Lords committee calls for radical CAP reform

The House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has called for radical reform of the CAP: Lords . Direct payments should be phased out. The Committee welcomes proposals to 'green' Pillar 1.

The committee argues that innovation should be a central part of the whole reform agenda. This would unlock agricultural productivity which has been relatively static. High quality agricultural research and development, and its transfer to practitioners, are key to the future of EU agriculture. To boost funding, it should be possible to transfer money from the CAP to the research budget to fund Framework programmes.

The Committee calls for vastly improved farm advisory services so that farmers have better access to high quality impartial advice on possible innovative approaches. Unfortunately, publicly provided arrangements were dismantled a long time ago and it is difficult to see how they could be restored. Possibly private providers such as agronomists could undertake public policy work on a contract basis.

The report seems to reflect good sense, but there have been so many of these reports over the years and nothing much really seems to change as a result.

Financial speculation and volatile prices

There has been increasing discussion recently about the link between financial markets such as those dealing with futures and derivatives and volatlity in farm prices. The subject has been highly contested and there is no consensus view.

This viewed is shared in a leaked draft of a Commission communication which concludes that there is no conclusive evidence on the causality between activity in derivatives markets increased volatility & price increases in the underlying physical markets.

The draft version suggests unsurprisingly that agricultural commodity prices are expected to stay higher than their historical averages reversing their long-term downward trend, with producer margins increasingly squeezed due to higher costs.

Similarly price volatility is expected to remain high, although 'uncertainties with respect to its causes and duration persist'. Referring to the ‘CAP Towards 2020’, it notes that food security has been identified as one of the main drivers for future reform in EU policy, underlining that a 'strong agricultural sector is vital for the highly competitive food industry to remain an important part of the EU economy and trade and a major contributor to international markets'.

Commenting yesterday on a decision to defer its publication, the Commission spokesperson outlined that there is 'no doubt about the links between the physical & financial markets', but that there is a 'need for more time to look at the specifics at play between the financial markets and markets that are not closely regulated' such as Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives. The Commission now intends to 'refine the analysis' on the reasons why markets fluctuate and seek greater clarity on the interaction between speculation and markets.

It's all in the green box

The EU has done a good job of stuffing its CAP subsidies into the green box category which is supposedly free of distortions to international trade, this latest report from ICTSD shows: Green Box

Production-linked subsidies hit a new 'low' of €12.3bn, whereas green box subsidies such as the Single Farm Payment amounted to a new high of €62.6bn. That makes a total of €74.9bn and it is worth reflecting on the opportunity cost of that amount of spending.

As one comment on the report points out, what really distorts global trade are the EU's high tariff barriers, particularly in relation to so-called 'sensitive' products. Should the Doha Round resume, this is an area in which agreement will be needed.

Of course, there are questions about whether subsidies placed in the green box are really free of distortions to international trade and this could be tested in the quasi-judicial WTO dispute settlement mechanism at some point in the future.

The subsidies dilemma

A farmer writing to Farmers Weekly says of Caroline Spelman's support for phasing out the Single Farm Payment, 'Surely she must realise the subsidy keeps most farmers in business?'

The correctness of this view in the short term, for livestock farmers at any rate, was confirmed by HSBC's head of agriculture Allan Wilkinson who said that livestock and dairy enterprises are likely to be even more reliant on subsidy payments to make a profit this year.

He told Farmers Weekly that while arable producers will benefit from the dramatic upturn in commodity markets, relatively static meat and milk prices, combined with big increases in feed costs, will put margins for beef, sheep and dairy producers under significant pressure.

Part of the answer is, of course, not subsidies but the response of the individual farm business to admittedly difficult market conditions. Mr Wilkinson acknowledged that output and costs varied significantly and that top-performing producers and those who had managed to secure higher end prices or cheaper inputs would fare better.

He commented, 'It's clear that volatility is here to stay and the successful busineses will be those that devote more effort to marketing strategies, in conjunction with a continued focus on technical efficiency and lowering production costs.' In other words, farmers have to get smarter.

Subsidies may not help them to get smarter. With Simon Marsh of Harper Adams University College, Farmers Weekly is following the month-by-month progress of an upland suckler herd that's consistently performing in the top 1 per cent of all costed herds. Mr Marsh commented, 'For too long, the UK beef industry has relied on support payments and it has stifled incentive to strive for efficient production.'

I was recently talking to a journalist from an esteemed weekly who has written on the CAP. He commented that when prices were low, the French (as the main defenders of the CAP) said that subsidies were needed to boost farm incomes. When prices were high or volatile, they were needed to ensure food security. He once asked a French minister if there were then any conceivable market circumstances in which an argument could not be produced in favour of subsidies.

We do not start with a blank sheet of paper and a sudden withdrawal of subsidies would seriously disrupt the market. But we should be starting down that road. Many farmers would be happier getting their return from their market without all the transaction costs of filling in forms to claim subsidies and the hazard that you may be denied part or all of your entitlement because of an inadvertent error.

What is more the UK is facing up to £1bn of fines from the EU in large part because of incompetent handling of Single Farm Payments (some £664m appears to relate to Defra). This was described in 2009 by the Commons Public Accounts Committee as a 'singular example of comprehensively poor administration on a grand scale.' Britain has now joined Italy and Greece among the worse offenders on farm funding

Global farming food and future report out

An important report led by the Governnment's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, setting out the challenges facing farming and food supply on a global basis is now available: Farming Future You can hear a Radio 4 discussion on the topic here: Beddington

This should provide a basis for a serious discussion about how agricultural productivity can be raised whilst coping with the challenge of climate change and other environmental considerations such as the maintenance of biodiversity.

Land is a finite resource, indeed its availability is diminishing because of urbanisation and the effects of climate change. Farming and food is very dependent on oil at various stages of the food chain, while the availability of water is an increasing constraint.

In the longer run support for the farming industry should not come through blanket subsidies but by, for example, ensuring that there is an adequate research structure that is oriented towards devising practical solutions towards the resolution of pressing problems.

Buoyant market for SFP entitlements

The market for SFP entitlements appears to be buoyant. Buyers far outnumber sellers which naturally tends to push up prices. George Paton of WebbPaton told Farmers Weekly that they had a requirement for 2400ha on their waiting list.

The confiscation of entitlements under tighter usage rules has had the effect of reducing the number of 'spare' entitlements. There are also more buyers about, some of them finally getting round to buying entitlements for land that missed out on the original allocation in 2005.

English flat-rate entitlements of €241/ha are currently worth around £205/ha, which is close to the level they can be expected to pay out in 2011, assuming exchange rates remain similar to current levels (when the pound fell against the euro it pushed up the value of payments received by farmers in sterling.) Entitlements for Severely Disadvantaged Areas and Moorland Areas are once again in particularly short supply and are fetching up to twice their annual face value.

Ideally one would not pay general subsidies of this kind to farmers at all. However, if one does have them, there is an argument for having a secondary market to re-allocate them more efficiently to those who think they need them most.

In a sense those who buy and sell in this market are taking a bet on the sterling/euro exchange rate. Of course, this not only affects the sterling value of the SFP, but also key input prices which have been rising substantially recently. 'Red' diesel for use on farms is taxed at a lower rate than diesel bought for normal domestic or business use, but its price has been pushed up substantially recently by rising world oil prices.

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.

Spelman hits raw nerve with Ciolos

The speech by Defra secretary of state Caroline Spelman has clearly hit a raw nerve with farm commissioner Dacian Ciolos: Ciolos

In essence what Ciolos is saying is that this was a speech made for domestic consumption, but it will cut no ice in Europe. Depressingly, he is probably right, but the secretary of state was still right to set out her stall. She may be able to have some impact on the details of any deal, particularly when the budget dimension is brought into play.

Once again food shortages and volatile prices are in the news. If nothing else, this is a case for doing something about the high tariff barriers which surround the EU in the food area, particularly on so-called 'sensitive' products. If developing countries could get more access to developed markets, they would be incentivised to move towards more commercial agricultures which would feed more people both at home and abroad.

There are, of course, a lot of complex issues here and there are undoubtedly some areas of the world where improving semi-subsistence agriculture is the best way forward. But no one is going to become genuinely prosperous that way.

The big politics behind the CAP deal

Why was Dave Cameron willing to do a deal with France and Germany on CAP subsidies given that he is genuinely an Eurosceptic? This article (which was easy to miss as it came out on Boxing Day) explains the big politics behind the deal and opens with some amusing remarks about CAP subsidies: CAP deal

Call for fundamental CAP reform

In a major speech at the Oxford conference, secretary of state Caroline Spelman has called for a more ambitious approach to CAP reform and a fundamental change in the nature of the CAP: Spelman

She's talking the talk like former secretaries of state, but walking the walk is always more difficult. Only in very special circumstances has it been possible to build anything like a winning coalition for reform. Current thinking reinforces the trend towards protectionism she rightly criticises.

Has a grand deal been done?

The future of the Common Agricultural Policy depends on what is decided about the EU budget. And the broad shape of the EU budget is usually decided in grand deals between the leading countries of Europe. Indeed, in the past, the future of the CAP has effectively been decided over lunch between French and German ministers. However, in a larger EU, that is not as simple, although the Franco-German axis is still very strong.

However, this time it looks as if a grand deal may have been done between Britain, France and Germany. David Cameron has been quite an effective negotiator in Europe and for understandable reasons he wants the EU budget frozen in real terms. It's very difficult to inflict misery at home when there is apparent profligacy in Brussels (a lesson that the European Parliament seems slow to learn).

Britain is denying it, but essentially what seems to have been agreed is that Britain's budget rebate, won by Mrs Thatcher, will stay intact although the original justification for it has been undermined. In return France will be able to keep the CAP more or less unscathed. Germany has already sold the pass, as it usually does, by signing up to a joint declaration with France calling for a strong CAP.

Needless to say, the accession states, and in particular Poland, are furious. They want the budget to be maintained and subsidies to their farmers brought in line with the rest of Europe. To some extent that could be achieved within the current budget envelope, although farmers in other member states would lose out.

There is a lot of hard negotiation to come, but it may be, despite denials, that the basic outlines of a deal have been agreed. If that is so, it will be a disappointment, but not a surprise, for the CAP reform camp.

Alliances and stances over CAP reform

The process of CAP reform is always marked by informal alignments or alliances between member states and there seems to be something of a rapprochement between Britain and Poland: Poland

Both countries support a shift of spending from pillar one (direct payments to farmers) to pillar two (more public goods oriented). However, the UK wants pillar one to be phased out, while Poland wants an equal split between the two pillars.

The two countries agree in principle that subsidies for farmers in older member states and the accession states must be equalised, a key agenda item for East European countries. However, Britain doubts whether it will be possible to go as far as a flat rate.

However, in a different alignment, Austria is backing France and Germany in calls for a strong farm budget, but opposes Warsaw's idea of a fixed rate of subsidies. France is confident that its stance is gaining broad support and that the CAP budget can be retained at around the current level: France

Carry on intervening

Conservative MEP and spokesman for agriculture Richard Ashworth has called for the return of intervention purchasing in the CAP in the interests of food security. He told a conference at the Royal Agricultural College: 'It's absolutely vital to have some sort of instrument through which you can intervene in the market - a tool or lever the Commission can use in times of crisis'. The only 'tried and tested' way to do this was through intervention.

Historically, intervention purchasing was a highly distorting policy instrument which was why there was a shift of guarantee expenditure to Single Farm Payments. It gave farmers a risk free market for their produce at a price which generally exceeded the marginal cost of production. Hence, farmers were incentivised to over produce, depressing the market price. It also encouraged more intensive forms of farming which inflicted environmental damage.

I suppose the argument could be that food security demands that we produce more in Europe. Leaving aside the implications for other parts of the world that would like to export to Europe, intervention buying is a crude and imperfect mechanism to achieve this objective.

There is a case for intervention in times of crisis to prevent the market for a particular commodity collapsing completely with damaging effects on production in the longer term. But there is also a risk of temporary help in crisis being converted to a permanent subsidy. All such interventions must be for a clearly defined time period and limited in scope.

Interestingly, Mr Ashworth did admit that a recent analysis showed that only 18 per cent of CAP spending delivered value in the areas of jobs, growth and competitiveness. This would make the current CAP share of the EU budget difficult to defend and he thought it might well drop to around 37.5 per cent.

Why there is a case for county farms

The demographic profile of farmers in Europe, not least in Britain, is an ageing one. To some extent the figures may be misleading as younger members of a family may be involved in the farm enterprise, but as junior partners or salaried employees. Tensions between the generations are a recurrent theme in fictional programmes like The Archers. They happen in real life on farms, too.

Farming does need an influx of younger people who are not only more energetic but are open to new ideas and new ways of farming and have a recognition of the importance of dialogue with the consumer. Some older farmers have modified their views and taken new initiatives, but they are often more resitance to change and accustomed to a world in the task was maximising production with generous assistance from the taxpayer.

It is, however, very difficult to get into farming except through inheritance. Of course, you can be a farm manager and many go down that route. But ownership or even tenancy is more difficult. The entry price in terms of start up capital is too high a barrier for many.

That is why county farms have played an important role. They were originally provide for under the 1908 Smallholdings and Allotment Acts, although most of them were created between the two world wars to provide smallholding opportunities for landless agricultural workers and soldiers returning home from the war.

They are rented out by county councils and sometimes it is possible to progress from a smaller holding to a larger one and then eventually to your own farm. Of course, many farmers stay on the county council farm.

Many of them are not really large enough to support a family. Most of the county estates are made up of farms of around 100 acres, too small to compete with larger farms, but arguably too large for smallholding type enterprises serve the local market. In practice the tenant often relies on the farmer's partner (usually a woman) obtaining paid employment as, for example, a teacher or a nurse.

This week the full extent of the cuts being made to local government budgets will be made known, but it is evident that local authorities are going to taken a big, front loaded hit. Some county councils have already sold off their farms, e.g., Oxfordshire, while others such as Buckinghamshire and Somerset look like going down that route.

It's a way of paying down debts, but it potentially harms the structure of farming. When asked about the sale of county farms the leader of Somerset County Council argued, 'It's not our core business.' Maybe it isn't, but it is still arguably worthwhile business for rural county councils.

The case for these farms is made by Simon Fairlie in a special issue on Land in the latest edition of the excellent Food Ethics journal published by the Food Ethics Council. See: Food Ethics

I'm not sure I agree with Fairlie's argument that there is an opportunity for the revival of smallholdings to meet demand for local food. To me this seems like a reversion to the nostalgic idea of spade husbandry advocated by some Chartists in the early 19th century.

Semi-subsistence farming is not the way ahead for the Global South or developed countries, but there is a case for providing opportunities for motivated and innovative farmers to pursue farming as a career. The case for government intervention can be made on food security grounds.

The Commission stance

The final version of the Commission Communication on the CAP does not differ that much from the original leaked version. Some of the language has been watered down a bit, e.g., on the 'capping' of payments to large farms. Probably it is in there in the first place to give something that Britain and Germany will have to use up political capital on. It's an idea that has been around a long time, but is flawed in all sorts of ways.

The paper is a typical Commission compromise which pleases no one: reformers, farmers or environmentalists. However, no doubt the Commission would say that it offers a basis for an eventual settlement. In other words, EU politics is all about messy compromise and not about good policy. It's a realistic stance, but not a very politically attractive one if one hopes for visionary thinking from the EU (if anyone still does).

At the end of the day it is the discussions on the budget that will determine what sort of CAP we will have after 2013. It will probably somewhat greener; fairer in the distribution of income between member states; but still reliant on subsidy and protection.

NFU criticises Commission paper

The European Commission has now issued its Communication on the future of the CAP and the NFU has made a critical response. It argues that the Commisson's proposals may entrench inefficiency rather than boosting competitiveness. It thinks that the Commission may have tried to please too many audiences, possibly leading to a rather incoherent document:

'Today’s future of CAP Communication has identified the challenges that European agriculture and the EU Common Agricultural Policy face over the next ten years. However the measures proposed in the EU Commission’s document are unlikely to help farmers rise to these challenges, the NFU has argued today.

The paper, which sets out the direction of the next reform of the CAP due to take place after 2013, describes the context for the next reform and argues that European agriculture must address concerns about food security, the environment, climate change and the economic viability of fragile areas. While these challenges are accurate, the NFU believes that the measures suggested in the paper to considerably reshape direct payments may harm the competitiveness of farming, as well as undermine efforts to simplify the CAP and make it more comprehensible to taxpayers.

NFU President Peter Kendall said that while these ideas come at a very early stage of the reform process it was difficult to take a firm judgment on the document.

“While today’s paper is not without good intentions or ideas, it does not appear to present the best approach to reform for the post 2013 period,” said Mr Kendall. “The proposals outlined in the paper are understandably general and will require considerable clarification.

“The Communication does provide a fair assessment of the economic, environmental and societal challenges facing farming and I am pleased that it recognises the importance of Europe to global food security and of farming to the economy, society and the environment. I am also pleased to see that the Commission supports the maintenance of a common European approach to agricultural policy.

“However when we set out our policy on the CAP in May we argued that any reform must be driven by core principles; commonality, market orientation, competitiveness and simplicity. It is against these principles that the proposals should be measured. When I look at ideas such as a tiered approach to payments, capping of support with labour adjustment and a significant flexibility measure, I tend to see a recipe for complexity, distortion and a risk of undermining efforts to help farmers become less reliant on support.

“This is the key long-term strategic challenge; to get farmers to a place where they can depend on the market for their income.

“We also must recognise the budgetary and political pressure the CAP will be under - and use the resources wisely. My worry is that the Commission’s proposals may actually entrench support and inefficiency in European farming rather than boost competitiveness.

“I believe that the Commission should build on the progressive direction of previous reforms, developing the two-pillar structure for the CAP and ensuring that each instrument has a clear objective – putting competitive agriculture at its heart.

“The Communication rightly dwells on the future of direct payments which, as the largest component of CAP spending, are a focal point for the next reform. However the complicated ideas from today confuse the role of direct support which should be about underpinning the economics of farm production and helping farmers deal with higher costs and volatility rather than delivering environmental goods. This is the role of rural development policies and I’m really surprised to see the Commission omit any reference to agri-environment schemes.

“I fear that the Commission has fallen into the trap of trying to please as many people as possible, in order to justify the money it spends, rather than adopting a clear direction for European agriculture. It is rare that a clear policy pleases all of the people all of the time but I fear that what we have here will end up as a confused proposal that suits no-one.”

This blog will provide further analysis and comment in the coming days, but at first sight the paper does not seem to differ greatly from the draft version leaked last month.

Greece criticised for 'systematic' cheating

The EU Court of Auditors has criticised Greece for 'systematic' cheating. Athens was criticised for overpaying farmers by €866m (£747m) over several years, including submitting false claims for pasture land subsidies when aerial photographs 'clearly show a significant density of trees and rocks.'

Although aerial photo checks on CAP claims became mandatory in 2009, the system in Greece was not still not fully operational in December 2009. Spot checks revealed that money had been paid out for land with 'different locations, different uses, different shape and perimeter' from thosee claimed by Greek farmers.

The auditors found that 'In Greece the bulk of administrative cross checks ... is carried out under a procedure that leaves no audit trail.' They found that Greece systematically calculated single farm payments incorectly.

Specific sums to be recovered from Greece include:

•€ 210.9 million charged to Greece for poor LPIS-GIS and deficiencies in on-the spot controls in respect of claim year 2006 for area-aids expenditure, including area-based rural development measures;

•€ 54.7 million charged to Greece with regard to dried grapes for reductions in the minimum yield, plot specialisation, ineffective vineyard register and weaknesses in scheme management and control for the financial years 2003-2007;

•€ 50.16 million charged to Greece for failure to reduce aid payments for non respect of veterinary requirements regarding the maintenance of sheep registers, for deficiencies in on-the-spot and administrative checks and for absence of specific risk criteria for Less Favoured Area additional premium controls;

Aristos own a third of all land in England and Wales

Almost a third of all land in England and Wales is still owned by aristocrats who will receive substantial payments from the CAP. Wealthy people and their estates are thought to control about 20 million of the country's 60 million acres.

Research by Country Life found that 36,000 members of the Country Land and Business Association, whose members are mainly individuals and estates, collectively own half of all rural land in England and Wales.

The Forestry Commission is the country's biggest landowner, owning about 2.6m acres. It is followed by the National Trust which has 630,000 acres, while Defence Estates has 593,000 acres. Pension funds collectively control 550,000 acres.

Blow for farm policy reformers

CAP reformers have used the publication of detailed figures about who gets what under the farm policy to draw attention to the extent to which big companies and large-scale farmers are beneficiaries.

However, the drive for more transparency suffered a setback yesteday after the European Court of Justice ruled that publication of databases listing recipients of agricultural subsidies breached farmers' human rights. The ECJ struck down rules that make it compulsory for member states to identify all recipients of CAP money.

The court sided with German farmers behind the action. They argued that publishing the name, address and details of how much money an individual received on a website did not strike the right balance between promoting transparency and the beneficiary's right to privacy. Governments will no longer be able to list individual recipients of public money, but companies listing funds should still be listed.

Jack Thurston of farmsubsidy.org, who has campaigned for the information to be made readily available, argued that disclosure of information was an important check against fraud and abuse, a perennial problem with the CAP. He commented that the decision went 'against the tide of public opinion, which is for ever more transparency and more accountability.'

CAP budget may be cut less than expected

Reports are suggesting that the CAP budget may be cut less than expected: Budget

The Commission had at one time been talking of cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent and was seen as a potential ally by reform minded member states. However, these demands appear to have been watered down and a cut of a few billion euros may suffice.