CAP budget stays stable but different winners and losers

Professor Alan Matthews writes:'The likely size of the CAP budget in the next programming period 2028-2034 has been highly contentious since the publication of the Commission’s MFF proposal last July. Among agricultural stakeholders, the AGRI Committee in the Parliament, and the AGRIFISH Council, the amount available for the CAP under its two Pillars in the current programming period was compared with the size of the minimum ring-fenced amount for CAP income support in the proposal and found wanting.

The Commission, on the other hand, has insisted on the potential for a larger CAP budget depending on the choices made by Member States. In my latest post Professor Matthews concludes that the Commission is broadly right. 

Assuming the Commission MFF proposal is agreed (a big if!), the CAP budget will be broadly similar to the current CAP in current prices and possibly bigger. However, its distribution between Member States will be different. For some Member States, especially Denmark, Austria and Ireland, it will not be possible to maintain their current CAP receipts, but other Member States already have a larger CAP budget than in the current period assuming they fully use their 'Mercosur' concession.

Full analysis here: https://capreform.eu/the-likely-size-of-the-cap-budget-in-the-next-mff-reprise/

Winners and losers from new funding formula

Professor Alan Matthew  writes: ‘There is great interest in what the Commission's MFF proposal and the subsequent modifications announced by the Commission President might mean for future EU support for farmers through the CAP. One of the sure things is that the impact will not be uniform across Member States, partly because the new allocation formula for the National and Regional Partnership Fund (NRPF) redistributes EU funding between Member States.

In previous blog posts, I attempted to estimate how the new funding formula (including the ring-fencing for specific objectives) can constrain the ability of Member States to transfer NRPF resources to increase the CAP budget beyond the minimum ring-fenced amounts proposed by the Commission, and thus to provide a level of CAP funding equivalent to that available to farmers in the 2021-2027 period.

This finding qualifies the conclusion in my previous post that there is a good chance that the level of CAP support would be maintained in current prices if the Commission’s MFF proposal were approved as it stands. This assessment may still stand for the EU as whole, but not necessarily for each Member State. ‘   In short, potentially there will be winners and losers.

Full analysis: https://capreform.eu/further-reflections-on-cap-governance-and-budget/

Can the EU borrow the money it needs?

Professor Alan Matthews looks at the EU's capacity to borrow in the light of the new budgetary framework: https://capreform.eu/the-role-of-borrowing-in-the-eus-mff-budget-discussions/

Key issues for agricultural stakeholders are

1. Whether the EU should be endowed with permanent borrowing powers.

2. How to expand the EU’s own resources.

• 3. Whether agriculture and rural development might benefit from the proposed Catalyst Europe loan programme in the next MFF.

CAP budget may not shrink

Alan Matthews of TCD writes: 'We are still digesting the implications of the Commission's MFF and CAP proposals. In a new post (link in the comments) I present a more optimistic view of the likely size of the CAP budget under the Commission proposals (from the perspective of those in receipt of this support).

While most commentators (myself included) have argued that the proposal implied a reduction in the nominal size of CAP spending, I would now argue it is more plausible to assume that the nominal amount of EU spending on the CAP will remain unchanged from what it is today. There are both upsides and downsides to this forecast which I explore in the post. In the end, of course, it is how the money is spent rather than its absolute size which will determine the impact that it has.'

Read his full commentary here: https://capreform.eu/how-big-will-the-cap-budget-be-in-the-next-mff/

Farm lobby wins Parliament budget vote

Professor Alan Matthews reports on Linkedin: "The European Parliament has now voted in plenary (7 May) on its MFF resolution. The AGRI Committee through its Chair re-introduced amendments not previously accepted by the Budget Committee but which were accepted by plenary 381 votes to 245 for paragraph 29 and by 358 votes to 268 for paragraph 30.

Para 29 now "calls for an increased and dedicated budget for the CAP in the next MFF, safeguarding it from possible cuts" as well as calling for "additional dedicated funding sources to be explored where appropriate, including outside of the CAP, in order to cope with natural disasters and provide incentives to farmers and foresters to contribute to climate change mitigation, biodiversity recovery and nature protection, without measures causing a regression in EU agricultural production".

Para. 30 notes that "the CAP urgently needs an increased budget in the next MFF that is indexed to inflation through annual re-evaluation" and underlines that direct payments "should continue to strengthen income security, production and protection against price volatility, better targeting persons actively engaged in agricultural production and the provision of public goods, while respecting realistic and balanced EU environmental and social standards"  

This looks like a win for the farm lobby to me.

Budget structure proposals upset farm lobby

It may seem a very technical matter, but proposed changes to the EU budget structure have upset farm lobby COPA/COGECA.   They have sent an open letter to the Commission president, reminding her of the large scale farm protests in 2024.

They state: 'In an era of geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, and mounting societal challenges, a strong and resilient agricultural sector is not just strategic; it is the keystone that supports the EU’s entire security architecture. Copa-Cogeca and its members representing European farmers and agri-cooperatives are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring food security, sustainability, as well as economic and social stability for 450 million citizens of Europe and beyond.

The pan-European agricultural protests of 2024, though driven by different causes, all revealed the vulnerability of our communities, exposed to the cumulative and conflicting effects of policies in an increasingly complex market environment.

The recent European Commission’s Vision for EU Agriculture and Food rightly acknowledges the sector’s strategic importance. Likewise, the Council’s EU Strategic Agenda and the Commission’s political guidelines for the 2024-2029 mandate recognise the indispensable contribution of farmers and rural communities to Europe’s economic and social fabric.

The farming community is still grappling with numerous challenges, such as geopolitical instability, high energy prices, legal uncertainties, and stricter environmental regulations. While farmers have made significant progress in improving productivity and reducing emissions, they still face rising costs and unfair competition, which is eroding their income and making it harder to remain competitive.

As you, President von der Leyen, rightly emphasised: we are entering a new era of rearmament in which Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own security. In this spirit, we firmly believe that there is no security without food security — and no strategic autonomy without food autonomy.

This is why we are profoundly alarmed by recent discussions on reallocating EU funding into a Single Fund effectively eliminating the EAGF and EAFRD – the pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Such a shift represents a fundamental change to the governance of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and would severely undermine the CAP, which remains the cornerstone of Europe’s competitiveness and food sovereignty.

Dismantling the two-pillar CAP structure based on the EAGF and EAFRD alongside using a single national programming approach per Member State will lead to a further loss of commonality in European policies. Besides further weakening the Single Market, this will have far-reaching consequences for food production and security and the maintenance of vibrant and populated rural areas in the EU. There is a clear added value in European expenditure when it comes to policies such as the CAP and this must be recognised and kept.

We are not the only ones who think so. Alongside 28 other key EU agri-food organisations, we have already conveyed a simple but crucial message to you and EU leadership: a dedicated increased CAP budget is not merely a matter of financial support, but a strategic investment in Europe’s future resilience and security.     [Good luck with that call given the other demands on EU funds and the still disproportionate share of EU finding that goes on the CAP.]

It was also one of the key conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue that were delivered to you last September: the multiple transitions required for European agriculture can and will only be achieved 

EU budget format changes and their implications for the CAP

Proposals for changes to the EU budget format that could affect the CAP are discussed in depth by Professor Alan Matthews: http://capreform.eu/fitting-the-cap-into-the-next-mff-long-term-budget/

Both the Budget and the CAP are very complex and technical issues so considering them alongside each other is almost mind blowing, even for those with some expertise in the area.

However, the take home message from Professor Matthews is: 'there is limited scope to improve the effectiveness of CAP spending by redesigning the MFF, which reinforces the need for a greater focus on the CAP regulations themselves.'

The underlying issues are very familiar and have been around for decades.   Nevertheless, they require fresh consideration.

Farmers welcome EU shift of tone but want more money

Farmers' lobby COPA/COGECA has given a broad welcome to a new Commission document on the CAP, but argues that more funding is needed to realise the vision.

The Commission's statement on the roadmap is here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_530

The farmers state: 'Today, the European Commission unveiled a key communication, long trailed by Ursula von der Leyen, outlining the EU’s vision for agriculture and food policy. This roadmap represents a pragmatic reset based on relevant analysis and grounded observations and proposes an ambitious catalog of future work strands. However, it fails to address the elephant in the room: the future CAP budget and the resources needed to finance this package of measures.

In its assessment of the current situation, the Commission appears to have regained its bearings in agricultural policy and is now speaking a different language. The importance of agriculture—its role and vulnerabilities—within the current geopolitical context is now fully acknowledged. Commissioner Hansen’s approach rightly repositions agriculture as a key strategic asset and a pillar of European sovereignty. Farmers are also recognized as entrepreneurs and innovators who play a crucial role in addressing climate challenges, protecting the environment, supporting the bioeconomy, and contributing to society as a whole. The Commission has also correctly diagnosed the sector’s demographic and economic fragilities, bringing the issues of farm income, competitiveness, innovation, cooperation and generational renewal back to the fore.

Political will, starting with a focus on simplification, also forms part of the picture. We welcome the need for stricter alignment of production standards for imported goods, particularly concerning plant protection products and animal welfare based on stronger and more comprehensive impact assessments, which should be published prior to any major trade decisions. The principle of ‘no bans without viable alternatives’ for plant protection products is explicitly stated, as is the need for a renewed approach toward the livestock sector.

Yet despite these positive elements, today’s announcement misses a fundamental part of the equation. In the current context, it is impossible to ignore the ongoing debate over CAP financing in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Last week, Copa Cogeca warned of the dangers of merging funds and establishing single budgetary national plans. However, today’s vision makes no mention of the CAP budget and references to the second pillar and its funding are simply absent from the final version of the communication. The complementarity between the EAGF delivering on support and the EAFRD facilitating multiannual measures and investment is crucial for the sector and must be maintained.

Let’s be clear: ambitions and proposals will amount to little without a robust CAP. One which supports active farmers - regardless the size - and is backed by an increased budget in the post-2027 MFF. This budget must include automatic corrections for inflation and the growing responsibilities placed on agriculture. Without this, Europe’s farming communities will face significant challenges, and the vision for the sector’s future risks becoming a hollow promise.

10 per cent real cut in CAP budget

It looks as if the outcome of the EU budget negotiations might be a 10 per cent cut in real terms in pillar one for UK farmers and a 22 per cent cut in pillar two: Budget Outcome

A similar estimate of a 9 per cent in CAP expenditure in real terms, with an even bigger cut in rural development expenditure, is made by Oliver Lee of Andersons' Farm Business Consultants: Extent of cuts

It is interesting that he notes that this would bring CAP expenditure down to 39 per cent of the multi-annual financial framework, bringing it below 40 per cent for the first time. Given that it was over 70 per cent in the 1980s, this does show that incremental change can make a difference. But it is still questionable whether anyone starting with a blank sheet of paper would want to spend over a third of the EU budget on the CAP.

CAP budget reduced in size

The EU Council finally reached an agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) after marathon talks last weekend and it did not make for good reading for those who wanted to see an increase or real terms freeze in CAP spending reports Agra Europe.

The CAP budget agreed for 2014-2020 will be nearly €16 billion below what the European Commission wanted at €362.79bn − €277.85bn for Pillar One and €84.94bn for Pillar Two (P2). This is provided it is passed in a straight Yes/No vote by the European Parliament – the first time this has happened – as mandated by the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force midway through the current 2007-2013 MFF period.

Under the Council agreement, rural development spending will be €7.03bn less than proposed, but the blow is to be softened for many member states, who are to get a ‘special’ P2 envelope as well as their share of the remaining P2 pot.

What this represents is the first time a CAP budget has been reduced in size but also an unparalleled degree of flexibility for member states over how they shuffle the financial resources dealt to them. However, no member state is going to escape the fact that restrictions on agricultural subsidies and state spending will be in place for the next seven years at least as the CAP enters an age of austerity.

France gives some ground

France, the EU’s biggest beneficiary of CAP funds, had previously been in favour of opposing to any cuts to the share of CAP spending and instead favoured a freeze at 2013 levels in nominal terms (meaning a real terms cut) – a view supported by other member states such as Germany, Spain and Italy. However, President Francois Hollande now appears ready to accept a reduction after addressing the European Parliament this week and claiming that his main priority for the summit is to ensure 'expenditure levels that preserve our common policies'.

CAP spending 'will be reduced' compared to the European Commission's spending proposal, he conceded, adding this will provoke 'difficult restructuring for a sector that is essential [for France]'. Hollande’s speech could well pave the way for an agreement between member states and signal that a compromise agreement is there to be had. Whether it will be enough to appease those states looking for deep budget cuts such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands remains to be seen.

France’s apparent move away from its pledge to fight for a nominal freeze in the CAP budget has not gone down well with farming groups in the EU, with umbrella organisation Copa-Cogeca demanding a freeze at a 400-strong meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.

A good survey of French interests, and changing perceptions, of the CAP can be found here: France

France determined to defend CAP budget

The EU budget for 2013 was finally signed off this week after the European Parliament approved a compromise agreement between member states that will give the CAP slightly less next year than was originally proposed by the European Commission, reports Agra Europe

CAP payments for 2013 will total €56.44 billion, a marginal increase from the current year but €350 million lower than what the Commission asked for. This leaves the Pillar One direct aid and market-related payment kitty at €43.93bn, up 0.13 per cent from this year, with the Pillar Two rural development budget set at €12.5bn - 3.38 per cent greater than in 2012.

On the subject of the next long term budget, France set out its stall against any cuts to the CAP budget for 2014-2020 and called for greater reductions from elsewhere in order to appease countries such as Sweden and the UK, who are fighting for greater reductions than are currently on the table. If the CAP is left inviolate, this would mean quite substantial cuts elsewhere, in particular in programmes that might do more to stimulate the growth of the European economy than the CAP.

As the biggest recipient of CAP funding within the EU, France is determined to pull back further funds into the agricultural budget after European Council President Herman Van Rompuy proposed a less drastic reduction of €17bn at the EU budget talks, softening on the €25bn he had earlier proposed.

But 'several billion' euros will still need to be restored to the budget if it is to satisfy France, the country’s European Affairs minister Bernard Cazeneuve told journalists at a European Parliament plenary session this week. But no specific amount to be recovered for the CAP is being aimed for, a spokesperson for the French Agriculture Ministry told Agra Europe.

Top official admits CAP deal will be delayed

A senior European Commission official let slip this week that the Brussels establishment is now preparing for the likelihood that reform of CAP Pillar One will be delayed until 2015, as time is running out on reaching a political agreement in time for the start of 2014, reports Agra Europe.

Gwilyn Jones, a member of EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos’ cabinet, is perhaps the first official to publicly say what many analysts have been thinking for a while now – that positions on this particular part of the CAP are too far apart for an agreement to be reached in the near term.

With the fairly radical overhaul of the Pillar One direct payment scheme proposed by the Commission and the subsequent debate on issues such as the convergence of payments and ‘greening’, it was always likely that this particular part of the CAP would divide member states.

However, the crux of the matter is still almost certainly the failure to conclude talks on the EU’s next long term budget – the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. MEPs have made it clear they are not prepared to make any decisions on the CAP until they know how much money they have to work with.

Now that a MFF agreement is not likely to happen until late January at the earliest – when the talks will resume – it puts added pressure on efforts to reach a compromise deal and put the relevant measures in place in time for January 1, 2014.

Agra Europe's Chris Horseman believes that an agreement on CAP reform was not likely to happen before next summer at the earliest - but it would appear that even this deadline will now not be met.

So what now? Ciolos has made clear that he is still aiming for an agreement to be made in time for 2014 but has also mooted the idea of a “transitional year” taking us to 2015.

It is unlikely, however, that Pillar One in this transitional year will look any different to how it does now. The exact same structure for CAP direct payments would have to remain, provisionally, in place. The only difference is that if in the meantime agreement is reached on an MFF deal that will see the CAP budget trimmed, there will be less money available from 2014.

The assumption would be that the existing single farm payment scheme would ‘roll forward’ but with a cut in the budget of the order of 2-3% - and under the Financial Discipline Mechanism rules that would translate automatically into a proportional cut in each farmer’s direct aid payment cheque in 2014. This is a scenario which is unlikely to satisfy anyone, but such an outcome is all too familiar with the CAP.

There is more optimism that a common position on Pillar Two – rural development – can be reached in time for 2014, as was expressed at the recent Farm Council. How this could sit with a Pillar One framework that maintains the status quo will be something for MEPs and domestic ministers to ponder as they enter the Christmas and New Year break.

Trade-distorting subsidies fall

Trade-distorting farm subsidies in the EU fell in the last year for which figures are available (2009-10) to a mere €15.5bn. This puts them well within limits proposed in the Doha Round: Trade

The same source contains a useful summary of the agricultural dimension of the recent EU budget negotiations: Budget

Irish farmers have been worried enough by the threat to farm subsidies to occupy Commission offices in Dublin: Protest

Grey mouse rocks France

EU Council president Herman van Rompuy has proposed an EU budget that is €20bn less than the current EU budget and at least €75bn less than the European Commission's original proosal. It focuses cuts on agricultural spending including a €13.2bn reduction in farm subsidies which drew a furious response from France. It does also plan to cut the UK rebate of €3.5bn.

There is also a row going on about cohesion funds. The Friends of Cohesion constitute a group of 14 member states from central and eastern Europe, with some from Southern Europe. They face a group of member states known as the Friends of Better Spending, but there are only seven of them (Austria, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden. Another name could be the 'group of net contributors': Better Spending .

Not all of those seven would sign up to a significant reduction in farm spending. Indeed, one could only rely on the Netherlands and Sweden.

Van Rompuy's proposals would mean €13.2bn less for Pillar One (P1) and €8.3bn less for Pillar Two (P2) for the 2014-2020 period than wanted by the European Commission in its initial CAP reform proposals. The cut is three times greater than the €6.8bn the Cypriot Presidency had suggested trimming off earlier this month, proposals which themselves caused a big storm.

The Cypriot plan would have seen €50bn cut from the overall EU budget, but Van Rompuy’s proposal would double that figure to nearly €100bn. Under the Council President’s plan, spending on P1 direct aid payments and market tools over the seven years would go from the €283.05bn tabled by the EU executive down to a maximum of €269.85bn, nearly 4.7% less. The CAP would bear the brunt of further cutbacks as a planned 'Crisis Reserve' to fund emergency measures - for which the EU executive had earmarked €3.5bn - would also be included under P1.

The P2 budget for co-financing national rural development programmes should go from €91.97bn to €83.67bn, around 9% less, Van Rompuy said. The Commission proposal for P2 already involves a 10% cut in real terms from 2013 to 2020, so a further €8.3bn reduction could mean some member states seeing their rural development envelope cut by more than 20% in real terms. Potentially, at least, this form of spending can be more socially useful than Pillar 1.

Somewhat predictably, EU Farm Commissioner Dacian Ciolos responded that the suggestion 'goes against efforts to make the CAP fairer, greener and more efficient'. He also said that this was the 'first step away from a common agricultural policy' and that it could set the CAP budget 'back 30 years'.

With the crunch talks on the multiannual financial framework set for next week (November 22-23), one interpretation is that the Council President has decided that some appeasement of the net contributing states is needed to ensure that the summit is not ‘dead on arrival’ and that progress can be made.

Meanwhile, Agra Europe analyst Brian Gardner has suggested a way to knock around 25% off the EU budget for 2014-20 in his latest comment article – reduce the size of the CAP budget by 75%.

He argues that with the strong likelihood that crop prices will remain at historically high prices in the years to come, largely due to increasing demand, the EU can afford to only provide subsidies to those farmers who really need it.

The EU's most efficient cereal growers in France, Germany and the UK, for example, with average yields of above eight tonnes per hectare, can make adequate profits without receiving EU income subsidies, he argues.

Parliament delays CAP reform process

The decision by the European Parliament’s agriculture committee (ComAgri) to delay a vote on laying out its official position on CAP reform until the beginning of next year once again brings into question whether an agreement can be made in time for the new policy to be implemented by the start of 2014. Indeed, for some time I have thought this very unlikely.

Although an official date for the vote was never set, it was generally considered that one would need to take place either this month or next in order for the Farm Council to have enough time to reach a consensus on its own reform package, and then for ‘trilogue’ talks to be held between EU institutions that will finally result in an agreement for the 2014-2020 CAP budget, reports Agra Europe.

MEPs have made it clear that they will not be pushed into approving the next CAP until the EU’s next long term budget is in place and the generally negative feedback from the Cypriot Presidency’s recent proposal to shave €7 billion off the bloc’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 is not an encouraging sign that heads of state will come to a firm agreement by the end of the crunch summit on November 22-23.

Those calling for a freeze or cut in real terms to the EU budget will have seized on the recent European Court of Auditors report, which again found that large sums of budget funds in 2011 were misspent, with rural development spending coming in for particular criticism. This is likely to increase the vulnerability of this form of expenditure to cutbacks given the importance of the single farm payments to the revenue streams of most farmers.

With austerity biting across the EU, and distrust in the institutions growing among the electorate, particularly in the UK, it must now be time for the European Commission to push through improved measures of accountability and transparency on how funds are being spent.

Nicosia gets the thumbs down from all sides

It isn't easy being a small state and holding the presidency of the EU, especially when you have to make proposals about the future of the CAP. Cyprus has ended up being attacked from all sides for its suggestions for a way forward on the CAP budget.

The Cypriot EU Presidency’s proposal to cut EU spending by €50 billion as compared with the Commission’s original proposal in the 2014-2020 period, including a €7bn reduction to the CAP budget, has been categorically dismissed by those on both sides of the budget debate – those who want to see an increase, and those pressing for bigger cuts, reports Agra Europe.

Nicosia has suggested reducing spending on CAP direct aid payments and market measures over the seven years from the €283.05bn tabled by the Commission to a maximum of €277.40bn, a cut of just over 2%. The Presidency also suggested reducing the EU average level of direct payments per hectare by at least 0.27% a year between 2015 and 2020, which would trim the proposed overall expenditure on direct payments in 2014-2020 by 1.3%.

The EU's rural development budget - used to co-finance national programmes - would go from €91.97 to €90.82bn, a 1.3% cut, under the Presidency's revised version of the 'negotiating box' for the multiannual financial framework (MFF). My hunch is that, unfortunately, this is where the brunt of the cuts will eventually fall. It only benefits some farmers and there are transaction costs in accessing it.

France has threatened to veto any deal that will result in a cut to the budget for agriculture, with farming groups across the continent calling for nothing less drastic than a CAP budget freeze. The European Parliament, which has also called for a freezing of the CAP budget, slammed the Cyprus Presidency's plan and claimed its voice has not been heard.

The proposal 'sends out a bad signal' and 'will inevitably put in jeopardy the future of certain key policies and programmes,' according to the Parliament's lead negotiators Reimer Boege and Ivailo Kalfin.

France and Germany recently backed the European Commission’s proposals to freeze the 2014-2020 CAP budget at 2013 levels in nominal terms – a reduction in real terms - and have subsequently found support from some of the usual suspects: Spain, Italy and Ireland among others.

On the other side of the debate, the old reformist coalition of the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are pushing for cutbacks across all areas, including the CAP. This week the UK government, again backed by Sweden, argued that the Presidency proposals for a €50bn cut to EU spending 'don't go far enough' and that the figures are 'still way too high'.

Essentially Europe is split between, on the one hand, those 10 net payers to the EU budget, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, who put more into the kitty than they get out, and on the other the 17 net recipient member states who mostly want to see an increase of at least five per cent. For all the talk of solidarity, it comes down to what you pay in and what you get out.

The net payers cannot justify an increase as it runs contrary to what they see as the severe economic reality currently gripping Europe. But the net recipients argue that growth and development across the bloc will be severely hampered unless struggling countries get the additional help they need. That may be so, but giving that help to agriculture is not the best way to boost growth and employment.

France and Germany do their deal

Long-term observers of the CAP know that any agreement between France and Germany can often shape the direction of the reform process. Even with many more member states, this still remains true. Earlier this week the two countries issued a joint statement calling for a freeze at 2013 levels in nominal terms Agreement

Calls for a nominal freeze in the budget, which will still mean a decline in real terms, have been growing in recent months and around half of governments voiced their support for the Commission plan at a General Affairs Council late last month.

The country’s two agriculture ministers – France’s Stéphane Le Foll (rather superior and disdainful in a typical French mode) and German counterpart Ilse Aigner – came to the agreement after meeting in Berlin. They cited the 'importance of the CAP for growth, employment and the environment and innovation in rural areas along with Europe's role in ensuring food security worldwide', in their statement. In other words, the traditional rather general but fine sounding justifications of a dysfunctional policy.

Their rejection of any reduction in Pillar One allocations was also notable taking into consideration the fact that Germany is the biggest contributor to EU funds, while France is the biggest beneficiary of direct aid payments. Germany and France join the likes of Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Spain in opposing cuts, leaving member states such as the UK, Netherlands and Sweden seeking a more austere budget with a reduced prospect of success.

Of course, British prime minister Dave Cameron is under heavy pressure from within his own party to take a tough line in budget negotiations. Indeed, Dave is no fan of the EU and reflects the traditional British distaste for the CAP in particular. Vetoing the budget would go down well at home, but it would also mean that the EU would revert to annual budgets determined by qualified majority voting, reduced the influence of Britain and its allies.

Meanwhile for an authoritative account of tensions between member states and the European Parliament over the CAP, this blog post by Christilla Roderer-Rynning is recommended: Parliament

Cypriot presidency contemplates CAP budget cuts

The informal meeting of farm ministers in Nicosia from 9 to 11 September which marks the effective start of the Cypriot presidency after the August holiday break is going to focus on water scarcity, land abandonment and soil erosion. These are important topics, against the background of climate change, and especially important to southern member states, but they are not at the heart of the CAP reform agenda.

However, the word is that the Cypriot presidency thinks that there will have to be much bigger cuts to the CAP budget in the next seven year cycle than contemplated hitherto. This comes against the background of talk of a €100m cut in the EU budget to match austerity at home. As the largest budget line, the CAP would have to take its fair share of the pain.

It is being said that direct payments to farmers and rural development would take the biggest hit which makes sense as they are the largest components of the budget. There might be more flexibility to switch between these two budget lines.

Needless to say, some member states are already gearing up to oppose any such move. The other difficulty is that there is a great temptation in such circumstances to reduce spending by x per cent across the board without considering which spending offers a cost effective way of achieving policy objectives. But, then, that has been the story of the CAP.

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.