In a thorough and authoritative analysis, Alan Matthews examines the repurposing of the English agricultural budget since Brexit, noting that the only other developed country to attempt such extensive changes is New Zealand: http://capreform.eu/agricultural-policy-reform-in-england-and-the-2024-uk-budget/
There has been a much greater reallocation to agri-environmental funds in England than in the CAP.
Alan Matthews takes a look at net contributions to the CAP: http://capreform.eu/how-net-balances-might-influence-member-state-views-on-the-size-of-the-next-cap-budget/
He notes: 'Instead of the smooth transition from the largest net contributors to the largest net recipients as we move from left to right [on the chart], the general picture is now more jagged even if the general pattern is maintained.
The two smallest Member States, Luxembourg and Malta, with relatively limited agricultural area relative to the rest of their economies, now appear as the largest net contributors in relative terms.
More significant in economic terms is that, despite the huge significance of Germany’s absolute net contribution to the CAP, in relative terms the contribution of the Netherlands and Belgium is even greater.'
The outgoing EU agriculture commissioner reviews his five years in office which appear to be ones of problem free achievement: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/highlights-2019-24_en?s=09
The new commissioner, Christophe Hansen, is from Luxembourg, often perceived to be amenable to French concerns. Food has been added to his portfolio, but animal welfare goes to health. His biography is here: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/1af2336d-a010-4ac0-b8de-81a23772a5ac_en?filename=CV%20Hansen.pdf
In 100 days he has to produce a vision for agriculture and food, so good luck with that.
The EU’s chief climate scientist has warned that the bloc will miss its climate targets if it does not force the agricultural sector to pay for its greenhouse gas emissions. Ottmar Edenhofer, chair of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, told the Financial Times that it would be “almost impossible” to achieve the European Commission’s proposed aim of cutting emissions by 90 per cent by 2040 without a levy on agricultural emissions.
“[Over] the last 15
years, the emissions in the agriculture sector remained quite stable,”
Edenhofer said, while other sectors had cut their climate impact. “The price
signal is important because without the price signal, it is very unlikely that,
basically, we can reduce emissions,” he added.
Farming makes up 12 per cent of the EU’s emissions, of which
about two-thirds comes from meat and dairy production. But it is one of the few
sectors in the EU to have so far avoided strict climate legislation, including
sectoral emissions reduction targets, in part because of farmers’ ability to
stage widespread and disruptive protests.
Earlier this year, tractor blockades and demonstrations by
farmers in many European capitals catalysed a rethink in the EU about how it
was approaching efforts to decarbonise farms. It prompted the commission to
retract a proposed law on pesticides and delete recommended targets from a
document outlining how the bloc would reach its 2040 goal.
But the issue of making either farmers or other parties in
the food chain pay for emissions has risen up the agenda as Brussels starts to
outline its priorities for the next five-year mandate starting later this year.
Denmark has also been
lobbying Brussels to introduce an EU-wide system after it announced the world’s
first carbon tax on farm emissions in June. EU officials are weighing options
including a levy on food processors that would also include incentives for
farmers to use their land as a carbon sink.
But a report on the future of farming in the EU that stemmed
from consultations between food and farming industry groups as well as
environmental NGOs, published this month, said it was “premature” to come to a
conclusion about pricing agricultural emissions.
The final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture is now available: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/main-initiatives-strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en#strategic-dialogue-report
'There is consensus among members of the Strategic Dialogue that economic, environmental and social sustainability in the agri-food sector can reinforce each other, especially when supported by coherent policy measures.' One can but hope for the latter.
“Business as usual, be it economic, social or environmental,
is not an option,” said the report.. “Bold and swift action at all levels is needed” to
tackle the “multiple crises” affecting farmers, including increased impacts
from extreme weather such as drought, from inflation and from low-cost global
competitors.
Among other proposals of the report are schemes to encourage
consumers to cut their meat intake, including through tax incentives and
labelling, and to help farmers move away from livestock farming, including a
controversial suggestion to introduce voluntary buyout schemes for farms in
areas with high levels of intensive animal farming.
The most significant recommendation is a major overhaul of
the EU’s CAP subsidy scheme, which was first launched in 1962 and consumes a
third of the bloc’s multiannual budget. Instead of allocating direct support to
farmers according to the amount of land they own and linking that to mandatory
environmental standards, the report recommends that subsidies should go to “the
active farmers who need it most” based on their “economic viability”.
The report proposes that farmers receive incentives within
the CAP to green their practices, as well as from a “Just Transition Fund” that
is outside the CAP budget and is dedicated to longer-term changes such as
converting farms to “regenerative” or organic methods. There should also be a
loan package of up to €3bn from the European Investment Bank that prioritises
young farmers.
Behind the scenes the agricultural lobby is a sprawling, complex machine with vast financial resources, deep political connections and a sophisticated network of legal and public relations experts, argues the Financial Times in a Big Read analysis. “The farm lobby has been one of the most successful lobbies in Europe in terms of relentlessly getting what they want over a very long time,” says Ariel Brunner, Europe director of non-governmental organisation BirdLife International. Industry groups spend between €9.35mn and €11.54mn a year lobbying Brussels alone, according to a recent report by the Changing Markets Foundation, another NGO.
Food systems are responsible for between 21 and 37 per cent
of greenhouse gas emissions depending on what is included, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Over half of those emissions come
from animal faming alone. Yet agriculture remains one of the last sectors in
developed countries still to face binding limits on its carbon emissions. It is
one of the few industries not covered in the EU’s emissions trading system,
although proposals are under discussion.
The regular meetings between Copa-Cogeca, the umbrella body
for farming unions and co-operative bodies across the EU, and the bloc’s
officials show that the reach of the agribusiness lobby has been “institutionalised”,
says BirdLife’s Brunner. Patrick Pagani, acting secretary-general of
Copa-Cogeca, counters that lobbying is normal practice and “transparent”
because the body publishes videos of its presidents’ main points.
Farmers in Europe say they are being strangled with red tape
at a time when many are struggling with rising input costs following the
Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which inflated energy and fertiliser
prices. The EU’s Green Deal climate law, drafted in 2019, set out proposals to
cut pesticide use and improve food systems, as well as reduce emissions from
industrial-scale farms.
In the EU, lobby groups are already staking out positions
ahead of the next major revision of the Common Agricultural Policy, which will
take effect in 2028. The present iteration has been criticised by farmers for
its attempts to tie payments to better environmental performance and cuts to
pesticide usage. Following widespread protests, European Commission president
Ursula von der Leyen has pledged that the next CAP will be “targeted” and find
“the right balance between incentives, investments and regulation”.
Who benefits?
Research suggests
that big farms and landowners reap far greater benefits from
subsidy packages than small-scale growers, even though the latter are often the
public face of lobbying efforts.
That has led to some tensions within the sector. It has been suggested that the agricultural
lobby “hijacked” the spring protests and put the emphasis on deregulation,
which served the interest of the biggest industrial farms and agribusinesses,
when the main concern of ordinary farmers was insufficient incomes.
FNSEA, France’s largest farming lobby has been accused of
having ‘ no interest in securing income for farmers” but “a huge interest” in
driving pesticide usage, because FNSEA is headed by Arnaud Rousseau, chair of
agro-industrial company Avril. At the EU
level, Marion Picot, secretary-general of CEJA, the bloc’s main body for young
farmers, says its members often feel drowned out by more dominant voices in
Copa-Cogeca. “We are trying to make sure that young farmers are visible in
other farming groups.”
In farm policy, it often seems that benefits go to those
already doing well.
Alan Matthews sets out his views on the future of EU agripolicy in the light of the European Parliament elections here: https://www.europenowjournal.org/2024/08/15/thinking-the-future-of-agrifood-policy-in-light-of-the-eu-parliament-elections/
National aids to agriculture have increased, but they are difficult to track and more transparency is needed: http://capreform.eu/greater-transparency-needed-in-national-aids-to-agriculture/
Alan Matthews estimates that national state aids led to additional transfers of €9 billion to farmers. He forecasts: 'It is likely that relying on Member States to provide national aids will continue to be a feature of future crises.'
He notes: 'This is an extremely murky area as, despite the obligations on Member States to report State aid and other aid to farmers, there is no central registry which keeps track of these amounts.'
The EU has brought out a second report on the state of food security in the EU: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a91b3841-6021-489e-b877-7f0f5278c88c_en?filename=efscm-assessment-spring-2024_en.pdf
It highlights weather and cost concerns on supply side and high food prices on demand side.
