Subsidies to stay for five years after Brexit

Farm subsidies will stay at their current levels (presumably without an inflation adjustment) for five years after Brexit, Michael Gove will announce today: Farm subsidies

After 2024 they will be replaced by a new system designed to secure environmental outcomes and support rural infrastructure. There is also reference to giving greater access to the countryside which may worry livestock farmers who already have problems with out of control dogs.

The extension of subsidies represents a considerable victory for the NFU and gives farmers more time to plan for the future. The downside is that it may lead them to delaying necessary adjustments to their businesses to prepare for a life without existing blanket support payments. It will create something of a 'cliff edge' in 2024. I have always been an advocate of tapering payments to facilitate adjustment.

The largest landowners may have their payments capped before 2024. The government has yet to make a decision on the cap, but it could be implemented using a sliding scale with the 3,500 farmers who receive more than £100,000 each annually getting a lower amount per hectare above a certain number of hectares.

Mr Gove is expected to tell the Oxford Farming Conference today: 'Paying landowners for the amount of agricultural land they have is unjust, unfair and drives perverse outcomes. It gives the most from the public purse to those who have the most private wealth.'

Mr Gove hopes that the UK will leave the CAP when Brexit happens in March 2019. Whether the UK remains a member of the CAP during the transition period is still a matter for negotiation. but most officials in London and Brussels believe that Britain will still be a member for a period of time after Brexit.

Complex picture on cutting payments to big farms

A common complaint about the CAP is that too high proportion of the subsidies go to already prosperous farmers. The counter argument is that these farmers are the most efficient and the most internationally competitive. It all comes down to what you think the CAP is for and there has always been confusion about the objectives and their relative preference ordering.

From this year all member states are obliged to apply a 5 per cent degressivity tax on payments over €150,000. Let us suppose that you are an East Anglian grain baron receiving €1m in subsidies. This means that you would appear to lose €42,500 of your subsidy, but then the 30 per cent greening subsidy is exempt, so the actual sum comes in at under €30,000 (obviously the amount received in pounds is sensitive to the pound-euro exchange rate). The amount lost would be significant but not devastating.

However, any member state or region can impose their own cap. This option has been chosen by all the devolved regions in the UK, but on a different basis in each case: It's your choice

Northern Ireland has imposed an absolute cap at €150,000. There are not many farms in Northern Ireland who would receive more than this. Wales has come up with a particularly complicated system, but again there are not that many farms in Wales who would qualify for relatively large payments. Scotland, where there are some large farms, has set the cap higher. Indeed, their €600,000 starting point is the highest notified by any EU country or region.

It's not difficult to work out the politics of this. Farmers in Northern Ireland who are Democratic Unionist or Sinn Fein supporters are unlikely to be affected. In Wales, the more Welsh-speaking parts of the country are unlikely to be hit (although other aspects of Welsh Assembly Government policy have been a source of complaint). In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalists do not want to upset any constituency, but the relatively small number of farmers likely to be affected are not significant in electoral terms.

The capping controversy

A full and very informative blog post here, although the English is a little stilted in places: Capping

I would just make a couple of points. First, it is always possible that businesses could be split into distinct legal entities to avoid the rules. Second, the last paragraph of the post points out that many wealthy estates benefit from large CAP subsidies.

However, this brings us back to the question of what the CAP is for. If its main objective is to help poor or marginal farmers, it is an inefficient means of doing so. (Actually, there are probably at least two objectives here, one an income distribution objective and one a rural landscapes/depopulation objective).

If one, however, one thinks that the CAP should be helping European farms and food processors to be globally competitive, larger farms are, in general, more efficient (and often more environmentally conscious and aware of animal welfare needs).

Why no capping?

George Monibot complains in The Guardian about the absence of capping or degressivity in the CAP reform deal: Monibot

The reason Britain and Germany opposed these proposals is that they have a lot of large farmers and agreeing to capping would disadvantage them and cut national receipts from the CAP. The more fundamental issue is whether the CAP is there to support the global competitiveness of EU agriculture or is meant to be a social policy for marginal farmers.

Parliament has its say

The European Parliament has had its say on the CAP reform process and, as predicted by Agra Europe last week, has largely backed the amendments proposed by its agriculture committee (ComAgri). The majority of MEPs backed the four ComAgri positions on direct payments, rural development, financing and market measures as the momentum towards a final agreement, potentially within the timeframe of the current Irish Presidency, gathers pace.

However, some hurdles remain. The Parliament vote largely proved that there is still work to be done before a deal that satisfies all member states can be reached. Parliament did back a number of key aspects of the Commission proposals such as the ‘capping’ of Pillar One payments as well as its plans on ‘active farmers’. 'Capping' would have implications for UK farmers in particular, a number of whom operate on a large scale.

CAP reform proposals 'too complex'

The Court of Auditors has published a report arguing that the proposed CAP reforms are too complex and will not achieve the desired aim of simplification. They might not end the controversial practice of 'sofa farming'.

The Court recognises the efforts made by the Commission to simplify the provisions of the CAP and to address a number of observations made by the Parliament, the Council and the Court. However, the Court considers that the legislative framework of this policy remains too complex.

For example, six distinct layers of rules govern rural development expenditure. With respect to cross compliance, the Court considers that, in spite of the proposed reorganisation, the complexity of this policy continues to make it difficult for paying agencies and beneficiaries to administer.

In spite of the claim that it focuses on results, the policy remains fundamentally focussed on spending and controlling expenditure and therefore oriented more towards compliance than performance. In particular, the specific objectives of direct payments to farmers are not set out in the articles of the relevant regulation, nor are the expected results of those provisions or the type of indicators to be used to measure such results.

With respect to rural development, the Court has underlined the importance of setting out specific concrete objectives that the proposed measures are designed to achieve and of ensuring that support is targeted to rural areas where the aid is most needed. Similarly, the objectives and qualitative and quantitative results that are expected of the implementation of cross compliance obligations as well as of the ‘greening’ component of direct payments are not adequately laid down. The disclosure of such objectives would help focus the policy on delivering the desired results.

The Court has noted the Commission’s intention to direct CAP payments to “active farmers” and to achieve a more balanced distribution of direct payments among beneficiaries. However, the Court considers that the risk persists that payments may continue to be made to beneficiaries who do not exercise any agricultural activity. Furthermore, the Court notes that the redistribution effect of the reduction of the amount aid when such aid exceeds certain levels (“capping”) will be limited.

Furthermore, the Court has doubts as to whether some of these proposed measures can be implemented effectively without imposing an excessive administrative burden on national managing agencies and on farmers. As a way out of this difficulty, the Court suggests adopting a general and simple definition of what constitutes an “active farmer” and to entrust the Commission with the task of managing the implementation of the resulting legislation with a view to reaching the high level objectives set out in the Treaty. These objectives are to increase agricultural productivity as well as increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture.

The Court notes that the Commission estimates that the proposed reform is likely to result in an increase of 15 per cent in the costs of managing the direct payment schemes which will be borne by Member States. The Court notes that no information is available on the extent to which such additional costs might be offset by increased management or policy efficiency.

Accession state farmers get little money from CAP

96 per cent of direct payment beneficiaries in the new member states received no more than €5,000 in the 2010 financial year according to Commission figures. The average amount in the EU-12 was €1,550 per farmer. In overall terms 80 per cent of farmers received 20 per cent of the payments. It should be noted that payments are still being phased in in the new member states.

Just over 60 per cent of European farmers received less than €1,250, although quite a few of these would be part-time farmers. Nearly 4,000 received more than the proposed cut off point of €300,000. 1,660 of them were in Germany, 390 in the Czech Reoublic, 330 in Spain and about 310 in the UK.

The Commission notes that 'the direct payments have lost their compensatory character over time' (which is how they were justified at the time of the MacSharry reforms) 'and have increasingly become a support ensuring a certain farm income stability and in combination with cross-compliance, promoting sustainable farming activity.'

If the objective is to stabilise farm incomes, Single Farm Payments are an inefficient way of doing it and a blunt instrument to promote sustainability.

No deal before French and German elections

No deal on CAP reform will be reached until after the French election in 2012 and the German election in 2013 according to Defra minister Caroline Spelman speaking at the Oxford Conference. She also said that Britain was reaching out beyond its traditional allies in Scandinavia and the Netherlands to countries such as Slovakia and Romania to build an alliance against the 'capping' of CAP payments to large farms: CAP reform

Opinion at the Oxford Conference and in polls of farmers was sharply divided on whether British agriculture could flourish outside the EU.

Storm of protest greets 'capping' plans

A storm of protest from farmers and their representatives has greeted the leak of European Commission plans to cap Single Farm Payments (SFPs) to large farms. The proposals should have come as no surprise as the Commission sets out to meet imperatives to cut the CAP budget and make it superficially fairer. However, critics say that the move undermines the international competitiveness of EU agricultire.

Under the leaked proposals individual farmers receiving above €150,000 (£132,000) in payments would lose 20 per cent of that support with the amount increasing proportionately for those raising larger sums. There would be an overall limit of €300,000.

The cutbacks would not apply to the so-called 'greening' element of Pillar 1. They would also take account of farms with large workforces through a so-called 'salaried labour intensity' indicator. However, most large farms are relatively capital intensive and make extensive use of contractors who presumably would not count.

The Commission intends to introduce legislation to close a loophole that might be available to farmers by splitting up their holdings into separate legal entities or transferring payments to relatives. Some of them may have already done this or still have a period of grace to do so.

In a sense this is a shift in the direction of confirming that the CAP is essentially a social policy for marginal farmers. Competitiveness is a formal objective, but has always been given relatively little attention.

Threat to biodiversity funds

The RSPB and Defra are concerned about a potential threat to funds paid under Pillar 2 of the CAP to support biodiversity and wildlife schemes: Biodiversity

It would be very unfortunate to say the least if savings in the CAP budget were made by capping payments that compensate for the provision of positive externalities for which there is the strongest case for public subsidy.

The bulk of any reductions should come from the SFP, although the concern here is that an attempt will be made to penalise efficient and competitive farms by capping payments. MEPs have been urged to vote against these proposals: Capping