A typical CAP compromise

The Irish Presidency offered an alternative to the European Commission’s proposals on the convergence of CAP direct payments within member states at Monday’s Farm Council, and it seemed to go down well with most of those in attendance reports Agra Europe.

The Irish proposal, that would only require member states to move partially to uniform area-based direct payments by 2020, was backed by a majority of governments at the meeting, although Farm Commissioner Dacian Ciolos made it clear he opposes the plan, criticising it for a lack of 'ambition'. He has a point, as it is a typical CAP compromise on the lines of 'make me pure, but not yet'.

All member states are to move towards a uniform payment per hectare at national or regional level by the start of 2019, the European Commission said in its CAP reform proposals, with a transitional period to apply up to 2018. But many member states feel this suggestion is too drastic and the consensus seems to be that a slower pace of transition is required.

CAP reform assessed

Here is a thoughtful and detailed look at the CAP reform proposals from the slow food movement: Slow Food

In particular there is a detailed consideration of the greening proposals. Their general view is that the proposed reforms do contain some significant gains for sustainability.

CAP budget reduced in size

The EU Council finally reached an agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) after marathon talks last weekend and it did not make for good reading for those who wanted to see an increase or real terms freeze in CAP spending reports Agra Europe.

The CAP budget agreed for 2014-2020 will be nearly €16 billion below what the European Commission wanted at €362.79bn − €277.85bn for Pillar One and €84.94bn for Pillar Two (P2). This is provided it is passed in a straight Yes/No vote by the European Parliament – the first time this has happened – as mandated by the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force midway through the current 2007-2013 MFF period.

Under the Council agreement, rural development spending will be €7.03bn less than proposed, but the blow is to be softened for many member states, who are to get a ‘special’ P2 envelope as well as their share of the remaining P2 pot.

What this represents is the first time a CAP budget has been reduced in size but also an unparalleled degree of flexibility for member states over how they shuffle the financial resources dealt to them. However, no member state is going to escape the fact that restrictions on agricultural subsidies and state spending will be in place for the next seven years at least as the CAP enters an age of austerity.

Sterling fall boosts farm incomes

The weakening of sterling against the euro over the past four months potentially boosts UK farmers' single farm payment subsidies by £240m. For every 1p/euro change in exchange rates, the UK's single farm payments alter by around £40m. SFP accounted for around 15 per cent of UK farm incomes and can be an even bigger slice of profits. For example, over half the profits at Cooperative Farms, the country's biggest farmer, are down to SFP.

Currency fluctuations also affect market prices with a 1p weakening against the euro adding £200m to UK farmers' total income. For example, a farmer producing a typical wheat crop should get about £18 a hectare more from wheat sales with the euro worth 6p more. That's nearly ten times the impact on that farm's SFP.

The downside is that inputs such as feed, fertilisers and sprays could now be 7 per cent more expensive in sterling terms, if all the currency effects are passed on. Machinery could also be more expensive.

France gives some ground

France, the EU’s biggest beneficiary of CAP funds, had previously been in favour of opposing to any cuts to the share of CAP spending and instead favoured a freeze at 2013 levels in nominal terms (meaning a real terms cut) – a view supported by other member states such as Germany, Spain and Italy. However, President Francois Hollande now appears ready to accept a reduction after addressing the European Parliament this week and claiming that his main priority for the summit is to ensure 'expenditure levels that preserve our common policies'.

CAP spending 'will be reduced' compared to the European Commission's spending proposal, he conceded, adding this will provoke 'difficult restructuring for a sector that is essential [for France]'. Hollande’s speech could well pave the way for an agreement between member states and signal that a compromise agreement is there to be had. Whether it will be enough to appease those states looking for deep budget cuts such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands remains to be seen.

France’s apparent move away from its pledge to fight for a nominal freeze in the CAP budget has not gone down well with farming groups in the EU, with umbrella organisation Copa-Cogeca demanding a freeze at a 400-strong meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.

A good survey of French interests, and changing perceptions, of the CAP can be found here: France

Is a CAP deal possible?

The next key phase of the CAP negotiations occur in the context of the budget negotiations at the EU summit on 6/7 February with spending on agriculture remaining a major stumbling block. A further summit is due in mid-March. The Irish presidency needs a deal on the budget agreed by the Council and Parliament by the end of March if it is to have any hope of securing a substantive CAP deal by the end of June

The recent vote in the European Parliament agriculture committee was a first step towards a CAP deal, although if it doesn't like what eventually emerges then the Parliament can veto it. It should be noted that the committee backed capping of support at £250,000 with payments reducing on a sliding scale after £125,000 which will hit many farms in the UK.

Some are concerned that the proposed extension of discretion to member states (and regional governments) in many areas of the CAP will create more of an uneven playing field, undermining the single market. Others would argue that such discretion is not only necessary to make reform politically palatable, but also reflects the geographical diversity and range of challenges encountered in what will soon be an entity with 28 member states with very different agricultures.

Is there still life in fat taxes?

Bruce Traill, the president of the Agricultural Economics Society, writes in their latest newsletter: 'Denmark is abandoning its short-lived experiment with the world’s first fat tax just as the use of fiscal measures to improve diets and offset the social costs of unhealthy eating appeared to be gathering momentum; the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, the National Heart Forum and the European Heart Network, have called for the use of various forms of food taxes and subsidies in the past year. Even David Cameron floated the idea in 2011.'

'The Danes taxed products with more than 2.3% saturated fat content at 16 KR (c£1.75) per kg of saturated fat (13% of current retail full-fat butter prices). This was deemed sufficient to have driven hordes of Danes into the welcoming arms of German and Swedish retailers, "exporting" 1300 jobs (according to the Danish Food Workers Union). It’s a pity there wasn’t time to evaluate the impact of the measures on consumption (Copenhagen University’s finding of a 20% fall in purchases of fats and cooking oil in the 3 months from introducing the tax were skewed by hoarding in the run up to the tax and cross-border shopping).'

'Small taxes (and subsidies) on foods or nutrients are never likely to have a big impact on consumption and health, but they do raise a lot of money and are cost effective according to OECD; the Danish tax raised about £150m in a year, the French soda tax a similar amount. Fiscal measures also give incentives to producers to reformulate their products. The EU EATWELL research project recommends ring-fencing revenue generated by a tax for use in other cost-effective healthy eating programmes.' [Although one might add that politicians are never keen on hypothecating revenues because it restricts their freedom of manoeuvre.]

'The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme and Women, Infants, Children schemes, targeted at subsidising healthy foods for poor consumers, would be good candidates. They have been shown to be highly cost-effective and would be good models for wider adoption in Europe. As they specifically target disadvantaged groups, they partially address a criticism that fiscal food measures are regressive. And if the taxes were applied Europe-wide, the Danes would have to travel a long way to find cheap butter.'

Irish presidency searches for consensus

Monday’s Farm Council meeting in Brussels kicked off with Irish agriculture minister Simon Coveney reaffirming that his country’s Presidency’s 'ambitious' aim will be to reach a consensus among member states on a 2014-2020 CAP by March 18-19 this year, with European Parliament approval by June reports Agra Europe. He believes there are '30 or so' elements of the reform proposals still dividing member states, which he stressed was a 'manageable number', while EU Farm Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said the proposed timetable was 'difficult but not impossible' (which means that it probably is unattainable).

Coveney urged his fellow ministers to start moving from 'fixed' to 'compromise' positions so the Council can reach a common position. 'This hasn't happened yet and it needs to start happening now,' he warned, noting wide support for Dublin's work programme and the 'extraordinary' job by the Parliament's agriculture committee (ComAgri) to establish its negotiating position last week.

Ministers raised a number of lingering individual concerns at Monday’s meeting, notably the need to make the 'greening' requirements of the proposed reforms simple and workable and the risk to certain sectors posed by the planned equalisation of subsidies within member states or regions by 2019.

The plan to tie 30 per cent of direct payments to new environmental requirements - and for recognition of 'equivalent' measures - remains a big concern for many countries, with the Dutch delegation warning there is still 'a lot to do' at both a technical and political level. The UK, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia all reiterated calls for states to have more flexibility to implement greening, though French agriculture minister Stéphane Le Foll urged ministers to focus on reaching a compromise based on the Commission's proposals.

Briefing on CAP developments

Here is a video briefing by agricultural journalists on latest developments in the CAP as the Irish presidency starts: Briefing

Not sure if all the foot traffic in the background is meant to provide authenticity, but it could be distracting.

Farmers could not survive without subsdies

Almost three quarters of farmers say they could not survive without subsidies, according to a Farmers Weekly poll: Subsidies

How does one wean farmers off their subsidy dependence so that they become more like any other business that relies on returns from the market? No one is suggesting that they should be withdrawn overnight. The official Defra position is to phase out the single farm payment and that is resisted by most other member states.

Part of the solution must to be to ensure that farmers are better able to earn a return from the market through competition policy measures that redress the balance between them and supermarkets. But the politics of that are complicated as supermarkets deliver cheap food to consumers whose budgets are already under pressure.

Defra boss upsets farmers

Defra secretary of state Owen Paterson has upset farmers by calling for direct payments to them to be scrapped as possible. He argues that taxpayer subsidies should be limited to public goods: Paterson

His predecessor had a farm organisation background so such plain speaking may come as a shock.

The Irish presidency

In this video interview, Irish farm minister Simon Coveney looks at the challenges facing the Irish presidency in terms of securing CAP reform: Presidency

'Could do better' is end of term report

As 2012 draws to a close and the Cypriot EU Presidency concludes, agriculture ministers and MEPs across the 27 member states took time this week to reflect on how CAP reform negotiations have gone over the past six months.

Agra Europe reports that there was a general feeling of satisfaction that significant progress has been made but also the admission that much work still needs to be done in the coming six months under the Irish Presidency.

On Tuesday, ComAgri announced that from the near 8 000 amendments to the European Commission’s CAP reform proposals sought by member states, the total has now been whittled down to just 100 compromise agreements, which will be voted on in January. A final vote will only take place once the EU’s next long-term budget has been agreed (likely to be early February, 2013).

The outgoing Cypriot Presidency released its progress report on its six months in charge of CAP reform, praising the 'positive spirit' of the negotiations over the period, but observers would still probably come away with a nagging feeling of ‘must try harder’.

As Irish farm minister Simon Coveney reiterated, 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,' admitting it would be a 'big ask' to get a CAP deal by June, which is widely seen as the deadline if parts of the new policy will be ready for 2014.

Many ministers were openly frustrated at the lack of progress on the EU’s 2014-2020 budget, which is undoubtedly the major hurdle for the reform of the CAP. Of course, the amount spend on the CAP is a hurdle in the way of a budget agreement in the eyes of some member states, not least the UK. Beyond that there are still obviously problems to be ironed out with the ‘greening’ element of the proposals as well as questions about the plan for the internal convergence of direct payments. What that means is that some get more, but perhaps not as much as they hoped for, and others get less. That's never an easy balance to draw.

France determined to defend CAP budget

The EU budget for 2013 was finally signed off this week after the European Parliament approved a compromise agreement between member states that will give the CAP slightly less next year than was originally proposed by the European Commission, reports Agra Europe

CAP payments for 2013 will total €56.44 billion, a marginal increase from the current year but €350 million lower than what the Commission asked for. This leaves the Pillar One direct aid and market-related payment kitty at €43.93bn, up 0.13 per cent from this year, with the Pillar Two rural development budget set at €12.5bn - 3.38 per cent greater than in 2012.

On the subject of the next long term budget, France set out its stall against any cuts to the CAP budget for 2014-2020 and called for greater reductions from elsewhere in order to appease countries such as Sweden and the UK, who are fighting for greater reductions than are currently on the table. If the CAP is left inviolate, this would mean quite substantial cuts elsewhere, in particular in programmes that might do more to stimulate the growth of the European economy than the CAP.

As the biggest recipient of CAP funding within the EU, France is determined to pull back further funds into the agricultural budget after European Council President Herman Van Rompuy proposed a less drastic reduction of €17bn at the EU budget talks, softening on the €25bn he had earlier proposed.

But 'several billion' euros will still need to be restored to the budget if it is to satisfy France, the country’s European Affairs minister Bernard Cazeneuve told journalists at a European Parliament plenary session this week. But no specific amount to be recovered for the CAP is being aimed for, a spokesperson for the French Agriculture Ministry told Agra Europe.

Top official admits CAP deal will be delayed

A senior European Commission official let slip this week that the Brussels establishment is now preparing for the likelihood that reform of CAP Pillar One will be delayed until 2015, as time is running out on reaching a political agreement in time for the start of 2014, reports Agra Europe.

Gwilyn Jones, a member of EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos’ cabinet, is perhaps the first official to publicly say what many analysts have been thinking for a while now – that positions on this particular part of the CAP are too far apart for an agreement to be reached in the near term.

With the fairly radical overhaul of the Pillar One direct payment scheme proposed by the Commission and the subsequent debate on issues such as the convergence of payments and ‘greening’, it was always likely that this particular part of the CAP would divide member states.

However, the crux of the matter is still almost certainly the failure to conclude talks on the EU’s next long term budget – the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. MEPs have made it clear they are not prepared to make any decisions on the CAP until they know how much money they have to work with.

Now that a MFF agreement is not likely to happen until late January at the earliest – when the talks will resume – it puts added pressure on efforts to reach a compromise deal and put the relevant measures in place in time for January 1, 2014.

Agra Europe's Chris Horseman believes that an agreement on CAP reform was not likely to happen before next summer at the earliest - but it would appear that even this deadline will now not be met.

So what now? Ciolos has made clear that he is still aiming for an agreement to be made in time for 2014 but has also mooted the idea of a “transitional year” taking us to 2015.

It is unlikely, however, that Pillar One in this transitional year will look any different to how it does now. The exact same structure for CAP direct payments would have to remain, provisionally, in place. The only difference is that if in the meantime agreement is reached on an MFF deal that will see the CAP budget trimmed, there will be less money available from 2014.

The assumption would be that the existing single farm payment scheme would ‘roll forward’ but with a cut in the budget of the order of 2-3% - and under the Financial Discipline Mechanism rules that would translate automatically into a proportional cut in each farmer’s direct aid payment cheque in 2014. This is a scenario which is unlikely to satisfy anyone, but such an outcome is all too familiar with the CAP.

There is more optimism that a common position on Pillar Two – rural development – can be reached in time for 2014, as was expressed at the recent Farm Council. How this could sit with a Pillar One framework that maintains the status quo will be something for MEPs and domestic ministers to ponder as they enter the Christmas and New Year break.

Progress towards a European food model?

This paper reports on an Austrian workshop that sought to review progress towards a European food model: Food model

The construction of such a model has been an aspiration of the EU since the Fischler reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. It sought to replace an earlier crude productionist model that emphasised the quantity of production with one that put the consumer at the centre of the model with an emphasis on quality rather than quantity. Implicit in this approach was a contrast with an American model which still adhered to a more Fordist model of homogeneous mass production. The interests of the farmer were still served because high value added production offered the prospect of better margins per unit of production.

The flaw in this model was that, although niche production had flourished as consumers had become wealthier and more discerning, a lot of European agriculture was still dependent on price-sensitive commodity production. An era of austerity has reinforced consumer behaviour in which price is the dominant consideration.

The Austrian paper takes sustainability as an unifying principle and considers the relationship between a number of dimensions such as food safety, food quality, regionality, diversity and value and appreciation of food.

From a British perspective there is an interesting absence of any reference to animal welfare. Indeed, it is claimed that conservation is promoted by 'bringing rare species and endangered animal breeds back on the table of consumers.' In other words, one eats that which is conserved.

Nevertheless, this paper is an interesting contribution to a continuing debate: what, if anything, is distinctive about European agriculture and how can the CAP best serve it?

Trade-distorting subsidies fall

Trade-distorting farm subsidies in the EU fell in the last year for which figures are available (2009-10) to a mere €15.5bn. This puts them well within limits proposed in the Doha Round: Trade

The same source contains a useful summary of the agricultural dimension of the recent EU budget negotiations: Budget

Irish farmers have been worried enough by the threat to farm subsidies to occupy Commission offices in Dublin: Protest

Auditors criticise SAPS scheme

A scheme designed to support farmers' income in the accession states is riddled with flaws. Among the unintended beneficiaries have been ski clubs, hunting associations and real estate companies.

The European Court of Auditors has published its first special report (SR16/2012) on income support paid to farmers in the new Member States. It is calling for reform to ensure that income support be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities. In particular, public entities managing state land and not otherwise involved in farming should be excluded from EU farm support and no payments should be made in relation to unutilized land or land which is mainly devoted to non-agricultural activities.

The Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) was designed to enable the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, to support farmers’ income. It is currently applied in 10 EU Member States and the related expenditure amounted to 5 billion euro in 2011. The Court’s report focuses on the beneficiaries of the policy, on eligible land and on the contribution of the scheme to the objective of supporting farmers’ income.

The overall conclusion of the audit is that the implementation of the scheme resulted in a number of questionable features:

• The definition of the beneficiaries of the scheme is inadequate: it permits payments to be made to beneficiaries not engaged in agricultural activity, or only marginally so. Cases in point include real estate companies, airports, hunting associations, fishing and ski clubs.
·
• In addition, in some of the countries concerned, aid was legally paid to (and supported the income of) public entities managing state land but not otherwise involved in farming. The state is the largest beneficiary of SAPS payments in Hungary (14 million euro in 2010 for 82000 ha of land).
·
• The total agricultural area in relation to which SAPS should be paid was not reliably determined by the Member States but accepted by the Commission. This influenced the amount of aid per hectare paid to each farmer which was sometimes higher or lower as it should have been. Some countries revised the total agricultural areas without proper justification. This allowed them to fully use their respective financial envelope.
·
• In spite of efforts made by the Member States concerned, aid was paid for parcels where no agricultural activity was carried out.
·
• There is an inherent contradiction in the design of SAPS aid: it is, on the one hand, intended to support the individual income of farmers, but on the other hand, the aid is distributed to farms based on the area of parcels of land at their disposal.
·
• SAPS primarily benefits large farms: overall, 0.2% of the beneficiaries receive more than 100000 € representing 24% of the total value of payments.
·
• Finally, even though SAPS was designed as a transitional scheme, most Member States have not prepared for the introduction (foreseen in 2014) of the system (based on payment entitlements) which is already in place in EU-15 Member States. This may result in significant delays in payments in the future.

The Court recommends a better targeted and results oriented policy whereby support to farmers’ income should be directed to the active farmer who conducts concrete and regular agricultural activities and should exclude public entities. The eligibility of land for aid should be clearly defined and limited to parcels on which concrete and regular agricultural activities are required. A more balanced distribution of aid between farmers should be sought either by capping higher individual payments or by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the farms in the different regions. The Commission should address the structural weaknesses in the farm sector and actively support the Member States and more closely monitor their preparations for the introduction of a future entitlement-based scheme.

Could European young farmers become extinct?

The number of young farmers in Europe today is falling fast. We have reached a point where only 6 per cent of farmers across the European Union are under the age of 35. The situation is even worse in members states like Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom, where the young represent less than 3 per cent of the entire farming community. This state of affairs is reaching breaking point, with five times as many farmers over the age of 65 than there are farmers under the age of 35 – this cannot continue for long.

With so little influx of youth into European agriculture, the sector could soon lose much of its competitiveness on a global market. Young farmers' representatives consider that nothing less than future food security and the vitality of rural areas across Europe is at risk. If nothing is done about the significant lack of generational renewal in the sector, European food production will be hit particularly hard as many elderly farmers retire. This is an aspect of food security that has been very much neglected.

With the Common Agricultural Policy currently being reformed for 2014-2020, there is a window of opportunity to counteract these developments and to prioritise this key age group in EU agricultural policy. If action isn’t taken now, European agriculture will not be able to face present and future challenges such as increased environmental protection, job creation, biodiversity conservation and above all, food security.

In order to raise awareness of this issue among the general public and policymakers alike, CEJA – the European Council of Young Farmers – has recently launched a campaign entitled “Future Food Farmers” which I am happy to endorse. With the support of European Commissioners, MEPs and key stakeholders in the sector, CEJA aims to reverse the negative demographic trend that is common to all Member States of the European Union and help young farmers to secure the future of European agriculture.

Everyone can express their support for the cause by taking the campaign’s online pledge, and join public figures like the President of the EESC Staffan Nilsson, Commissioners Dacian Cioloş, Janusz Lewandowski and Janez Potočnik, as well as MEPs Paolo De Castro, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos and George Lyon in their efforts to keep EU agriculture alive. The online pledge is here: Pledge

The campaign video can be viewed here: Young farmers

Grey mouse rocks France

EU Council president Herman van Rompuy has proposed an EU budget that is €20bn less than the current EU budget and at least €75bn less than the European Commission's original proosal. It focuses cuts on agricultural spending including a €13.2bn reduction in farm subsidies which drew a furious response from France. It does also plan to cut the UK rebate of €3.5bn.

There is also a row going on about cohesion funds. The Friends of Cohesion constitute a group of 14 member states from central and eastern Europe, with some from Southern Europe. They face a group of member states known as the Friends of Better Spending, but there are only seven of them (Austria, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden. Another name could be the 'group of net contributors': Better Spending .

Not all of those seven would sign up to a significant reduction in farm spending. Indeed, one could only rely on the Netherlands and Sweden.

Van Rompuy's proposals would mean €13.2bn less for Pillar One (P1) and €8.3bn less for Pillar Two (P2) for the 2014-2020 period than wanted by the European Commission in its initial CAP reform proposals. The cut is three times greater than the €6.8bn the Cypriot Presidency had suggested trimming off earlier this month, proposals which themselves caused a big storm.

The Cypriot plan would have seen €50bn cut from the overall EU budget, but Van Rompuy’s proposal would double that figure to nearly €100bn. Under the Council President’s plan, spending on P1 direct aid payments and market tools over the seven years would go from the €283.05bn tabled by the EU executive down to a maximum of €269.85bn, nearly 4.7% less. The CAP would bear the brunt of further cutbacks as a planned 'Crisis Reserve' to fund emergency measures - for which the EU executive had earmarked €3.5bn - would also be included under P1.

The P2 budget for co-financing national rural development programmes should go from €91.97bn to €83.67bn, around 9% less, Van Rompuy said. The Commission proposal for P2 already involves a 10% cut in real terms from 2013 to 2020, so a further €8.3bn reduction could mean some member states seeing their rural development envelope cut by more than 20% in real terms. Potentially, at least, this form of spending can be more socially useful than Pillar 1.

Somewhat predictably, EU Farm Commissioner Dacian Ciolos responded that the suggestion 'goes against efforts to make the CAP fairer, greener and more efficient'. He also said that this was the 'first step away from a common agricultural policy' and that it could set the CAP budget 'back 30 years'.

With the crunch talks on the multiannual financial framework set for next week (November 22-23), one interpretation is that the Council President has decided that some appeasement of the net contributing states is needed to ensure that the summit is not ‘dead on arrival’ and that progress can be made.

Meanwhile, Agra Europe analyst Brian Gardner has suggested a way to knock around 25% off the EU budget for 2014-20 in his latest comment article – reduce the size of the CAP budget by 75%.

He argues that with the strong likelihood that crop prices will remain at historically high prices in the years to come, largely due to increasing demand, the EU can afford to only provide subsidies to those farmers who really need it.

The EU's most efficient cereal growers in France, Germany and the UK, for example, with average yields of above eight tonnes per hectare, can make adequate profits without receiving EU income subsidies, he argues.