under video material.
Farmer: A propos the mentioned 800+, that I wanted to ask you about the proposed last time by the department of agriculture definition of active farmer. In great simplification, the definition in the new sound could contribute to an increase in unit payments direct, because it would eliminate from the market grono not to end fair beneficiaries. Is this not generally a good idea in your opinion?
Janusz Wojciechowski: In Poland there is a definition of active farmer (in KPS) and this is a definition, which meets all EU requirements. Does that have to do that, that eliminates “not to end fair beneficiaries”? They are fair. With what are the people, who live from something other, a locate capital in the land will take from it some subsidies – is not a good situation. But this is not any wider phenomenon in Poland. I am afraid, that there is some purpose not just declared, but real of this operation. I remember and will this remember: the leader of the party, which is responsible in this moment for agriculture, Ladislaw Kosiniak-Kamysz spoke some months ago about this, that for active farmers that they must trout direct subsidies and that they will do it. In this time it is that 259 euro on average per hectare, that for part farmers has to be 777 euro per hectare. If there were that that I that counted – subsidies would be enough for 2% of farms in Poland. For the rest zero. Or that does not go in that direction. I hear,
that small farms are a problem. Farms up to 5 ha are over half of farms in Poland (630 tys. ), they have 12% of the
land and receive 10% of the subsidy. If any one has an idea, to eliminate it from the WPR – there will be
significant. Not in this direction should come to thinking and it slightly worries me, that this is a slightly substitute discussion. We should in this moment not seek those 10% of small farmers, but in the new budget of the EU, that that in this moment is decided. Let not sleep on this discussion and not wake up with the budget thrown into one bag, from which others more often will take, than farmers.
Read more
High subsidies direct for 2024 year. a program PSL Active farmer. Are there points common?
Farmer: As we know – according to you – in one aspect the new definition is contradictory to EU law – you cannot require the farmer to show invoices, for the purpose of proving, that he is an active farmer. Thus there are also that that that you pass with the truth – because that is followed from art. 4 paragraphs 2 and paragraphs. 5 Regulation 2115/2021, a
reads there, that defines, who is “a active professional farmer.” the member states apply objective and non-discriminatory criteria, such as an examination of income,
labor in the farm. How can this be studied other than through invoice or other accounts?
Janusz Wojciechowski: There are two types
of activity, which is defined as an agricultural activity and an active farmer in following this. It is producing agricultural products and keeping the land in good agricultural culture. You cannot deny any person the status of farmer active, only because that has no invoices. I have been talking about this all the time. But also, there is a second aspect, on which you must consider if it comes to show the farmer, that we pay only that he has produced and sold. Because there is a return to the WTO, which prohibits subsidies into agricultural production.
Read more
Farmer: One of farmers, with whom I spoke with, stated, that
it is peacefully possible to defend the invoice farmer against the EU by establishing definition of such
invoice, that that the invoice for means of production describe as an invoice for activity
for good farming practice, a in industry for protection of the environment. What are on that?
Janusz Wojciechowski: I think, that generally not that way. Converting a paper farmer, to a factory farmer nothing nam will give. I would very very care, before this type of manipulation at the definition of active farmer and that is now. There are only 3 years of current WPR. I would not move this until the new common agricultural policy, a focus on good preparation of the new perspective, this after 2027 year. Because the threats are great just there. Whatever would not happen with the definition of a active farmer, that is mixed in the same envelope of subsidies, that is not a supply of money. A there is a focus on that, that is filling into that envelope.
Read more
Resort of agriculture straights information about definition of active farmer
Farmer: Mr. Commissioner, there are reports that there is a rejection in the new definition of active farmer that is a substitute topic. Thus there are more important issues to deal with, if it is about agricultural issues. What does you think – the Polish government should turn to now before all attention? What aspects?
Janusz Wojciechowski: Budget, issues related to farming, that is that we must fight for more support for farms farms, but also that, about what I was talking about, that is payment to mixed farms. No and work for the system to help farmers in crisis situations. Unfortunately –
very over this I regret – there is no already war assistance for farmers. And this is still very veryneeded. The war
is still going on, its consequences are affecting farmers far far away, they are very serious, and there is no more.ThePolandpresidencyshouldsqueeze,toputthatback-as long asthewar lasts,as long asthereisliberalizationoftradewithUkraineandUkrainetakesofsomeprivileges,theremustbeaninstrumentto helpPolishfarmers.Mustseekallies,presstogetthishelpback.I amconcernedonly,whetherthishasbeentheactivityofthePolishgovernment,notthisthinkingandactinginthecategory”moneyhasandwillbe.”becausethegovernmentwouldhavetoprovidemeasuresforfarmersandmaybethathasthatdetermination…Andanotherissue-theremustbeasystemofcrisis assistance.Asthereisadroughtoranyother disaster-theremustbeaflexiblesystemforandnationalhelp.Andthisisunfortunatelygoingverydifficult.Todaywehearwhataretheproblemswithdroughtapplication.Andtheseareproblemstobeaddressed,anotaproposeddefinitionoftheactivefarmer.
Thank youforconversation.