Complex picture on cutting payments to big farms

A common complaint about the CAP is that too high proportion of the subsidies go to already prosperous farmers. The counter argument is that these farmers are the most efficient and the most internationally competitive. It all comes down to what you think the CAP is for and there has always been confusion about the objectives and their relative preference ordering.

From this year all member states are obliged to apply a 5 per cent degressivity tax on payments over €150,000. Let us suppose that you are an East Anglian grain baron receiving €1m in subsidies. This means that you would appear to lose €42,500 of your subsidy, but then the 30 per cent greening subsidy is exempt, so the actual sum comes in at under €30,000 (obviously the amount received in pounds is sensitive to the pound-euro exchange rate). The amount lost would be significant but not devastating.

However, any member state or region can impose their own cap. This option has been chosen by all the devolved regions in the UK, but on a different basis in each case: It's your choice

Northern Ireland has imposed an absolute cap at €150,000. There are not many farms in Northern Ireland who would receive more than this. Wales has come up with a particularly complicated system, but again there are not that many farms in Wales who would qualify for relatively large payments. Scotland, where there are some large farms, has set the cap higher. Indeed, their €600,000 starting point is the highest notified by any EU country or region.

It's not difficult to work out the politics of this. Farmers in Northern Ireland who are Democratic Unionist or Sinn Fein supporters are unlikely to be affected. In Wales, the more Welsh-speaking parts of the country are unlikely to be hit (although other aspects of Welsh Assembly Government policy have been a source of complaint). In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalists do not want to upset any constituency, but the relatively small number of farmers likely to be affected are not significant in electoral terms.

The capping controversy

A full and very informative blog post here, although the English is a little stilted in places: Capping

I would just make a couple of points. First, it is always possible that businesses could be split into distinct legal entities to avoid the rules. Second, the last paragraph of the post points out that many wealthy estates benefit from large CAP subsidies.

However, this brings us back to the question of what the CAP is for. If its main objective is to help poor or marginal farmers, it is an inefficient means of doing so. (Actually, there are probably at least two objectives here, one an income distribution objective and one a rural landscapes/depopulation objective).

If one, however, one thinks that the CAP should be helping European farms and food processors to be globally competitive, larger farms are, in general, more efficient (and often more environmentally conscious and aware of animal welfare needs).

Real term cuts in CAP budget

Now that more information is becoming available about the CAP budget 'freeeze', it is evident that what is really envisaged are real term cuts. The envelope for the CAP post 2013 is €371.7bn in 2011 constant figures (€281.8bn of that is first pillar and €89.9bn second pillar). This compares to €417bn in the current financial perspectives. There is yet much to be decided in terms of how policy will be revised in the light of these budgetary constraints.

A system of 'reverse modulation' was envisaged whereby money could be shifted back from the second to the first pillar, but after protests by environmental lobby groups this was axed at the last minute. 30 per cent of direct support will be made contingent on adhering to greening measures that go beyond current cross-compliance requirements.

There will be a slow convergence process to address the differences in direct payments received by member states, i.e., those that have will not see it disappear immediately. The long-term aim is to ensure that all member states reach 90 per cent of the EU average, but significantly this will take account of differences in wage levels and input costs. The main beneficiaries of this approach are likely to be the Baltic States, Portugal and Romania. Poland and Bulgaria will gain only marginally.

There has been some backing down on the capping of support to major agricultural holdings which will now take account of the 'economies of scale of larger structures and the direct employment these structures generate.' How these might be measured could in itself be controversial. Any savings would be retained in national envelopes and recycled into budgetary allocations for rural development, but influential, large-scale farmers will still lobby hard on this topic.

Environmental groups took the view that the proposed measures did not represent effective steps towards ecological sustainability and a green economy.

Ciolos lays it on the line

Dacian Ciolos has emerged as a more authoritative and decisive farm commissioner than many expected. Whether his line is the correct one is another matter. But the grumpy old man of British farming, Farmers Weekly correspondent David Richardson writes of his appearance at the Oxford Farming Conference, 'he had comprehensively mastered his brief and, when questioned, actually answered as fully and frankly as any politician I have known.'

The content of his message is perhaps less welcome. It's clear that he sees his job as being to change the CAP but also to defend its essential elements. I do, however, welcome the news that research and development may be included in pillar two. The food chain needs more publicy funded, applied research which can help to tackle pressing policy problems and on farm challenges. This has been cut back drastically over the years.

It is evident that the Commissioner thinks that part of the price of defending the CAP is capping subsidies to larger farmers. He is clearly influenced by his Romanian experience where it has been possible for farmers with very large farms (presumably in some cases former collective farms) to use the income from subsidies to start other businesses. This is evidently resented in Romania where there are also many small (and by European standards) relatively backward farms.

Ciolos argues that in some parts of Europe the choice is small farms or no agricultural activity at all. It may be that in some of these areas agricultural activity is not really viable and the land should be farmed as an ecological asset to maximise environmental benefits.

Ciolos argues that it's very difficult to explain how giving €2m to one individual or company is 'income support'. If the CAP really is income support, it's an inefficient way of delivering it.

What is continually overlooked with the CAP is the international competitiveness dimension which is supposed to form part of the policy. Large-scale farmers tend to farm to a high standard (including animal welfare standards), are highly competitive and also are often substantially involved in agri-environmental work.

If you cut off aid to them, you are penalising them for being more efficient. In any case there would be all sorts of legal problems over the definition of a farm business.

Ciolos evidently sees the CAP as more justifiable as a mechanism for the transfer of funds from taxpayers and consumers to marginal farmers. It is actually not an efficient way of helping them or the environment, it doesn't do much for food security (given that their output is low) and it doesn't help the EU food industry to become more competitive.