The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents


Written evidence submitted by Valentin Zahrnt

VALENTIN ZAHRNT IS A SENIOR FELLOW AT THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY (ECIPE) AND EDITOR OF WWW.REFORMTHECAP.EU

1.  The Commission communication does not address key issues (such as budget size, budget distribution across instruments and co-financing) and it remains vague on most issues it covers. For a detailed examination of the text, see: http://www.reformthecap.eu/blog/commission-communication-cap-examination.

2.  The three reform options are particularly underdevelopped. It is clear that the Commission rejects the third, ambitious option, which it criticized heavily in its leaked draft. Prof Berkeley Hill even argues: "It is hard to read the Commission's 'options' for the CAP after 2013 without a feeling that there is something rigged about it. The Commission must well know that some of its proposals are non-starters. This concerns especially option 2, the moderate reform scenario. In the leaked version of the communication, the Commission has severely criticized option 3, making clear that this is just a strawman. This implies that the most likely outcome is option 1: to broadly continue the status quo but with some of the details tweaked."

See: http://www.reformthecap.eu/blog/commission-communication-cap-appraisal-hill.

3.  The leaked and the final version are equally disappointing. It is an attempt to greenwash direct income support. The crux is a lowering of current cross-compliance standards and the introduction of another layer of eco-conditionality. But the greening of blanket subsidies is not sufficient. What is needed are truly targeted payments that reward farmers' individual provision of public goods in line with local conditions.

See: http://www.reformthecap.eu/blog/leaked-commission-communication.

4.  The Commission proposals are incompatible with the mainstream opinion of academics and scientific advisory bodies.

See: http://www.reformthecap.eu/sites/default/files/1010%20comparison%20DG%20Agri%20official%20 and%20Declaration.pdf for a comparison between the communication and a declaration by agricultural economists from across Europe issued in 2009. See also agricultural economists' criticism of policy-makers' status quo bias at http://www.reformthecap.eu/declaration. The Commission contradicts the vision of environmental NGOs and other bodies—see: http://www.reformthecap.eu/cap-visions.

5.  The Commission proposals have been received rather positively by the press/public because of their reform-minded public-goods rhetoric. However, the key points made or implied (maintaining the SFP with full EU-financing, a strong LFA element that partly moves into the first pillar, a large CAP budget that is needed to finance the proposed objectives and instruments etc) are conservative and will appeal to the EP and most member states.

6.  The current CAP, and the proposed changes, has only minor impact on the competitiveness of UK agriculture. It is important to avoid that a shift towards increased support for competitiveness leads to more old-style, farm-level measures, such as investment aid, that are distorting and administratively burdensome. More public investment should instead be undertaken in research and development.

7.  It should be kept in mind that competitiveness of any given sector is not a suitable policy objective. The relative strength of different sectors and trade balances should be left to the market. Government should only interfere if its action promises a clear net gain for society. Declining productivity, output, exports or market shares are no valid justifications for governmental interference in markets.

8.  The formal structure (eg two-pillar) does not matter in itself. The crucial question is whether the non-targeted instruments of the first pillar (market intervention and SFP) are maintained and whether co-financing by member states is enhanced. On the merits of co-financing, see: http://www.reformthecap.eu/blog/co-financing-of-public-goods.

9.  If the UK wants to achieve a greener and leaner CAP, it will be essential to signal 1) that the size of the CAP budget will depend on the quality of CAP spending, 2) that reform of the UK rebate is conditional on CAP reform (an issue that will be crucial to win German support for CAP reform) and 3) that the UK is willing to risk another EU crisis if the overall EU financial framework fails to respond to EU priorities.

December 2010


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 15 April 2011