THERE HAS been a widespread welcome for the plans from the farm commissioner, Phil Hogan, to simplify parts of the CAP and return some decision making to member states.

However one lonely voice opposing part of his plan is CEJA, the umbrella organisation that represents European young farmers.

Its concern is over plans to simplify the young farmers top-up scheme, under which farmers below 40 that meet strict criteria can see their single payments boosted by 25%. This is a perfect example of a policy where the devil is in the detail, not least with regard to how the definition of 'head of holding' excluded many who should have qualified.

Under the Hogan plan, member states will be given more flexibility to decide who should and should not be eligible for this aid. This seems a good idea, but it has raised concerns with CEJA, because of the battle they had to make this an EU-wide policy.

Back when the Dacian Ciolos CAP reforms were being negotiated, a significant number of member states, including the UK, opposed the idea that the young farmers' top-up should be compulsory. Those representing young farmers claimed that if it was only optional it would create the unfair situation of some farmers being treated less fairly than those in a neighbouring member state. In the giant fudge that ultimately drives a deal on CAP reform this was one of the arguments that won the day.

Now having secured that victory CEJA is concerned that in the drive for more flexibility it could be diluted.

This would never have been Hogan's intention. As an Irish commissioner he comes from a member state that has one of the best track records in Europe for tackling the problems young farmers face. Ireland was one of the first to use its rural development plan to have retirement and new entrants' schemes; it embraced the top-up plan enthusiastically and now has a programme to match farmers with no succession in place to young farmers who want a start in agriculture. This is the mind-set behind Hogan's thinking, and he is probably unaware that others might try to use flexibility to weaken the current EU-wide regulation, to the disadvantage of young farmers.

The battle to get some fairly modest aid for young farmers up the Brussels agenda was ironic, given the scale of the demographic crisis facing European agriculture. Just 5% of farmers are below 35, while over 55% are sixty plus. That is not a healthy situation for any industry, although it has been a familiar pattern for a long time. However what is worrying is that the percentage below 35 has actually fallen - hence the reason the Commission introduced the top-up aid for young farmers. It was however the product of a commissioner that suffered from being a technocrat, and in putting in safeguards the Commission created some bizarre anomalies, not least being how young farmers genuinely running businesses for some time were excluded because of how the regulation was worded.

It was never the intention of the Commission that this should happen, and this is why Hogan is trying to get some more thinking back down to member state level. However there is a danger that countries that never wanted this to be an EU-wide policy will now use this to make the policy even less effective. That would be wrong and perverse, given that a lot more and not less needs to be done to encourage young people into the industry. Regardless of the member state, and the land structures they have, the barriers to entry into farming are enormous for young people.

In his youth Phil Hogan was an enthusiastic member of Macra na Feirma, the Irish young farmers organisation, and as a future politician a keen player in public speaking and debating. He could probably be persuaded to think radically about programmes for young farmers.

One way might be to make it attractive for older farmers to form share farming or other partnerships with young people wanting into the industry. A premium for young farmers is one thing, but perhaps there could be a premium for old/young partnerships. What we have now is a start, and hopefully CEJA is wrong with its concerns. But a lot more needs to be done if we are to avoid having what is now a sunrise industry, in terms of demand for food, run by a sunset generation.