Where are farm incomes heading?

Summary of key insights on farm income trends from a recent study commissioned by the Agri Committee of the European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/759350/CASP_ATA(2026)759350_EN.pdf

Farm incomes are more volatile and subject to external shocks.  Discrepancies in farm income across the EU are explained by structural factors such as farm size and specialization.

Farm incomes up

Farm incomes are up in the EU, but there is considerable variation across member states. EU farm incomes jumped by almost 13% last year, thanks to higher crop and milk prices, but the UK was among just seven member states to see a drop.

The biggest increases in earnings are attributed to Denmark (an astonishing 57% higher), Estonia (+46%), the Netherlands (+39%) and France (+34%). The UK, however, recorded income 6% lower than a year earlier. It should also be noted that key input prices such as fuel and fertilisers have been on an upward trend.

In the UK's case, exchange rates have been a significant factor. The 2010 statistics reflect a decline in the exchange rate at which payments through EU direct aid schemes were converted from euros to sterling. In the UK, this meant a fall in the value of the Single Payment Scheme and other payments of some 12 per cent.

Interestingly, the statistics reveal that a mere 15% of EU farmers claim 85% of CAP subsidies.

The same figures also show that farmers in general are still relying heavily on CAP subsidies – Pillar One and Pillar Two funds made up 42% of farm incomes last year, up from 39% in 2008. This shows a worrying dependence on subsidies and illustrates why it is so difficult to dismantle them or even reduce them substantially.

Insurance back on the agenda

European farm commissioner Dacian Ciolos is considering plans for a publicly-funded insurance scheme for farmers' incomes. His view is that it is needed to give a minimum income to farmers after the disapperance of most market support mechanisms.

An alternative view would be that either these farmers would be better off exiting the industry or they should be funded by income support schemes for the least well off, although admittedly these vary substantially as they are a member state matter.

Economists tend to favour insurance schemes and consider that not enough has been done to promote them in the debate in the UK about cost and responsibility sharing in animal health. The difficulty in practice is that the pool is not big enough or lucrative enough to interest insurance companies.

You are then back to state subsidies, albeit delivered by a possibly more efficient policy instrument. EU farmers' group Copa-Cogeca states that average incomes in agriculture were about 50 per cent less than those in other sectors, with two-thirds of farmers' income coming from direct payments from the CAP.

An original objective of the CAP was to narrow the gap between urban and rural incomes and this has never been achieved as far as farmers are concerned. This suggests that for some people farming is simply not a viable activity, at least as a full-time occupation. If one considers that one needs people to remain in remoter areas, a subsidy should be paid specifically for that.

What one really wants is a more diverse rural economy and in the UK, and I suspect elesewhere, the absence of rural broadbrand or a service that is slow (as on the Isles of Scilly) is a real constraint.

A friend runs an agriculturally related consultancy business in a rural area. Recently her provider said that it could no longer offer a broadband service. There are mechanisms to complain, but it will all take too long. She is going to have to move. Action on infrastructure of this kind would help rural areas more than additional payments to farmers.

Ag econ folks give it large to SFP

The intention of the European Commission to retain the SFP as the centre piece of the CAP after 2013 is a fundamental error according to leading agricultural economists. In a paper by David Harvey and colleagues to the Agricultural Economics Society conference in Edinburgh, it was argued that direct farm payments should be phased out.

The very idea of general direct payments was said to be unjustifiable. Payments should be reoriented from payments that are still historically linked to production-based payments and towards the guarantee of food supplies, rural economic development and protection of the environment.

The ag ecnomists argue that the overall agricultural policy problem for the EU is the preoccupation with farm incomes which dates back to the formation of the CAP in the 1950s. The bulk of an expanding budget is still spent on that objective. Despite this expenditure, average farm incomes remain below the national average income in almost all member states (which, of course, could be seized on as an argument for not making things worse by removing farm support). The economists argue that whatever governments do, they are not going to substantially improve the incomes of the less efficient and marginal farm holders.

The economists note that these payments were originally meant to be transitional. Of course, following Mancur Olson, the politics of subsidies which have concentrated effects but diffuse costs means that they are often converted from temporary to permanent payments.

Harvey revives the idea of a bond scheme to buy out these payments as first suggested by Professor John Marsh more than twenty years ago and subsequently developed by Alan Swinbank and his colleagues. Uncertainty for farmers would be reduced and they would have time to adjust to liberalised markets.

I have always found such a scheme attractive in principle, but the Commission view is that it is not compatible with cross-compliance.