The decoupling of subsidies from production levels – a key feature of the reformed CAP – falls under constant criticism in Finland.

The decoupled payment is blamed, in Finland, for working against a "natural and healthy development" of average farm size and the increased efficiency of agricultural management. These are two of the most urgent needs of Finnish agriculture, as identified by a think tank brought together to examine alternatives to the current national agricultural policy in 2007. In addition, the think tank stated that the high price of farmland caused by the single payment prevents change of ownership and the consolidation of land (normally considered a welcome structural development) within the most productive holdings.

A second report (1) shows that decoupling is expected to lead to a drastic increase in the area of fallow, and the further concentration of animal husbandry on larger units and within a small number of regions. Nutrient inputs on the remaining cultivated area, as well as problems of manure surpluses in regions dedicated to animal husbandry, are predicted to increase. This is a real threat, which should be addressed by stricter cross-compliance standards on nutrient inputs and farm-gate nutrient balances.

Finally, the area-based support provides no incentive to produce and therefore allows farmers to work the land extensively. Under conditions of generally low yields and high production costs, as is the case in Finland, the system attracts farmers to put a portion of their fields under relaxed cultivation, just enough to justify a subsidy (i.e. the cross compliance standards are met).

It is quite likely that by now every language within the EU has a word to describe this style of farming, which is practiced without considering the production output (its volume and perhaps also quality) and, instead, is focused on getting maximum revenue from the subsidy system. It is called ”näennäisviljely” in Finnish, and a national estimate puts it at 0.5-1% of the total field area 3. Any subsidy paid on such fields is a waste of money, and developing preventive measures are called upon in a government report.

Farmers themselves regard "farming for subsidy" as the wrong attitude to land management. “What is the use of having half of one's fields under fallow and half under old hay? They [such näennäis-farmers] should be eliminated [from the SPS] so that their fields are free for real farming” – a common opinion expressed on farmer blogs and in the press.

What is the impact of this farming style? For one thing, farmers who restrict production indirectly support higher prices for those who do produce. Secondly, they allow land to rest under fallow regime, which means the accumulation of carbon, an improvement in soil structure, and provides a habitat for countless wildlife species squeezed out of intensive farmland. Finally, these farmers de facto retain a valuable land reserve for those times when agricultural land comes into shortage.

The above examples point to the fact that governments and farmers alike often miss the rhetoric behind CAP reforms of “multifunctionality”. They remain firm on what the CAP had been supporting for over 50 years – the maximisation of food production. This tradition in thinking is fueling opposition to further reforms of the CAP which might promote a more extensive agricultural land-use.

(1) Lehtonen, H., Lankoski, J. and Koikkalainen, K. (2007) Economic and environmental performance of alternative policy measures to reduce nutrient surpluses in Finnish agriculture. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 11, 421-439.