What kind of financial framework would help EU towards a genuine sustainability?

In my blog post from July 3I wrote about the reflection paper on the future of EU finances recently issued by the Commission. Out of five possible future scenarios the only one worth further discussion apperars to be the fourth one, so called “radical re-design”. This is however not really radical but just a bunch of small steps into more or less right direction. Therefore let us make one step futher and draft a proposal for financing real transition to sustainable Europe. This can be called scenario 4.1. “Financing sustainable Europe. Radical re-desing – really”. This blog is mostly about sustainable agriculture, therefore this part shall be drafted with slightly more detail.

General trend

1. Payments planned only for financing provision of public goods of European significance that are not sufficiently paid for by the markets.
2. Share of cohesion policy and common agricultural policy reduced.
3. Focus on future challenges for Europe.


Expenditure

Common agricultural policy
1. Direct payments in their present form, so called national envelopes and two-pillar structure of the policy abolished.
2. Focus on farmers providing public goods who would not survive on an open market without the subsidies (including when appropriate small farms and unfavourable areas).
3. Measures to decrease dependency of EU agriculture on mineral ferlisers, pesticides, fossil fuels and imported fodder.
4. Speeding up transition to circular economy, especially by means of increase in organic farming; support for transition to organic production, and if needed (not enough profitablity on the market) also to continued organic farming.
5. High nature value farming, especially management and restoration of semi-natural meadows and pastures secured on the scale needed for conservation of European biological and landscape diversity, with well-targeted support measures in place.
6. Genetic resources of European agriculture (plant varieties and animal breeds) efficiently conserved and sustably used, with necessary support made available.
7. Budget of agri-environment and -climate measures increased so as to make possible a palette of measures including both broad and more narrowly targeted measures.
8. Provision of same kind of public goods paid same support across EU unless clear differences in costs would occur, in which case the payment will be based on real costs.

Environment
Based on the experiences from LIFE programme sufficient funding for the environmental policy will be established.


Energy, industry and transport
Only projects with sufficent potential for significant EU-scale reduction of fossil fuel use and hence decrease of carbon dioxide emissions, and drive production towards circular economy will be supported.


Innovation
1. Support for research helping to wean society from fossil fuels, mineral fertilisers as well as pesticides, biocides and other dangerous chemicals.
2. Support for research in conservation and sustainable use of biodiveristy.


Econimic, social and teeritorial cohesion
1. Support to poorer regions and cross-border cooperation.
2. Focus on social inclusion, employment, skills, innovation, climate change, energy and environmental transition.


New priorities
More efficient support for sustainable development globally, including in the source countries of migration.

Revenue

1. Simplification of current system, including abolishing all rebates.
2. Establishing EU-wide environmental taxes on carbon dioxide, mineral nitrogen, taxes on most commonly used pesticides.
3. Introducing tax on international financial transaction if needed to finance EU priority expenditure.

An after-thought


Actually the proposed changes are not radical at all, they just constitute some common-sense ideas about stopping waste of money and starting financing activities necessary to secure our common future.

Post author: Aleksei Lotman

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