Former EU farm commissioner Franz Ficshler has emphasised the need for continuing reform of the CAP: Fischler
It was Fischler who carried out the most thorough reform of the CAP. But he points out that a strong farm lobby could halt the forward momentum of reform. He also emphasises the need for investment in research and development.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
The devil is in the detail
This post looks at some of the more detailed proposals in the leaked draft Commission communication on the future of the CAP.
The Commission believes that the CAP should be continue to be framed around two pillars. The idea of a third pillar focusing on climate change had been floated, but is evidently not being pursued.
The difference between the two pillars is seen as one of payment structure with Pillar 1 made up mainly of annual payments to farmers and Pillar 2 beuing multi-annual in nature. Is this the right distinction? Or should Pillar 1 be about the economics of agriculture production, while Pillar 2 focuses on 'additionality' with a particular emphasis on improving sustainability?
The rejection by commissioner Ciolos of a single flat payment is upheld, but it is not clear how the question of equity between member states will be addressed. This is likely to be one of the most difficult political issues in the negotiations given that there are wide discrepancies between member states. Those who don't get very much at the moment will want a bigger slice of the cake and those who have a big slice will want to hold on to it. The only concrete option presented is moving towards an arrangement whereby farmers in all member states would receive a minimum share of the EU-average level of direct payments (about €250/hectare).
It is proposed that there would be a cap on payments to large farms. This would have an impact on competitiveness, as large farms tend to be more efficient. It would also particularly hit Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic.
What makes it worse is a suggestion to link payments to employment levels. In other words, a farm that was employing labour inefficiently would receive more support. This would certainly undermine competitiveness, but then the document as a whole tends to give lip service to that concept.
The proposals as a whole also increase complexity when there is supposed to be a move towards simplification. They would increase transaction costs for farmers and the already substantial costs of operating the policy.
The Commission believes that the CAP should be continue to be framed around two pillars. The idea of a third pillar focusing on climate change had been floated, but is evidently not being pursued.
The difference between the two pillars is seen as one of payment structure with Pillar 1 made up mainly of annual payments to farmers and Pillar 2 beuing multi-annual in nature. Is this the right distinction? Or should Pillar 1 be about the economics of agriculture production, while Pillar 2 focuses on 'additionality' with a particular emphasis on improving sustainability?
The rejection by commissioner Ciolos of a single flat payment is upheld, but it is not clear how the question of equity between member states will be addressed. This is likely to be one of the most difficult political issues in the negotiations given that there are wide discrepancies between member states. Those who don't get very much at the moment will want a bigger slice of the cake and those who have a big slice will want to hold on to it. The only concrete option presented is moving towards an arrangement whereby farmers in all member states would receive a minimum share of the EU-average level of direct payments (about €250/hectare).
It is proposed that there would be a cap on payments to large farms. This would have an impact on competitiveness, as large farms tend to be more efficient. It would also particularly hit Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic.
What makes it worse is a suggestion to link payments to employment levels. In other words, a farm that was employing labour inefficiently would receive more support. This would certainly undermine competitiveness, but then the document as a whole tends to give lip service to that concept.
The proposals as a whole also increase complexity when there is supposed to be a move towards simplification. They would increase transaction costs for farmers and the already substantial costs of operating the policy.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
CAP reform paper leaked
A draft of the EU Commission's 'Communication' on the future of the CAP after 2013 has been leaked. It is scheduled for publication on 17 November. This post examines the overall objectives and directions for reform. A subsequent post will look at some of the more detailed proposals.
The paper sets out three challenges and objectives for agriculture, two of which are not very surprising: food security, leading to an objective of viable farm production; and environment and climate change, leading to an objective of sustainable management of natural resources. So far so good, although clearly a question remains about whether these are seen as equivalent objectives or there is some kind of hierarchy (and how one resolves tensions between them).
The puzzle is the third objective, territorial balance. It's a bit difficult to work out what means, but it seems to be moving in the direction of making the CAP a social policy. Many would argue that is what it has been all along, but it has never been spelt out as such, leading to all sorts of inefficiencies.
Under this heading, the Commission talks about economic (boosting the rural economy) and social (local traditions and social identity) objectives. There is reference to supporting rural employment (i.e., motherhood and apple pie), promoting diversification and 'allowing for structural diversity in farming systems' which could be a code phrase for tolerating inefficiency.
The whole notion is not easy to grasp and may be honed in the final version of the paper now that this kite has been flown. What seems to be going on here is a (probably mistaken) attempt to mould economic and social objectives into one. It also implies a policy that is more locally-led and flexible in its approach.
What could this lead to is all sorts of special pleading for subsidies of various kinds which satisfied local client groups. It also does not seem to fit to well with declarations about preventing the renationalisation of policy. Indeed, the paper reiterates the case for an EU-led policy rather than a national one.
The paper sets out three broad policy options:
1. Enhanced status quo: adjusting the current instruments and delivering a more equitable distribution direct payments. This is viewed within the Commission as a missed opportunity to make the CAP more legitimate.
2. More 'balanced targeted and sustinable support': a fairly significant adjustment of direct payments, especially 'greening' the first pillar. This would seem to be the Commission's preferred route.
3. Abolish all market and income support and focus delivery on public goods/climate change: essentially the British approach and dismissed pretty much out of hand.
One important dog fails to bark in the nighttime. The paper remains largely silent on the scale of the budget. It is decisions on the budget that will shape the next phase of the CAP.
The paper talks of the need to improve competitiveness, but there are no measures set out to achieve it, indeed some proposals (discussed in a later post) could have a damaging effect. One critic has remarked that, taken as a whole, the document is neither very common nor very agricultural. But nor does it particularly emphasise sustainability.
In other words, it's a bit of a mish mash. Why I am not surprised?
The paper sets out three challenges and objectives for agriculture, two of which are not very surprising: food security, leading to an objective of viable farm production; and environment and climate change, leading to an objective of sustainable management of natural resources. So far so good, although clearly a question remains about whether these are seen as equivalent objectives or there is some kind of hierarchy (and how one resolves tensions between them).
The puzzle is the third objective, territorial balance. It's a bit difficult to work out what means, but it seems to be moving in the direction of making the CAP a social policy. Many would argue that is what it has been all along, but it has never been spelt out as such, leading to all sorts of inefficiencies.
Under this heading, the Commission talks about economic (boosting the rural economy) and social (local traditions and social identity) objectives. There is reference to supporting rural employment (i.e., motherhood and apple pie), promoting diversification and 'allowing for structural diversity in farming systems' which could be a code phrase for tolerating inefficiency.
The whole notion is not easy to grasp and may be honed in the final version of the paper now that this kite has been flown. What seems to be going on here is a (probably mistaken) attempt to mould economic and social objectives into one. It also implies a policy that is more locally-led and flexible in its approach.
What could this lead to is all sorts of special pleading for subsidies of various kinds which satisfied local client groups. It also does not seem to fit to well with declarations about preventing the renationalisation of policy. Indeed, the paper reiterates the case for an EU-led policy rather than a national one.
The paper sets out three broad policy options:
1. Enhanced status quo: adjusting the current instruments and delivering a more equitable distribution direct payments. This is viewed within the Commission as a missed opportunity to make the CAP more legitimate.
2. More 'balanced targeted and sustinable support': a fairly significant adjustment of direct payments, especially 'greening' the first pillar. This would seem to be the Commission's preferred route.
3. Abolish all market and income support and focus delivery on public goods/climate change: essentially the British approach and dismissed pretty much out of hand.
One important dog fails to bark in the nighttime. The paper remains largely silent on the scale of the budget. It is decisions on the budget that will shape the next phase of the CAP.
The paper talks of the need to improve competitiveness, but there are no measures set out to achieve it, indeed some proposals (discussed in a later post) could have a damaging effect. One critic has remarked that, taken as a whole, the document is neither very common nor very agricultural. But nor does it particularly emphasise sustainability.
In other words, it's a bit of a mish mash. Why I am not surprised?
Monday, October 04, 2010
Comprehensive and authoritative review of CAP
Review of Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meester and Huib Silvis (eds),EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas. Published by Wageningen Academic Publishers, ISBN: 978-90-8686-118-7, €40, $60.
This book offers a comprehensive, authoritative and up-to-date review of EU agriculture, food and rural policy. One of the things I liked about it was that it covered areas that are often neglected such as animal health and welfare policy and plant diseases policy that are likely to assume a growing importance in the coming years.
The book is divided into six sections. It starts with an overview and then turns to the context of EU policies, with particular emphasis on the differences in decision-making before and after the Lisbon Treaty. The third section looks at the policies in more detail including alternative options such as the bond scheme and the fourth is concerned with food policy including developments related to food quality and safety. The fifth part provides a well informed analysis of a wide range of aspects of rural policy. The book culminates with a section which looks at the role of the CAP in European integration more generally and possible future scenarios.
The book does not set out to provide a theoretical treatment of the CAP and in that sense it is accessible to the general reader. Although there is material in the book which would be of value to the specialist researcher, particularly in the area of rural policy, this is a book which could be used with students approaching the subject for the first time. Indeed, it has been developed in relation to courses taught at Wageningen Business School, although the price militates against it being used as a text.
Given that there is a foreword by Mariann Fischer Boel, one would not expect this to be a highly critical treatment, although she points out that she does not share all the views expressed by the authors. The chapter authors are certainly prepared to be critical of current policy.
In a concluding chapter, Cees Veerman states that we should be cautious with the agricultural production capacity in the EU in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. He points out, 'EU surpluses are not the ultimate answer to food shortages elsewhere in the world, as they have never been. The battle against hunger can only be won by strengthening rural development in poor countries and supporting the spending capacity of their populations, and by creating fair and open markets'.
This book is a very useful contribution to the literature on the CAP.
This book offers a comprehensive, authoritative and up-to-date review of EU agriculture, food and rural policy. One of the things I liked about it was that it covered areas that are often neglected such as animal health and welfare policy and plant diseases policy that are likely to assume a growing importance in the coming years.
The book is divided into six sections. It starts with an overview and then turns to the context of EU policies, with particular emphasis on the differences in decision-making before and after the Lisbon Treaty. The third section looks at the policies in more detail including alternative options such as the bond scheme and the fourth is concerned with food policy including developments related to food quality and safety. The fifth part provides a well informed analysis of a wide range of aspects of rural policy. The book culminates with a section which looks at the role of the CAP in European integration more generally and possible future scenarios.
The book does not set out to provide a theoretical treatment of the CAP and in that sense it is accessible to the general reader. Although there is material in the book which would be of value to the specialist researcher, particularly in the area of rural policy, this is a book which could be used with students approaching the subject for the first time. Indeed, it has been developed in relation to courses taught at Wageningen Business School, although the price militates against it being used as a text.
Given that there is a foreword by Mariann Fischer Boel, one would not expect this to be a highly critical treatment, although she points out that she does not share all the views expressed by the authors. The chapter authors are certainly prepared to be critical of current policy.
In a concluding chapter, Cees Veerman states that we should be cautious with the agricultural production capacity in the EU in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. He points out, 'EU surpluses are not the ultimate answer to food shortages elsewhere in the world, as they have never been. The battle against hunger can only be won by strengthening rural development in poor countries and supporting the spending capacity of their populations, and by creating fair and open markets'.
This book is a very useful contribution to the literature on the CAP.
Lib Dems lack say in farm policy-making
Defra is just one of three government departments that does not include a Lib Dem minister. Moreover, all the ministers in the department have strong farming links, inclining them towards a productionist agenda.
Lib Dem farm spokesman Andrew George, the MP for West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has criticised the Conservative stranglehold on posts. Differences have emerged on the proposed badger cull and the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.
Mr George has been trying to work with the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, to have some say about how budget cuts are made. However, he has admitted that he was 'not yet in the inner circle of Defra ministers'.
Most disagreements are likely to be over matters of domestic policy such as the two that arisen already, rather than attitudes towards the CAP where both parties share a relatively liberal, market oriented stance. However, the Lib Dems are particularly attuned to the concerns of smaller farmers from whom they receive electoral support.
Lib Dem farm spokesman Andrew George, the MP for West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has criticised the Conservative stranglehold on posts. Differences have emerged on the proposed badger cull and the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.
Mr George has been trying to work with the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, to have some say about how budget cuts are made. However, he has admitted that he was 'not yet in the inner circle of Defra ministers'.
Most disagreements are likely to be over matters of domestic policy such as the two that arisen already, rather than attitudes towards the CAP where both parties share a relatively liberal, market oriented stance. However, the Lib Dems are particularly attuned to the concerns of smaller farmers from whom they receive electoral support.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Livestock farmers rely on subsidies
With crop prices rising worldwide, arable farmers should be in for a good spell, although individual returns will depend on how they have sold their crops forward. However, many medium-sized livestock businesses still rely on subsidy payments to make a profit according to farm busienss consultant Andersons.
Latest results from its notional Meadow Farm model, which is typical of many mixed farming businesses, suggest that while better market returns are expected to lead to an improvement in margins in 2010/11, the farm will only achieve a surplus once single payment and agri-environment receipts are included. The farm, like many others, has been hit by higher feed, straw and forage costs, which havepushed this season's variable costs up by almost 14 per cent on 2009/10.
Profitability of Andersons' hypothetical dairy farm - Fresian Farm - was also tight, although the situation had improved following recent milk price increases. The 150-cow unit was predicted to make a small 0.7p/litre margin from production in 2010/11, despite cost of production increasing by 0.6p/litre. With the single payment and ELS money added in, that surplus was boosted to more than 3p/litre.
Dairy processors Robert Wiseman have issued a warning that their profits could fall by about a third. They are major suppliers of milk to supermarkets. Tesco have increased the price they pay to farmers by a little over 1p a litre.
Latest results from its notional Meadow Farm model, which is typical of many mixed farming businesses, suggest that while better market returns are expected to lead to an improvement in margins in 2010/11, the farm will only achieve a surplus once single payment and agri-environment receipts are included. The farm, like many others, has been hit by higher feed, straw and forage costs, which havepushed this season's variable costs up by almost 14 per cent on 2009/10.
Profitability of Andersons' hypothetical dairy farm - Fresian Farm - was also tight, although the situation had improved following recent milk price increases. The 150-cow unit was predicted to make a small 0.7p/litre margin from production in 2010/11, despite cost of production increasing by 0.6p/litre. With the single payment and ELS money added in, that surplus was boosted to more than 3p/litre.
Dairy processors Robert Wiseman have issued a warning that their profits could fall by about a third. They are major suppliers of milk to supermarkets. Tesco have increased the price they pay to farmers by a little over 1p a litre.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Cur farm aid to one third of budget
The CAP should be cut to about a third of the EU budget rather than well over 40 per cent as at present, according to budget commissioner Janusz Lewandowski: Budget . This would then give more headway for spending on research and innovation.
The target is a realistic one, but Lewandowski admitted that the CAP was defended by a strong lobby. The budget negotiations would probablly be the toughest ever.
France will be a stalwart defender of CAP funding and it has many allies but it is interesting to speculate how much French political capital will be depleted by the row over the expulsion of Roma.
The target is a realistic one, but Lewandowski admitted that the CAP was defended by a strong lobby. The budget negotiations would probablly be the toughest ever.
France will be a stalwart defender of CAP funding and it has many allies but it is interesting to speculate how much French political capital will be depleted by the row over the expulsion of Roma.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
France gets biggest share of CAP budget
No great surprise but France got the largest share of CAP spending among member states in the 2009 financial year. France received €9.87bn, 17 per cent of the total budget of €56.781bn. Spain took second place with €7.26bn, followed by Germany on €6.9bn, Italy on €6.08bn and the UK on €4.04bn.
Poland headed the accession states on €3.72bn, followed by Greece on €3.05bn and Romania in €2.1bn (70 per cent from Pillar 2). Malta was bottom of the pile with €14.88m, most of it from Pillar 2 funds. The combined payments to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania amounted to €324m. The importance of the CAP to Ireland was illustrated by its receipts of €1,655.55m.
Poland headed the accession states on €3.72bn, followed by Greece on €3.05bn and Romania in €2.1bn (70 per cent from Pillar 2). Malta was bottom of the pile with €14.88m, most of it from Pillar 2 funds. The combined payments to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania amounted to €324m. The importance of the CAP to Ireland was illustrated by its receipts of €1,655.55m.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Budget DG warns of big CAP cuts
A spokesman for the Budget DG has warned of big cuts in the CAP budget given the financial situation of the EU: Cuts
The CAP share of the EU budget is already expected to decline from 45 per cent to 39 per cent by 2013, but it may need to be cut back even further.
Of course, such declarations of intent by the Budget DG are always heard ahead of new financial negotiations. In practice, the politics of interrelationships between member states often prevails so that the cuts are less extensive than anticipated.
The CAP share of the EU budget is already expected to decline from 45 per cent to 39 per cent by 2013, but it may need to be cut back even further.
Of course, such declarations of intent by the Budget DG are always heard ahead of new financial negotiations. In practice, the politics of interrelationships between member states often prevails so that the cuts are less extensive than anticipated.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Ideas from the NFU
After a long delay, I am returning to the NFU paper on 'The CAP after 2013', this time looking at some of their policy ideas. What guides their thinking is something I would agree with, the need 'to facilitate the creation of fairer and better functioning agricultural markets so that ultimately farmers can become less reliant on public support'.
There is no doubt that power has moved down the food chain to retailers to an extent that there is an imbalance in the market. The NFU note that 'most supply contracts are one-sided, conferring significant and undue power to purchasers.' The challenge is how to tackle this monopsony and the NFU suggests a legally enforceable code of conduct that would prevent abusive practices such as slotting fees. This is fine in principle, but the devil is in the detail given the complex distribution of responsibility between the EU and member states.
The NFU also suggests that more work should be undertaken on agricultural futures markets, including the prospects for their extension to a wider range of agricultural sectors. As they point out 'their availability is sparse in many sectors, which inhibits long-term price discovery.'
The NFU also draws attention to the need for more spending on applied science so that the sector can produce more but do so sustainably so that there is les impact on the environment. They suggest that the CAP could play a complementary role in supporting research and development, perhaps through a third pillar. The research infrastucture is an area where government has a legitimate and important role and it has been sadly neglected in recent years.
What is more open to question is the suggestion that Second Pillar programmes should be redefined to focus on agricultural rather than rural development. They are correct in arguing that 'There is a danger in seeing Pillar Two as a dumping ground for policy aspirations in different areas without providing the necessary funding'. However, the future of rural economies should be diversified and not overly dependent on agriculture.
Taken as a whole, the paper is a balanced contribution to the debate which has a number of constructive suggestions to make, although there is too great an emphasis on subsidies and protection for my taste.
There is no doubt that power has moved down the food chain to retailers to an extent that there is an imbalance in the market. The NFU note that 'most supply contracts are one-sided, conferring significant and undue power to purchasers.' The challenge is how to tackle this monopsony and the NFU suggests a legally enforceable code of conduct that would prevent abusive practices such as slotting fees. This is fine in principle, but the devil is in the detail given the complex distribution of responsibility between the EU and member states.
The NFU also suggests that more work should be undertaken on agricultural futures markets, including the prospects for their extension to a wider range of agricultural sectors. As they point out 'their availability is sparse in many sectors, which inhibits long-term price discovery.'
The NFU also draws attention to the need for more spending on applied science so that the sector can produce more but do so sustainably so that there is les impact on the environment. They suggest that the CAP could play a complementary role in supporting research and development, perhaps through a third pillar. The research infrastucture is an area where government has a legitimate and important role and it has been sadly neglected in recent years.
What is more open to question is the suggestion that Second Pillar programmes should be redefined to focus on agricultural rather than rural development. They are correct in arguing that 'There is a danger in seeing Pillar Two as a dumping ground for policy aspirations in different areas without providing the necessary funding'. However, the future of rural economies should be diversified and not overly dependent on agriculture.
Taken as a whole, the paper is a balanced contribution to the debate which has a number of constructive suggestions to make, although there is too great an emphasis on subsidies and protection for my taste.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Scottish Government cracks down on sofa farmers
The Scottish Government is planning to crack down on so-called 'sofa' or 'slipper' farmers who use barren hillsides to claim Single Farm Payments. This proposal follows the short-term recommendations of the Pack Inquiry into Future Support for Agriculture in Scotland.
The proposals do not require EU approval and could be put in place by January. Minimum stocking rates would be established and farms that fell below them would find an inspector calling. They would then have 60 days to put things right. The Scottish NFU endorsed the plan as the best way forward.
It is also hoped that Scotland will secure a devolved animal health budget by next April which should help a number of innovations in policy that the Scottish Government has been pursuing in this area. Their policy experiments could provide lessons for the rest of the UK, although the fact that the UK is a single epidemiological unit poses some challenges.
The proposals do not require EU approval and could be put in place by January. Minimum stocking rates would be established and farms that fell below them would find an inspector calling. They would then have 60 days to put things right. The Scottish NFU endorsed the plan as the best way forward.
It is also hoped that Scotland will secure a devolved animal health budget by next April which should help a number of innovations in policy that the Scottish Government has been pursuing in this area. Their policy experiments could provide lessons for the rest of the UK, although the fact that the UK is a single epidemiological unit poses some challenges.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Productionist move at Defra
Rural development programmes should place more emphasis on competitive agriculture and less on environmental considerations, according to new farm minister Jim Paice:
Rural development
In some respects this may be seen as a return to a MAFF-style productionism at Defra, even if the name of the department has not (yet) changed. However, it is often forgotten that there are three dimensions to sustainability: economic, social and environmental. What the balance should be between these is a matter for debate.
The biggest challenge facing Defra is the budget cuts that are going to hit it given the ring fencing of the NHS and lower than average cuts that are likely in defence and education. If it wasn't for coalition politics, one might wonder why Energy and Climate Change needs to be a separate ministry.
Rural development
In some respects this may be seen as a return to a MAFF-style productionism at Defra, even if the name of the department has not (yet) changed. However, it is often forgotten that there are three dimensions to sustainability: economic, social and environmental. What the balance should be between these is a matter for debate.
The biggest challenge facing Defra is the budget cuts that are going to hit it given the ring fencing of the NHS and lower than average cuts that are likely in defence and education. If it wasn't for coalition politics, one might wonder why Energy and Climate Change needs to be a separate ministry.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Disclosure of subsidies may end
Transparency in the CAP may be reduced with a ruling which suggests that EU rules which require member states to publish details of payments to individual farmers may be invalid. An opinion by an ECJ Advocate General is often indicative of the view that the Court itself may take. German farmers had challenged the rules on the grounds that they were an invasion of their privacy.
Advocate General Elinor Sharpston said that the rules were disproportionate and that there were discrepancies in the reasons the European Commission and the European Council had given for needing the legislation. The assumption that farmers consented to disclosure when they applied for subsidies was also open to question on the grounds of whether it was explicit enough.
Reform advocates have used the information to draw attention to the very large sums of money paid under the CAP to big landowners or to food processing companies making use of export subsdies. Farmers' organisations argued that members of the public often confused Single Farm Payments with profits.
How many members of the public have been interested is open to question. The information is not that readily digestible and is not equally available for all member states (in the UK it can be found on the Defra web site). However, when I have looked at information relating to farms in areas I am familiar with (admittedly not a representative sample) I have been surprised by how relatively low the payments have been. They would be higher, however, in areas like East Anglia and Lincolnshire.
Depending on the nature of the final ECJ ruling, the Commission may have to redraft the rules rather than scrap them altogether.
Advocate General Elinor Sharpston said that the rules were disproportionate and that there were discrepancies in the reasons the European Commission and the European Council had given for needing the legislation. The assumption that farmers consented to disclosure when they applied for subsidies was also open to question on the grounds of whether it was explicit enough.
Reform advocates have used the information to draw attention to the very large sums of money paid under the CAP to big landowners or to food processing companies making use of export subsdies. Farmers' organisations argued that members of the public often confused Single Farm Payments with profits.
How many members of the public have been interested is open to question. The information is not that readily digestible and is not equally available for all member states (in the UK it can be found on the Defra web site). However, when I have looked at information relating to farms in areas I am familiar with (admittedly not a representative sample) I have been surprised by how relatively low the payments have been. They would be higher, however, in areas like East Anglia and Lincolnshire.
Depending on the nature of the final ECJ ruling, the Commission may have to redraft the rules rather than scrap them altogether.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
What's wrong with the CAP
A polemical attack on the CAP using data from farmsubsidy.org which nevertheless admits that the chances of real reform are slim: CAP
Thursday, June 17, 2010
CAP consultation draws a big crowd
The consultation on the future of the CAP has been so popular that the deadline has been extended: Deadline
3,700 responses have been received, although that is not so many when one considers the size of the EU. I also wonder how many of them were from ordinary citizens or consumers and how many from special interests that derive benefits from the policy?
I am rather sceptical about such consultations as I think that they rarely change the minds of decision-makers who pick out those responses that suit their thinking. But I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from responding.
3,700 responses have been received, although that is not so many when one considers the size of the EU. I also wonder how many of them were from ordinary citizens or consumers and how many from special interests that derive benefits from the policy?
I am rather sceptical about such consultations as I think that they rarely change the minds of decision-makers who pick out those responses that suit their thinking. But I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from responding.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
How the NFU sees the challenges
After some delay, I am returning to the NFU paper on 'The CAP after 2013.' I would agree with their basic definition of the challenges facing farming: 'Put simply, farmers across the world will be required to produce considerably more food, from finite and precious resources, amid a changing climate and at the same time impacting less on the environment.'
The NFU specifies the benefits of the CAP in the following terms:
1. European consumers expect food that is produced to exacting environmental and welfare standards. These lead to higher regulatory costs which do not always apply to third country imports. The CAP is a form of compensation for these costs.
2. The CAP plays a key role in the EU's long-term food security.
3. There is a territorial cohesion role in terms of allowing farming activity to be spread throughout the EU. It also underpins rural employment [only in some, generally more remote locations in my view].
4. The policy helps to ensure that agricultural production is environmentally sustainable and helps to maintain some of our most important landscapes and environments. [This is essentially an argument for the second pillar].
But perhaps the real point is that 'Fundamentally, the CAP helps to address the failure of agricultural markets to develop fair and profitable returns to farmers.' What constitutes a 'fair' return is a moot point, but in my view farmers have experienced what I would regard as anti-competitive behaviour by supermarkets, especially in the UK. The solutions, however, reside in more effective use of competition policy (more on this in a later post].
Arguments (1) and (2) are really those that underpin the SFP. However, the actual costs imposed on (1) fall far short of present SFP payments. (2) is more difficult to quantify, particular given the uncertainties associated with climate change, but there are grounds for taking an 'insurance' payment against this.
Without the SFP, many farms would cease production. This would probably hit public benefits more than food production given that it is the most marginal farms that would cease production. What this points to (in the absence of an acceptable bond scheme) is a SFP at a reduced rate.
The NFU specifies the benefits of the CAP in the following terms:
1. European consumers expect food that is produced to exacting environmental and welfare standards. These lead to higher regulatory costs which do not always apply to third country imports. The CAP is a form of compensation for these costs.
2. The CAP plays a key role in the EU's long-term food security.
3. There is a territorial cohesion role in terms of allowing farming activity to be spread throughout the EU. It also underpins rural employment [only in some, generally more remote locations in my view].
4. The policy helps to ensure that agricultural production is environmentally sustainable and helps to maintain some of our most important landscapes and environments. [This is essentially an argument for the second pillar].
But perhaps the real point is that 'Fundamentally, the CAP helps to address the failure of agricultural markets to develop fair and profitable returns to farmers.' What constitutes a 'fair' return is a moot point, but in my view farmers have experienced what I would regard as anti-competitive behaviour by supermarkets, especially in the UK. The solutions, however, reside in more effective use of competition policy (more on this in a later post].
Arguments (1) and (2) are really those that underpin the SFP. However, the actual costs imposed on (1) fall far short of present SFP payments. (2) is more difficult to quantify, particular given the uncertainties associated with climate change, but there are grounds for taking an 'insurance' payment against this.
Without the SFP, many farms would cease production. This would probably hit public benefits more than food production given that it is the most marginal farms that would cease production. What this points to (in the absence of an acceptable bond scheme) is a SFP at a reduced rate.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
The French perspective: the new French food law
Recently I had the opportunity to talk to some French agriculture and food policy advisers. This was very informative in the sense of understanding where we differ. The French stance on these matters is a product of their own values which in turn reflect their historical development. One has to understand their stance, even if one does not agree with it.
One topic was the new French law on the 'modernisation' of agriculture which I understand has reached the Senate. I think our understanding of modernisation is somewhat different from the French one. There appear to be three broad objectives: creating a public policy for food; stabilising and re-regulating the agricultural market; and ensuring food security.
Apparently, there is a view in France that there is need to combat new food behaviours. From an English perspective, I would say that this was no concern of the Government, but again this reflects the difference between a liberal and an étatiste tradition.
France was once the country of the one hour lunch: indeed it was not unknown for some lunches to extend more than hour and be washed down with more than a glass of 'vin ordinaire'. However, the view is that France has moved away from having a fixed eating time and young people are turning to fast food. This is thought to be not good for public health, but above all it is believed that restoring traditional behaviour would open the market for agricultural products.
France would also like to strengthen corporatist associations of producers, but admits this would require competition law changes at EU level. A somewhat more sensible idea is to seek longer-term contracts between farmers and the hypermarkets.
However, some of the goals sound a little strange to English ears. Preserving the food heritage is one. Now, whilst I do not share the English middle class love affair with France, I would admit there is something special about a Parisian café. But does this require government intervention?
The policy also seeks to rely on educated citizens, that is educated about food and that objective would certainly resonate with many in England. However, the notion of keeping competitive enterprises on all parts of the territory is a less comfortable one, even if one admits that many parts of France are thinly populated and at risk of depopulation. (Whether depopulation is necessarily a bad thing is itself an interesting question).
A British participant in our discussions argued that the structure of dirigisme facilitated collusion and was essentially anti-competitive. Were the objectives coherent and did they try to cut across the expressed preferences of the French people? The attempt to stabilise might be an attempt to immoblise.
Not surprisingly, this was seen as a rather polemical point on the French side. They explained, that their policy was not economically rational, but was a [normative] choice. The production of food had a very strong public good component and belonged to public policy. However, it was admitted that French consumers had a very limited role in food policy formation.
More from our discussions at a later date.
One topic was the new French law on the 'modernisation' of agriculture which I understand has reached the Senate. I think our understanding of modernisation is somewhat different from the French one. There appear to be three broad objectives: creating a public policy for food; stabilising and re-regulating the agricultural market; and ensuring food security.
Apparently, there is a view in France that there is need to combat new food behaviours. From an English perspective, I would say that this was no concern of the Government, but again this reflects the difference between a liberal and an étatiste tradition.
France was once the country of the one hour lunch: indeed it was not unknown for some lunches to extend more than hour and be washed down with more than a glass of 'vin ordinaire'. However, the view is that France has moved away from having a fixed eating time and young people are turning to fast food. This is thought to be not good for public health, but above all it is believed that restoring traditional behaviour would open the market for agricultural products.
France would also like to strengthen corporatist associations of producers, but admits this would require competition law changes at EU level. A somewhat more sensible idea is to seek longer-term contracts between farmers and the hypermarkets.
However, some of the goals sound a little strange to English ears. Preserving the food heritage is one. Now, whilst I do not share the English middle class love affair with France, I would admit there is something special about a Parisian café. But does this require government intervention?
The policy also seeks to rely on educated citizens, that is educated about food and that objective would certainly resonate with many in England. However, the notion of keeping competitive enterprises on all parts of the territory is a less comfortable one, even if one admits that many parts of France are thinly populated and at risk of depopulation. (Whether depopulation is necessarily a bad thing is itself an interesting question).
A British participant in our discussions argued that the structure of dirigisme facilitated collusion and was essentially anti-competitive. Were the objectives coherent and did they try to cut across the expressed preferences of the French people? The attempt to stabilise might be an attempt to immoblise.
Not surprisingly, this was seen as a rather polemical point on the French side. They explained, that their policy was not economically rational, but was a [normative] choice. The production of food had a very strong public good component and belonged to public policy. However, it was admitted that French consumers had a very limited role in food policy formation.
More from our discussions at a later date.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Cows account for 4 per cent of greenhouse gases
The urgent need for a stronger climate change dimension to the CAP is emphasised by a report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which is a UN agnecy. If one takes account of everything from nomadic herds to processing plants, milk production accounts for 2.7 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 4 per cent when meat processed from the dairy industry is added in.
Methane contributes most to the global warming impact of milk, accounting for 54 per cent of emissions. Nitrous oxide accounts for 27 per cent of emissions in developing countrues and 38 per cent in developing countries.
You can find the full report here: FAO
Methane contributes most to the global warming impact of milk, accounting for 54 per cent of emissions. Nitrous oxide accounts for 27 per cent of emissions in developing countrues and 38 per cent in developing countries.
You can find the full report here: FAO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)