Yna ceir y broblem gymhleth o pwy ddylai dderbyn y taliad PAC, a phenderfynu yr hyn a olygir wrth “ffermwr actif”. Mae’r Comisiwn yn codi pwynt pwysig sy’n cynnwys dau beth sydd wedi’u cydblethu: a yw’r tir yn cael ei ffermio, a sut y gwyddom i bwy y dylid gwneud y taliad ar gyfer y tir hwnnw. Mae dadl gref y dylai’r taliad gael ei roi pan y gellir dangos mai’r tir sy’n cael ei ffermio yw prif ffynhonnell bywoliaeth economaidd y ffermwr. Mae hyn yn codi’r cwestiwn, a oes isafswm o ran faint o dir y gall ffermwr wneud bywoliaeth ohono. Mae amgylchiadau yng Nghymru yn wahanol i weddill Prydain, a hyd yn oed yn fwy gwahanol pan fyddwn yn cymharu ar lefel 27 gwlad yr UE. Mae ein tir ffermio yn adnodd naturiol a chyfoethog y dylid ei ddefnyddio i’r eithaf, er mwyn cynhyrchu bwyd a rhoi manteision amgylcheddol. Er bod yr egwyddor o dargedu ‘ffermwyr actif’ i dderbyn cymorth yn hollol briodol, mae’n amlwg yn anodd gwybod sut i ddiffinio’r term a’r mesurau rheoli.
There is then the complex matter of who should receive the CAP payment and determining what is meant by “active farmer”. The Commission raises an important issue that actually has 2 intertwined aspects: whether the land is being actively farmed and how we identify who the payment for that land should go to. There is a strong argument that payment should be provided where it can be demonstrated that the farmed land is the principal source of economic livelihood. This also begs the question whether there is a minimum size of farmed land from which an economic living can be made. Circumstances in Wales are different to the rest of the UK and even more marked where comparison is made at an EU 27 level. Our farmland is a natural and rich resource that should be used to optimise both food production and environmental benefits. Whilst the concept of targeting support to ‘active farmers’ seems wholly appropriate, there is clearly difficulty around how the term is defined and the control measures.