reforms and the future of the cap
DESCRIPTION
reforms and the future of the CAP. Istvan MADARASZ [email protected] PhD School of Economics and Management SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary. Outline. I. Introduction II. 1992 – Mac Sharry III. Agenda 2000 IV. Mid-Term Review 2003 V. Health Check and simplification VI. CAP post-2013 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
reforms and the future of the CAP
Istvan [email protected]
PhD School of Economics and ManagementSZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Outline• I. Introduction• II. 1992 – Mac Sharry• III. Agenda 2000• IV. Mid-Term Review 2003• V. Health Check and simplification• VI. CAP post-2013• Conclusions
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
I. IntroductionHungary as a major food supplier of Europe until the 20th century
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
I. IntroductionJános KÁDÁR and the (post)communist regime
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
I. Introduction
Hungary today
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
I. Introduction• Original CAP objectives
• Principles for CMOs:
• Historical background and specificities by product• CMOs in a dynamic world – SINGLE CMO• Not to exclude but to co-ordinate competition
1. Unity of the market
2. Community preference
3. Common finance
Modernization
Stable food markets
Income levels in agriculture
Food security
Consumer food prices
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
I. Introduction• CAP: a policy facing the challanges of a diverse 21st century agriculture and that of rural areas
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
1992 – Raymond Mac Sharry
„The CAP reform agreement was an acheivement of enormous proportions. It succeeded in controlling surpluses, in controlling the budget, in raising farm incomes, in providing for environmental protection and in providing good quality food at reasonable prices for the consumer.”
University of Limerick
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
II. 1992 – Mac Sharry
• Structural surpluses, price conflicts• Financial difficulties due to the anomalies
of the exchange mechanism• Fiscal limits of the EU budget• Unsuccessful adjustments of the CAP in
the 80s• Expansion of the rural development notion
Phenomena triggering a profound reform
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
II. 1992 – Mac Sharry
• CMOs included in the 1992 reform:
• 1996: F&V
Measures and elements
• Council regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables• Council regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products• Council regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits
Cereals
Oilseeds
Protein crop
Beef
Ovine
Tobacco
input-based direct payments
set-aside
redifined institutional prices
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
II. 1992 – Mac Sharry
• 1999: wine
• Accompanying measures
Measures and elements (contd.)
Council regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine
Agri-environmental measures
Afforestation
Preferential pension scheme
pre-RD measures
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
II. 1992 – Mac Sharry
• In spite of the profound reform of the cereals sector => temporary results and regaining structural surpluses
• Highly protective CMOs ignored: sugar, milk• Supply control measures: costly and eludable• Fraud• Manifestation of the need for further reforms
Criticism (general)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Agenda 2000
„Agenda 2000 is an action programme whose main objectives are to strenghten Community policies and to give the European Union a new financial framework for the period 2000-06 with a view to enlargement.”
European Commission
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
III. Agenda 2000It was launched in 1999 in the form of twenty legislative texts relating to the following priority areas:
-continuation of the agricultural reform;
-increasing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund;
-strenghtening the pre-accession strategy for candidate countries;
-adopting a financial framework for the period 2000-06 in order to enable the Union to meet the main challanges of the beginning of the 21st century.
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
III. Agenda 2000The importance of the 2000-2006 period – agriculture
Developments arising from WTO talks
Enlargement: 10 NMSs , pre-accession funds (PHARE, SAPARD, ISPA)
An integrated RD scheme: 2nd pillar of the CAP (built upon former „accompanying measures”)
Main objectives – agriculture (compliance with original ones?)
Competitiveness
Food safety
Environment, animal welfare
Farm income
Management of natural resources, landscape
Maintaining rural communities: diversification of incomes
The future of European rural areas: sustainability (2nd pillar)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
III. Agenda 2000Measures adopted
• price cuts;• partial compensation through direct payments;• modulation;• voluntary cross complience;• national envelope;• modifications to the supply management tools;• second pillar: more numerous and more integrated
RD measures (young farmers, etc.) – FEOGA Guarantee and Orientation finance.
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
III. Agenda 2000Evaluation
• EU made major steps in terms of:
• BUT the original concept was severly „diluted”
by the compromise efforts
adaption EU farmers to global tendencies
handling the internal problems of CAP
preparation for the enlargement
The difference between EU price levels and that of global markets declined too slowly – remaining structural surplus
Cereals remain the most subsidized sector (production area)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
III. Agenda 2000• BUT the original concept was severly „diluted” by
the compromise efforts (contd.)
Existing tension in beef and milk CMOs not eased
Adopted measures did not satisfy WTO commitments/expectations - EU position in WTO talks weakened
Illusionary budget savings
Conditions for obtaining direct payments: performance falls short of expectations
Enlargement: CEE countries
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
IV. Mid-Term Review 2003
„The studies indicate that „decoupling” aid from production would result in production adjustments where needed, but would clearly not lead to production abandonment.”
European Commission
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
IV. Mid-Term Review 2003Based on an initiative to technically adjust the Agenda 2000 package…„Further” decoupling: Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
historical model, payment entitlement (PE)regional model, hybrid models
Compulsory Cross Compliance – Farm Advisory System CMOs: some included in Council regulation (EC) 1782/2003, some under separate CMO reformsStrenghtening second pillar – EAFRD Modulation, national reserve
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
IV. Mid-Term Review 2003
Standard – SPS conversion (2005-2006-2007)SAPS – SPS conversion (2007-2008-2009) or 2011?Cross compliance implementation (GAECs: 2004-2005
SMRs: 2009-2011-2011)To be highlighted from a Hungarian point of view:
Lack of „Bottom-up approach” in:Representation of agricultural interests (the Chamber?)Rural development (EAFRD scandals, LEADER)Farm advisory systems, rural extension
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
IV. Mid-Term Review 2003
678
928
8
454
193
398
3211
2
672
105
69
235
3329
329
511
8
388
811
6
366
3171
289
827
3
586
751
7
323
526
7
199
9392
378
1767
7
275
713
5
232
570
6231
77
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
B DK D GR E F IRL I LUX NL A P FIN S UK HU2004
EAGGF Guarantee EAGGF Guidance National aid
Level of Support in the EU-15 and in Hungary (2004) (€/ha utilised agricultural area)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
V. Health Check and simplifiation
„The CAP has proven that EU agriculture can take such steps successfully and change, but needs to allow farmers to adjust in the context of a predictable policy path.”
Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
V. Health Check and on-going simplifiation
• Single CMO, simplification of cross compliance (my experiences)
• A quick reminder: Reform Treaty of Lisbon• Health Check (link to Budget Review)
Mid-term review?
Technical adjustment?
Profound reform?
The role of Marianne Fischer-Boel (Slovenian and French Presidency)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Assumptions to be drawn on the doorstep of the reform 2014-2020• CAP seems to enter the fast lane• Continous efforts to meet market
expectations and react (adjust) to global changes
• Success each time or continous failure?• Hungary and NMSs: to jump on a moving
train• Future vision: several scenarios
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Context- Latest developments in policy and on the
markets;- Crisis and EU budget (2014-2020)- Environmental concerns and ambitions- Lisbon Alignment and increased role of the
European Parliament (Dess Report)- Role of presidencies, Hungary included
VI. CAP post-2013
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
PRECEDINGS
• CAP reform on the agenda of each presidency since 2008
• Summer 2010: broad public consultation driven by the Commission
• Nearly 5,000 organisations, enterprises and individuals participated
• Many MSs declared preliminary positions
• COM Communication of November 18, 2010 takes note of the above circomstances
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Place and role of the Communication in the decision making process
• First official COM position• Requires official reaction from MSs
• Leaves vast room in politically sensitive issues
• Opportunity to harmonise MS positions
• Adopting conclusions (Council/Presidency)
• COM words legislative proposals based upon the discussions and the conclusions
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions
Majority of MSs accepts and supports the objectives proposed by COM
1. Viable food production:farm income and competitivity of the sector
2. Sustainable management of natural resources:public goods provided by farmers to be compensated
3. Balanced territorial development:mainataining rural communities and employment
(which are considered to contribute to the fulfilment of the EU2020 objectives)
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions (contd.)
• Destiny of agriculture and rural areas are to be handled jointly in the future, too
• Strong and a two-pillar structures CAP is needed
• Pillar I Pillar II
Further simplification is needed (both for farmers and authorities)
•greener•more equitable
•Promoting competitivity•Enhancing innovation•Focus on environment and climate change
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions (contd.)
Direct payments• DPs have already proven their value and usefulness;• Remain a basic component of the CAP;• Are deemed to compensate high EU standards;• Also compensate public goods and services
provided by the farmer;• Equitable, pragmatic, economically and socially
sustainable distribution, reducing the links to historical references on a step-by-step basis
• A transition period has to be established for adaptation;
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions(contd.)
Direct payments• Certain extent of flexibility should be provided to
the MSs;• The possibility of coupling should be maintained
for the sensitive sectors/region;• SAPS should be available for the countries in
question beyond 2014;• Active farmers should be the primary beneficiaries;• Capping is rejected by the MSs;• Further greening is welcome, but it should not
result in more complicated administration;• LFA payments should stay in pillar II
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions(contd.)
Market issues• EU agriculture must continue its market orientation to be more
competitive;• Existing tools form a safety net;• COM should be more responsive when activating tools;• More efficient functioning of the food chain is required: more
equitable distribution of income;• External trade: producers of third countries should respect the same
standards as in the EURisk management• Increasing production risks should be tackled on EU level;• The system should be voluntary and compatible with existing
national schemes
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Main content features of the PRES conclusions(contd.)
Rural development• Valuable policy that has to remain robust;• Competitivity, sustainability, economic potential of rural areas:
various tasks;• Generation change => young farmers and new entrants;• Infrastructure, knowledge;• Diurect sales, local markets;• Agri-environmental schemes are successful, should remain in
use;• Innovation is a central element: CAP both promotes and requires it;• Climate change: agriculture is also involved in slowing the process
and in adapting to it;• Programming: common rules should not get more complicated,
MSs should reflect their specificities even better;• Striving for synergy with regional and cohesion policies
June 24, 2011 Erasmus IP - SAFEPROINT, SZIE Gödöllő, Hungary
Thank you for your kind attention