Reflecting on the future of EU finances. How much money will there be for CAP payments?
The
Commission has recently issued a “reflection paper” (talking
“eurospeak”) on the future of the EU finances. In spite of
overall similarities to the style of the famous “Yes, minister”,
especially the deliberation about the need to make provision for a
strong EU civil service on page 23, there are parts in the document
that can at least be used as the basis for further discussions.
Most
important is the principle, long advocated by the civil society, that
public money should be used to pay for public goods. Indeed, this is
something that should form basis for any sound decision-making, so it
is good it has finally been clearly spelled out in the Chapter 2 of
the document.
This
principle should be used consistently to eliminate all the spending
without clear objectives, like the CAP Pillar I direct payments after
2020. Regrettably however the document falls short of its own stated
principles and such a step is not even discussed; only reduction of
the CAP direct payments is seen as a possible option. We need to be
fully consistent in applying the principle of public payments for the
public goods and that means eliminating the subisides that do not
provide any.
Chapter
3 of the document looks at the results of the current spending but
fails to analyse it systematically. CAP is presented as financing
“sustainable agriculture” though we all know how far is current
EU agriculture from true sustainability. It is important however that
the extreme inequality of CAP support distribution is acknowledged in
the document: 20% of the farms get 80% of the subsidies with the
remaing 80% having to be content with 20% of the budget. This shows
how hypocritic it is to use posters with pictures of small farms as
justification of the CAP. Chapter 4 discusses the future of the
policy areas, including the CAP but falls short of clear analysis and
vision.
Chapter
5 presents possible scenarios for the future:
a)
carrying on;
b)
doing less together;
c)
some do more;
d)
radical redesign and
e)
doing much more together.
Actually
of course there is not much choise. Carrying on business as usual
would be a slow suicide, doing less a bit quicker one. Simply doing
(meaning: spending) more, a kind of bureaucratic dream, would be a
disaster but is luckily simply impossible. Some doing more than
others is what is to some extent already happening and will continue
to be so, but making it the basic model would result in a
dysfunctional system. Therefore the radical redesign is the only real
option to consider.
Looking
into the details of “radical redesign” presented in the document
one cannot however avoid being dissappointed. This is “radical”
in “Yes, minister” world, but in real terms it is just a bunch of
very small steps in more or less right direction. For example, even
in this “radical” scenario the CAP direct payments are only
reduced, not abolished.
What
we need is a real radical redesign. EU public money should be used
for those and only those activities where it is the best way to
achive public goods provision for Europe. We need a public debate to
agree in public what kind of public goods do we need to provide with
EU future finances.
Author: Aleksei Lotman
Author: Aleksei Lotman
Comments
Post a Comment