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/

What those affected think about Commission proposals on the CAP

If you're a real CAP buff, this material unearthed by Alan Matthews at TCD may be of interest.   It includes the latest version of proposals for the future of the CAP and the reactions of stakeholders: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=63821&fromExpertGroups=3877

'Stakeholders' is common language these days, both in the Commission and in the UK, but we used to call them 'interests' which required us to be cautious about the neutrality of their views.

New EU farm supremo sets out his stall

The EU’s new agriculture chief is pushing for more of the bloc’s generous subsidies to be doled out to low-income farmers rather than big agribusinesses. Christophe Hansen told the Financial Times that the seven-year €387bn Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should no longer reward the biggest landowners and instead focus on small farms, as discussions get under way on the bloc’s finances for the next decade.

[This, then, is a move towards treating the CAP as a welfare payment, but it is not an efficient instrument for delivering such payments.   What about international competitiveness and efficiency?]

 “We all know that the CAP budget will not be higher,” he said. “There is a lot of pressure because we have a lot of political priorities in the European Union so we need to better target the support to those most in need.”

The new EU commissioner, who took office on December 1, said his reform of CAP would not amount to a “revolution” and would not move “entirely” away from hectare-based payments. But changing the allocation would constitute the most significant overhaul in the history of the 62-year-old subsidy programme, which represents a third of the bloc’s annual budget.

The largest farms in the bloc have traditionally received most of the funding, with an analysis by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, a Brussels-based think-tank, estimating about 80 per cent of the direct payments go to roughly 20 per cent of farms.   [My view is that this is a lazy application of the Pareto rule and the actual figure is lower].

 Nearly 6mn farmers and landowners received direct payments in 2022, according to the European Commission. Discussions around the next EU multi-annual budget, which is due to run from 2028, have shifted towards a much greater focus on defence spending in recent months in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The US president-elect has threatened to pull out of Nato if allies refuse to spend more on the military.

Any CAP reduction will be met with fierce resistance from farmers who took to the streets of Brussels and other European capitals last year to protest against stringent environmental regulations, red tape and unfair prices. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in September vowed to ensure farmers receive “fair and sufficient income” and preserve farming amid financial and environmental pressures. Hansen, a centre-right Luxembourgish politician, said the commission should encourage farmers to look at “alternative income” streams.   [Historically there has been a suspicion that farm commissioners from Luxembourg are susceptible to French pressure].

While “producing and selling a tomato” was good, “it makes you vulnerable because it’s your only income”, Hansen told the Pinl ‘Un. Farmers could grow crops for biofuels or use their land for solar panels and other renewable energy sources. Planting trees that could be monetised as carbon credits should also be considered, he said.   [Farmers in the UK have been diversifying for decades].

Part of the commission’s response to the protests was to water down environmental standards that farmers were required to meet in order to access CAP support, despite widespread outcry from green groups. Von der Leyen on Tuesday is set to put forward further measures aimed at helping farmers sell their products at a better price.

The proposals, if agreed by EU lawmakers and member states, will make written contracts between farmers and food companies mandatory and allow more co-operation between national authorities to manage cross-border disputes.

Hansen said he also intended to ease competition rules to promote products from young farmers and require greater transparency in retail pricing. “Big retailers use certain products to attract the consumers and they use the weak position of the farmers in the supply chain,” he said. Christel Delberghe, director-general of the retail industry body EuroCommerce, said introducing stricter pricing rules would result in “inflation. What else?”

[Farmers in the UK have certainly been turned into price takers by supermarkets, but changing the balance of power is not easy because consumers demand cheap food]. 

New farm commissioner in EU

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.

Farmer protests and the EP elections

Alan Matthews writes here about farmer protests and the 2024 European Parliament elections: https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2024/number/2/article/farmer-protests-and-the-2024-european-parliament-elections.html

He states:'This article looks at the origins of this recent wave of farm protests and asks whether a crisis situation exists in European farming as the Commission has suggested. It examines the measures that have been adopted and proposed in response. These measures, while consistent with the previously existing trend to roll back elements of the Green Deal, are in themselves limited in scope.'

'While signalling a willingness to respond to farmers’ concerns, they are unlikely to significantly change their situation. More radical changes have been put on the table, and these elements will play a role in the European Parliament elections in June 2024.'

Look out for an article from him to appear soon online from Political Quarterly.

Commission backs down on greening agriculture

The European Commission has thrown in the towel on plans to cut climate change emissions in agriculture: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-commission-backtracks-on-agricultural-emissions-cuts/

The recent farmer protests across Europe have undoubtedly been a factor, but there has also been concern about far right gains in the upcoming European Parliament elections which could undermine the European project as a whole.  The desire of Urusla von Ley en to secure a second term as Commission president is also part of the context: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/speech-president-von-der-leyen-european-parliament-plenary-conclusions-european-council-meetings-2024-02-06_en.

Reducing climate change emissions in agriculture are not an optional extra.   In France, for example, they account for 12 per cent of emissions, far exceeding the contribution of agriculture to GDP or employment. Unfortunately, governments in general have a tendency to back away from effective measures of climate change once they threaten current lifestyles or working patterns.   This is in spite of increasing evidence of  a climate emergency.

Apparently the intention is to have a policy that covers the food sector as a whole which is not without merit but undermined if other measures are dropped.   The Greens are calling for a windfall tax on the profits of agri-food companies.

The plan to halve pesticide use by 2030 is to be dropped.   This is, of course, not directly related to climate change.  It would have an impact on production.   Biological alternatives to synthetics are being developed and are increasing market share, but there are not enough of them and they are not suitable for all crops. This policy might also have been onerous for farmers in terms of form filling.'  According to von Leyen, the pesticides measure has become a symbol of polarization.   Shares in Bayer, the EU's biggest pesticides producer, rose by 2 per cent.

Animal welfare rules are set to be watered down and unpopular (and largely ineffective) set aside requirements abandoned.

Ciolos odds on favourite for farm commissioner

Dacian Ciolos looks like he is the front runner for re-appointment for a second term as farm and rural development commissioner. He has not offended any major players among the member states and has been careful not to upset the French, being perceived originally as a French-approved appointment. He is strongly backed by his own government with farming being a more important part of their economy than in most member states.

From a reform perspective, he has been a disappointment, but that is not surprising. It is difficult to get reform through in the face of the vested interests of member states. The farm share of the budget is dropping, but relatively little has been done to make the CAP responsive to climate change.

There is an argument for continuity for the CAP, as Cioloș would be able to oversee mid-term reviews of ‘greening’ and other 2014-2020 reforms that he proposed back in 2011. But 'continuity' can be another way of saying 'business as usual'. The inefficiencies of the CAP are bound to be an agenda item in any referendum debate in the UK.

Ireland is always keen to get the farm commissioner's post and has done well in the role in the past (think of the MacSharry reforms). The Republic's Phil Hogan, who has served as Irish environment, community and local government minister since March 2011, is being advanced as a candidate. Hogan, from the Fine Gael party that is in coalition government with the Irish Labour Party, also has experience in EU issues and is being backed by fellow Fine Gael politician and MEP Mairead McGuinness. McGuinness, from the EPP group and an active member of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee (ComAgri) throughout the CAP reform process, is now a vice-president of the Parliament.

There are a couple of dark horses and one former Spanish agriculture minister Miguel Arias Cañete, since elected to the new European Parliament. Yet the chances for Italian Socialist (S&D) MEP Paolo de Castro, who was ComAgri chair in 2009-2014, appear slimmer.

Although there is much horse trading to come, Ciolos must be the odds on favourite.

Completing CAP reform on time

In this week’s issue of Agra Europe, editorial director Chris Horseman, who is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable observers of the CAP, suggests that the deadline of January 1, 2014 for the new CAP could be missed unless EU leaders can conclude the Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations by the end of this year.

Horseman argues that the crux of the problem is the fact that MEPs have taken the view that they are not in a position to pass judgement on how CAP spending should be allocated in 2014-2020 if they do not know how much overall spending will be available. Therefore, the need for their Council counterparts to agree a financial framework to provide funds for the Single Farm Payment system becomes an imperative.

However keen the European Commission may be to keep the negotiations on the reform of the CAP and on the future MFF technically separate, the two issues are politically inseparable, Horseman says, before exploring the ramifications and potential scenarios instigated by the deadline for CAP reform being missed.

It has been my view for some time that the deadline would be missed and that January 2015 was a more likely date. It has also been my view that the involvement of the European Parliament would slow down the process and make reform more difficult to achieve. The requirements of a democratic process mean that it should be involved, but the effect on outcomes may be less desirable.

The crux of the issue is that when European domestic governments are practising austerity, and are likely to do for some time to come whatever the calls for a growth strategy, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the share of the EU budget devoted to the CAP. There is a high 'opportunity cost' in terms of money that could be spent on infrastructure projects that would help employment and research and development that would enhance Europe's flagging competitiveness.

Even within the farm budget there is a strong case for spending more on applied research which would help European agriculture to meet food security challenges in a sustainable way much more than blanket subsidies.

What impact will co-decision have on CAP reform?

In an interetsing paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society conference at Warwick University last week, Alan Greer and Tom Hind explored the possible impact of the introduction of the co-decision on CAP decision-making and reform prospects. They proceeded by setting out four scenarios:

Scenario 1 The 'conventional' view (often put forward in the media) in which the EP gains power at the expense of other institutions (assuming that there are significant points of difference).

There are two limiting factors on the ability of the EP to exercise power. First, as the lead committee ComAGRI has had very limited experience of co-decision and it has to develop positions that can command majority support across the Parliament. If its views are too close to those of the agricultural community (and the committee is more agriculturally focused than in the past), it could be challenged in the plenary, especially on environmental issues. Second, the Parliament has limited resources relative to the other institutions: the total staff of ComAGRI is around 15, plus three seconded researchers.

Scenario 2 The Council-EP axis in which the Council of Agriculture Ministers will use its expertise to work in close partnership with the EP to shape the legislation proposed by the Commission, weakening the latter. This depends on member states being able to work closely with national MEPs and the presenters argued (rightly in my view) that this scenario was not likely to develop in the next few years.

Scenario 3 The Commission-centric scenario in which the EP's resource void is filled by the Commission. The Commission would use its expertise and resources to work with the EP, using ithe role of arbitrator to facilitate agreement between the EP against the Council in order to shape the final outcome more closely to its preferences. The paper authors thought that this was the most likely scenario. The Commission had increased its displacement as a result of enlargement.

Scenario 4 'Co-indecision'. Co-decision might actually make decision-making more difficult. An average co-decision dossier takes 36 months to process. Some participants in the audience thought that this was the most likely scenario.

If that is the case, it does not bode well for reform. But any of the scenarios is likely to make the reform process more complex, slower and less radical.

Who will be next agriculture commissioner?

The next agricultural commissioner will have the chance to shape the future development of the CAP. So who will it be?

We can eliminate three sets of member states. By convention the post cannot go to a large member state, ruling out the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain (and presumably Poland).

Former Romanian farm minister Dacian Ciolos is the name formally mentioned, but indications are that a candidate from a member state with such a large agricultural population, and possible problems with the use of its EU funding, would not be acceptable. Indeed, one can rule out the new member states altogether as the only two other possible candidates - former Slovenian farm minister Iztok Jarc and his Cezch counterpart Petr Gandalovic - have now left office and are unlikely to get support from their governments.

We can also rule out member states who have appointed non-agricultural commissioners: Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal. While it would be interesting to have someone without an agricultural background in the post, it is unlikely to happen in practice. Sweden is also thought not to want the dossier.

Given the recent election in Greece, the unstable political situation in Ireland, and no agricultural expert being discussed from those countries, they are unlikely to provide a viable nomination - although Ireland could spring someone out of the hat at the last minute: remember that Fischer Boel was a late and unexpected appointment. An Irish nominee would certainly be welcome in Paris.

We are really left with Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria. A second Danish appointment seems unlikely. If climate minister Connie Hedegaard is the Danish nominee, she could occupy a similar portfolio at the European level. Farm minister Eva Kjer Hansen is also in the frame but could get a food safety/SANCO dossier if she comes to Brussels.

The Netherlands has perhaps the best qualified candidates in the form of current agricultural minister Gerda Verburg or former minister Cees Veerman.

But the smart money is on another Austrian, former farm minister Wilhelm Molterer, even though Vienna would prefer him to have the budget portfolio. It's certainly not a done deal and there could be a last minute surprise.