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

European Commission briefing on CAP future in Tallinn

The Commission presented the CAP future communication “The Future of Food and Farming” in Tallinn on 14 th of December. Not much new info compared to what one can get from the reading of the document could be obtained. Some minor clarifications and indeed confirmation of the initial impressions did result from attending the meeting though. The commission wants to maintain the two-pillar structure and seems to have support from the member states on that. This does not mean that environmental NGOs should stop saying that this system is obsolete and needs a radical reform but the real question at this stage seems to be how much money will go into which pillar. Since the financing is part of MFF, the Commission was adamant not to give a hint about this matter. For the NGO community there seems to a clear case for a strong stance on MFF: all the cuts resulting from Brexit must happen in Pillar I – no cuts to Pillar II. Meeting shed some additional light on programming bo
Read more

EKO: The near future must bring a turn towards greener agriculture

Image
Yesterday, on April 27th, the Estonian Chamber of Environmental Associations (EKO) sent a set of proposals to the Minister of Rural Affairs for the next seven-year cycle of agricultural policy. EKO emphasizes that Estonian agricultural subsidies of the new funding period must focus more on organic farming, preserving landscape biodiversity, preventing of water pollution and conservation of soil's good health and restoration of carbon sequestration. Edges of fields, which are rich in blooming plants, help to preserve the biodiversity of landscapes and the natural benefits that are important to farmers. Often, however, the field edges look the opposite as in this photo, made by Aveliina Helm (University of Tartu) EKO's proposals for a new period in agriculture are based on expert knowledge and increasing volume scientific analyzes of the environmental impact of European and Estonian agriculture. EKO acknowledges that many of the activities and grants planned for the new period ar
Read more