Failure to decide on CAP financing

Copa/Cogeca obviously have a particular furrow to plough, but there are some valid points in a recent press release, particularly about the failure to consider key financial issues.

'Last night, EU Agriculture Ministers, under the leadership of the Irish Presidency, reached a partial agreement on the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Copa and Cogeca acknowledge the progress made on several technical points of contention but warn that the most fundamental questions concerning the future of European agriculture remain unanswered. An agreement on the CAP without clarity on its financing, its common character and its implementation cannot provide the certainty that European farmers and agricultural cooperatives urgently need. This political and procedural deadlock was foreseeable and is largely the result of the approach chosen by the European Commission.

Copa and Cogeca recognise the efforts of the Irish Presidency and the improvements secured compared with the European Commission's initial proposals on CAP. In particular, progress on the definitions of eligible hectares and active farmers, the differentiation of area-based income support, provisions concerning retired farmers are welcome developments.

Nevertheless, significant shortcomings remain. Provisions concerning checks on land at farmers' disposal, farm stewardship requirements, including the application of the Do No Significant Harm principle, and the associated control and penalty system continue to raise serious concerns. The lack of explicit recognition of agricultural cooperatives in investment support and shortcomings in risk management must also be addressed. A reform presented as simplification cannot result in more complexity, additional controls and greater uncertainty for farmers.

Yet, for Copa and Cogeca, the most fundamental issues were left unaddressed yesterday. Three essential guarantees remain missing: preserving a genuinely common CAP, securing an adequate and dedicated budget that maintains its current value adjusted for inflation, and guaranteeing the resources which were promised by means of two letters by the President of the European Commission the 10% rural target and the resources linked to the mid term review which should be ring-fencing and ensured for sector.

Anywhere but in Brussels, such a situation would be considered utterly absurd. Yet yesterday, Agriculture Ministers agreed on the rules governing a policy without knowing what financial resources will be available to implement it. This uncertainty illustrates the consequences of the European Commission’s decision to integrate the CAP into a broader financial framework, undermining its visibility and predictability, while the current budget scenario points to cuts of more than 20% in the majority of EU Member States.

Irish presidency faces difficult budget negotiations

Professor Alan Matthews is well placed to appraise the Irish presidency's take on the CAP negotiations: https://capreform.eu/the-irish-presidency-negotiating-box/

He notes: 'The Irish Presidency negobox is certainly not the last word in the difficult MFF negotiations. Not only does the disagreement between the Friends of Cohesion and the frugal states over the size and allocation of the budget continue. Very limited progress has been made on finding ways to finance an increased budget from new own resources, although the Irish Presidency draft includes some suggestions.'

WG: Of course, all this taking place against the background of political turmoil in Europe: serious riots in France, and a presidential election which may lead to a change of French ;policy; and a faltering government in Germany which is being outflanked by extremists.   How will the EU stand up to these challenges and what will it mean for the CAP which still absorbs around one third of the budget?

Don't neglect importance of common market organisation changes

Brussels is getting back to business. Changes in CAP subsidy plans have received considerable attention, but other important developments have been relatively neglected, reports Professor Alan Matthews: https://capreform.eu/amending-the-common-market-organisation-regulation/

Matthews explains that in part, this neglect is because the Commission’s amendments were rather narrowly focused on a selected number of issues: the school scheme, sectoral interventions, creation of a protein crop sector, hemp, new marketing standards, import safeguards, and crisis preparedness. 

However, the rapporteur’s draft report and the range of amendments tabled by MEPs turn the CMO legislation into a broader debate about the future role of market intervention, strengthening farmers’ position in the food supply chain, and livestock, meat and alternative proteins. In his post, t he CAP expert summarizes some of the key themes and positions that are up for discussion next Thursday.

Rethinking the CAP

Alan Matthews reports: 'My article "Reimagining the Common Agricultural Policy: Competing Rationales for the CAP after 2027" has now been published in Studies in Agricultural Economics and is available open access here https://lnkd.in/gmft2tVs. I identify four different rationales for CAP spending and argue that the Commission's Vision for Agriculture and Food and its proposals for the CAP post-2027 represent an attempt to construct a new political settlement aiming to reconcile economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, food security and territorial cohesion. But with a more limited budget, it is more important than ever to ask what we want from EU agricultural policy. Policies should focus on areas that generate European value added and I discuss what this might mean for spending priorities. The whole issue is well worth reading.'

Iceland's CAP dilemma

Voting intentions are on a knife edge as Iceland heads for its referendum on whether even to restart talks with the EU on membership.  Security and economics are drivers for change and the future of the fishing industry is vital.   However, agriculture is also a key issue.

Farming is ingrained in the Icelandic sense of national identity — in the 1970s there were about three sheep for every person — but it has been in decline. In the early 2000s, farms shuttered, young people moved to Reykjavik for higher-paying jobs and immigration surged. The number of humans overtook sheep in 2021.

“A hundred years ago, almost all people in Iceland were either fishermen or farmers,” according to Steinthor Arnarsson, a sheep farmer located in Burdardalur, northwest Iceland, whose family have been sheep farmers “all the way back”.

There has been talk of driving tractors into Reykjavik in protest. “If we’re going to become European farmers we should start acting like them,” Arnarsson joked to the Sunday Times.

Their main concern is that joining the single market will leave farmers priced out by cheap goods from the EU. They also fear that there will end up being fewer, bigger farms, consolidated around the capital, leaving rural communities diminished.

Others argue that EU subsidies would mean Icelandic farmers end up benefiting, and that membership of the bloc could also help to improve crumbling infrastructure in the country. Potholes are regularly mentioned.

Herdis Gunnarsdottir owns a dairy farm in Egilstad in the remote east of Iceland. She fears that her farm, with 80 cows (“big for Iceland”) won’t be able to compete with milk from industrial farms in the Netherlands, for example.   But transporting milk from the Netherlands to Iceland would be expensive, and Icelanders might prefer their home product.

 

Why does food system reform stall?

Professor Alan Matthews gave the presidential address at the 100th conference of the Society of Agricultural Economics held in Oxford earlier this year.  The Princess Royal, Princess Anne, was present for the address and commended the concept of academics as 'honest brokers'.   I had the privilege of reading this and commenting on it in draft form.   The revised version has now been made available on an early view basis in the Journal of Agricultural Economics.   

I found the concept of ideal type policy ontologies particularly helpful.

Here is the abstract: 

Agricultural and food policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitical instability, ecological constraints, technological disruption, political polarisation and declining trust in expertise. At the same time, calls for food system transformation have gained prominence as evidence accumulates on the environmental, health and social shortcomings of current food systems. Yet reform has frequently stalled despite extensive scientific analysis and broad recognition of the need for change. This paper examines why. 

After reviewing some traditional explanations for policy persistence, the paper introduces the concept of policy ontologies: underlying ways of understanding what the food system is, how it functions, what it is ultimately for and how change occurs. Three ideal-type ontologies are identified: a productivity ontology, a power-focused ontology and an ecological ontology. These ontologies shape the definition of policy problems and the selection of preferred policy responses, helping to explain why stakeholders often appear to talk past one another. 

As the Society begins its second century in a more turbulent and contested policy environment, the profession's central role remains the production of rigorous evidence. That contribution will be strengthened by a greater awareness of the different ways in which food systems are understood and of how these perspectives shape both policy debates and the interpretation of evidence. Recognising these underlying assumptions can help agricultural economists contribute more effectively to policy debate as honest brokers of policy alternatives.

Heatwave hits grain harvest

Europe’s June heatwave wiped more than €2bn from the value of its grain crop, according to new analysis, with France and Hungary bearing the brunt of the damage. Almost 9mn tonnes were removed from forecasts for grain production across the EU and UK in the four weeks following the heatwave, according to Coceral, the European grain traders’ association.

Analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit valued the lost production at about €2.1bn in national farm-gate prices for wheat, barley, maize and other grains, or about 5 per cent using 2025 production value estimates. The heat struck wheat during the critical period when kernels were filling in central and southern France, southern Germany, Austria, Poland and Hungary, Coceral told the Financial Times.

Spring barley was more badly affected than the winter barley crop, which was largely developed before the temperatures rose. The hottest June on record for western Europe follows a temperature rise of 3C over the 1991-2020 average, In France, the thermometer reached a high of more than 43C and in Hungary the peak was more than 40C. About half of the reduction in Europe’s grain forecast came from maize, used mainly for livestock feed, which was caught during pollination in France and Hungary. Coceral cut its forecast for the EU and UK maize crop from 57.2mn tonnes to 52.7mn tonnes. The EU is a net importer of the crop in poor harvest years, meaning the shortfall could increase demand for shipments from suppliers including Ukraine and Brazil.

The smaller French harvest could also reduce the amount of wheat available for export to buyers in north and west Africa, while higher feed costs are likely to filter through to livestock producers in coming months. France accounted for almost half of the grain crop damage. Its forecast was cut by 4.1mn tonnes, worth about €891mn at current prices.

Most of its reduction came from maize, for which the forecast was lowered by 3.35mn tonnes to 9.4mn tonnes — below even the crop produced during the severe drought of 2022. Hungary suffered the second-largest hit, with its grain forecast cut by 2.4mn tonnes, valued at about €444mn.

Spain lost a further 1.4mn tonnes, worth €276mn, while Germany’s forecast was lowered by roughly the same amount, equivalent to €233mn of production. The impact could be exacerbated for Hungarian farmers because domestic producer prices fell as the harvest approached, with cheaper Black Sea grain weighing on the market.

That leaves growers facing the loss of production without the partial offset from higher prices, which could be received by some French farmers. “This will hit farmers in the pockets, reducing their income and undermining European food security at the same time,” Tom Lancaster, ECIU land, food and farming analyst told th\e FT.

The losses come as EU governments negotiate the future of the bloc’s Common Agricultural Policy. Théo Paquet, senior policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau, told the Pink ‘Un that instead of subsidies being used to fund resilience to climate change, they “continue to fund harmful practices that contribute directly to these crises — fuelling an expensive and unsustainable feedback loop”.