What is broken? Nothing less than the biggest policy of EU

What is CAP?

CAP is a well known acronym but how many people do actually know how it works? Most people have heard something about subsidies paid for farmers but that is it.

CAP is about 40% of EU spending the bureaucracy is complicated and not even the farmers understand all of it. The money is divided between two so called pillars. Pillar I is financed totally from the EU budget and it takes up about three quarters of CAP (or about 30% of all EU spending). Biggest part of it are the so called direct payments, most of these are today decoupled from production.
There are also limited possibilities to pay the coupled support and market related measures but their budget is limited. 30% of direct payments is dedicated to so called “greening”: ecological focus areas, crop diversification and protection of permanent grassland. Pillar II finances measures according to rural development plans, including agri-environment-climate measures. Getting dizzy? Read how European Commission presents CAP as a perfect policy: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-631_en.htm

Broken? Why?

Given share of the budget one would expect that farmers are content but asking them you would often get a different reply. Farmers think the policy is bureaucratic and various requirements, including those meant for protection of environment way too complicated.

If farmers consider environmental conditions too demanding then maybe CAP is indeed good at protecting environment? Not really. “Greening” - the biggest change due to the last reform – is creating some headache to farmers but very little real environmental benefit. The bigger direct payments the bigger risk of pollution. Agri-environmental measures do produce some benefits but they are only a small part of CAP spending.

Direct payments paid per hectare differ significantly between the Member States. The farmers from the Baltic States thus complain about unfair treatment. But farmers from Malta, Netherlands or Belgium are also not content, since their payments are to decrease in time. The reason why are there direct payments does not get much attention in these discussions.

Direct payments are also a case of environmentally harmful subsidy. We will explain this in next blog post. And we will try to think of the future.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PRESS RELEASE: European Union’s agricultural policy needs a significant change

Image
Environmental and agricultural organisations, farmers, scientists, officials and other participants attended a conference on 1st and 2nd of September in Tallinn and Matsalu to discuss the future of the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP). Despite their versatile background, most speakers found that the CAP requires significant changes. Multiple participants signed an open letter addressed to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of the European Union and other relevant EU decision-makers with their proposals how to repair the policy. Speakers at the conference stressed the importance of agriculture in providing food and various public goods. At the same time negative sides of the present-day agriculture like impact on water, problems with pesticides, biodiversity loss, hardship faced by family farms and land grabbing were discussed. Positive examples of dealing with these problems were also presented. The overall conclusion shared by most speakers, however, was that CAP does secur
Read more

A piece of somewhat better news. Version 2.0.

Image
I have written a post with a similar name  and this is indeed something linked both in substance and in form. The two stories form an interesting pair of mosaic mirror images, where some aspects are almost identical and some more or less precisely opposite. Several chemicals, including many biocides and pesticides can disrupt the endocrine system. Such effects have been documented long ago and are now considered a major hazard. European Parliament held a vote on the subject of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the beginning of October. The Commission had, after long delay finally adopted a delegated regulation on EDCs – something that the European Court of Justice had demanded it to do long ago. The delegated regulation, however, fell short of what is necessary to protect our health and environment from the hazards of EDCs, and as such was not in accord with the delegated powers given to the Commission by the existing regulations on pesticides and biocide
Read more

Milline finantsraamistik tagaks Euroopa Liidu kestliku arengu pärast 2020. aastat?

Üle-eelmisespostituses kirjutasin Euroopa Komisjoni üllitatud aruteludokumendist ühenduse rahanduse tuleviku teemal. Vaadates otsa seal pakutud võimalikele tulevikustsenaariumitele leidsin, et ainus üldse pikemat arutelu vääriv lahendus on neljandana pakutav, millele oli pandud ambitsioonikas nimi „põhjalikud ümberkorraldused”. Siiski on ka selle näol tegemist pigem pisikeste sammudega õiges suunas kui tõelise tulevikuvaatega. Sestap siis võtan pakutud neljanda stsenaariumi aluseks ja sellest lähtudes visandan mõned mõtted tõeliselt jätkusuutliku Euroopa jaoks sobiva finantsraamistiku kohta. Nimetagem siis seda stsenaariumiks 4.1. „Säästva Euroopa rahandus. Põhjalikud ümberkorraldused – päriselt”. Kuivõrd käesoleva blogi eesmärk on töötada eelkõige säästva põllumajanduse nimel, on põllumajanduspoliitikaga seonduvad kulud veidi põhjalikumalt lahti kirjutatud võrreldes muude valdkondadega. Üldine suundumus 1. Maksed kavandatakse ainult sinna, kus need on vajaliku turu poolt mitt
Read more