The Commission’s proposals for the design of direct payments after 2013 include a greening component which, according to the draft legislative proposal (yet to be released on 12 October next and thus subject to change) will be mandatory for farmers in receipt of the basic income payment – thus becoming what I called in an earlier post a form of super-cross-conditionality.

In the impact assessment to be released with the legislative proposal the Commission has made some estimates of the cost of implementing these green measures. In this post, I examine these costs using information in the draft version of the impact assessment (Annex 12 Impact of Scenarios on the Distribution of Direct Payments and Farm Income).

This version was completed before June 2011 and the favoured proposal in the draft regulation now differs somewhat from the version examined in June. In particular, the obligation to maintain a green cover during winter has been dropped, but on the other hand the area to be setaside under the ecological focus requirement has been increased from 5% to 7% (see this post for a summary of the draft direct payments regulation).

The effect on farm income in 2020 of greening direct payments is determined by two factors. First, the implementation of the green measures increases the costs of farming either directly or in the form of loss in income. Second, various of the green measures (the requirement to maintain the 2014 level of permanent pasture, the requirement for crop diversification and, particularly, the ecological set-aside) will have an impact on supply and thus market prices. Thus, the greening leads to an increase of agricultural prices which tends to counterbalance the impact of the measures on cost.

The study concludes that the cost of greening will amount to €33/ha of potentially eligible area (PEA) in 2020. Just half of this figure is the cost of maintaining permanent grassland (€17/ha PEA). I have not been able to find any IACS figures on the size of the EU eligible area (if anyone knows where these can be found, please let me know). But the Commission estimates that the average direct payment will be €267 per ha PEA and, assuming a budget for direct payments of around €40 billion, this works out at a PEA of 151 million ha in 2020 (this compares to a utilised agricultural area of 178 million ha in EU-27 today). Using this figure, the cost of greening would amount to approximately €5 billion. This compares to the value of the green payment (30% of €40 bn) of around €12 billion.

Costs for the maintenance of permanent grassland and the ecological set-aside are in general the highest. For instance, among regions, the cost of maintaining permanent grassland in areas where an alternative use of land exists varies between €5 and €620/ha, with an EU average of €216/ha of grassland. With 5% of set-aside, the average cost per ha of land to be set-aside is €260/ha, but in some regions the costs per ha are more than €1,000. When the cost of greening is brought back to the total PEA, the amounts are lower. It is estimated that 29% of farms would have a cost between €15 and €30/ha of PEA, 4% would have a cost higher than € 200/ha of PEA, and about 21% of farms would not experience any cost.

In general, the costs are estimated to be highest in the Member States where maintaining large areas of permanent grassland is economically challenging due to pressure to substitute grassland by fodder crops (the Netherlands, Slovenia and Belgium).

It is interesting to speculate what is the value of the environmental benefit to be gained from incurring this cost? The Commission study cannot answer this question because of a lack of data on the environmental impact of the green measures. Instead, it quotes some figures on the land area likely to be affected by these measures.

Overall, for the EU-27, it estimates that 25% of the PEA will be affected. The risk of ploughing permanent grassland is reduced on about 13 million ha. On about 1.7 million ha of land, farmers receive incentives to cultivate alternative crops, mitigating the negative effects of monoculture, while about 3.6 million ha of arable land are set aside for ecological purposes. [It also estimated that an additional 20 million ha of arable land green cover is applied during winter time but, as noted above, this measure seems to have been dropped from the draft regulation].

But, in themselves, these figures do not give any insight into the size of the environmental benefits to be gained on these areas. Given this, it will be hard to answer the question posed at the beginning of this post whether incurring a €5 billion cost in this way is the most effective way of increasing the production of environmental public goods by farming.

Commission methodology

At a technical level, the credibility of the Commission estimates can be assessed by examining the methodology used. The Commission methodology is sophisticated and appears well suited to the task. My main criticism would be with the estimate of the cost of maintaining permanent pasture, which seems to me to be over-estimated. This is because the Commission methodology seems to assume that all permanent pasture that could be converted into arable cropland would be by 2020 in the status quo scenario. Its model does not have the capacity to estimate the proportion of permanent grassland that would actually be under threat in 2020, given the configuration of relative profitability (gross margins) between grazing livestock and other enterprises at that time.

The Commission’s analysis is carried out with FADN data at farm level using the AIDS7K model which covers 81,000 farms in 27 Member States. Expected prices and yield estimates in the scenario year 2020 are based on results taken from the Commission’s AGLINK-COSIMO model. Additionally, the labour input has been adjusted according to observed trends. The following steps are involved.

Crop diversification: This measure requires farms to cultivate at least 3 different crops, with no crop allowed to cover more than a 70% of the total arable land. It is assumed that the profitability of the additional crops corresponds to the average regional gross margin of field crop farms with diversified arable crops. Therefore, the costs are assumed to be equal to the difference between the farm’s individual gross margin of arable land and this average regional gross margin. In the cases where the farm individual gross margin is lower than this regional average it is assumed that there are no additional costs.

Ecological set aside: 5% of arable land has to be taken out of production. Costs for the implementation of the measure arise if the amount of fallow land on the farm is lower than the area to be set-aside. For each hectare to be additionally set aside it is assumed that the costs equal 2/3 of the farm individual gross margin of arable land. The idea is that farmers will set aside the less productive areas first (with the assumption that their gross margin is 2/3 of the farm average).

Preservation of grassland: Farmers have to maintain their permanent grassland. The cost of the implementation of this measure would be an opportunity cost. To estimate this cost, it was necessary to assess on each farm whether there is an opportunity to convert grassland to arable land or not and to quantify the magnitude of the opportunity cost.

There will be little or no opportunity to convert grassland in farms with poor soil quality. For the simulation it is assumed that this is the case on farms with a low share of arable land (less than 5%) and on farms where sheep and goats represent more than 70% of grazing livestock units. Furthermore, it is assumed that rough grazing and 10% of the remaining permanent pastures cannot be converted.

For the remaining permanent pasture it is assumed that the opportunity costs are 2/3 of the difference in gross margins between permanent grassland based dairy and beef production systems and alternative systems at regional level. Only a fraction of the difference is kept in order to take into account that the newly converted grassland would probably not have the same level of productivity as land already in fodder crops (the most productive areas have been converted into arable crops before).

For the calculation of the difference in gross margins at regional level, it is considered that there are no opportunity costs in regions where permanent grassland is not relevant or where there is no alternative identified (no cattle production). Otherwise, in regions where grass-based and forage crops based feeding systems co-exist in specialised farms, it is assumed that the first alternative to cattle production based on grass is to intensify production adapting the feeding system by ploughing the grassland to produce forage crops. Finally, in the remaining regions, where cattle production takes place in mixed cropping-livestock farms, the farm gross margins per hectare of utilised agricultural area in mixed and specialised cropping farms are used.

Green cover: I include this because it is included in the draft Commission study even if it appears to have been dropped from the draft legislative proposal. During winter, farms have to apply green cover on 70% of their arable land and the area covered by permanent crops, excluding the area of ecological set-aside The costs of the implementation of green cover are estimated based on assumptions on the affected area and the costs per ha. As there is no information on green cover available at farm level several assumptions had to be made: first, it was assumed that a large part of the area covered by cereals is covered during the winter, as in most cases a large share of the cereals are winter crops. As in the FADN it is not differentiated between winter and summer crops it was assumed that on each farm the share is equal to the national shares of winter and summer varieties published by EUROSTAT. Furthermore, it was assumed that 30% of the area of permanent crops is already covered. The costs per ha of land to be additionally covered in order to meet the requirement are assumed to be equal to 50€.

Market effects: These gross costs of implementing the green measures are the appropriate measure to compare with the value of the environmental benefits to be achieved. However, in terms of the impact on farm income, these gross costs will be offset by a transfer from consumers through higher commodity prices. These are reported in the Commission study by farm type rather than by commodity. The income effect over all farms is reported to be an increase of +0.6%, with more positive effects on crop farms (2.6%) and grazing drystock farms (+1.2%), while enterprises using grain as a feed are worse off (income on milk farms would fall -0.2% and on pig/poultry farms by -8.4%).

Overall, farm income falls by -2.8% on average in the Integration scenario (which includes the greening option, but also includes the effect of capping, where the money saved by capping and diverted to rural development is assumed lost to farmers). It seems that the positive impact of the market effects from reduced supply do not compensate farmers for the increased cost of implementing green measures in Pillar 1.

Overall, these results are probably quite a good guide to the likely outcomes of the proposals in the draft legislative proposal because, although the green cover requirement is removed (thus reducing costs), the ecological focus area requirement is increased from 5% to 7% (thus raising costs).

Photo downloaded from http://www.flickr.com/photos/13847552@N03/3906560447/ under Creative Commons licence

In the second in a series of in-depth conversations with leading figures in the debate on the future of the European Union’s common agricultural policy, Jack Thurston speaks with Ariel Brunner, Head of EU Policy at BirdLife International.

BirdLife International is “a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. BirdLife Partners operate in over one hundred countries and territories worldwide.”

Anyone who has been in and around Brussels policy circles over the past few years will know that Ariel Brunner is among the most knowledgeable and persuasive advocates for radical reform of the CAP. Recently been promoted from his role in charge of the agriculture policy brief, he is now BirdLife’s Head of EU Policy. Despite the new portfolio that includes big issues like climate change, he is certain to be in the mix at the crunch moments over the next year or two as the EU decides the future of the CAP.

In the course of the interview Ariel makes the case for an ambitions Europe-wide agriculture policy based upon the idea of putting money behind sustainable farming. He takes on the argument that in the wake of the food price spikes of 2008, Europe can afford to ignore the environment and calls for farmers and environmentalists to put past conflicts behind them and work together. He explains why the current political debate on the CAP is disappointing, with most member states defending narrow views of their own ‘national interest’ and the European Parliament too often defending the status quo.

CAP Reform Conversations: Ariel Brunner, BirdLife International from farmsubsidy.org on Vimeo.

Last Friday, Le Monde, the leading French daily newspaper, devoted a double-page spread on its comment pages to the common agricultural policy. Along with José Bové, Michiel A. Keyzer and Jean-Christophe Bureau I was invited to contribute an article to the debate. You can read it in French on the Le Monde website. I’ve posted an English version below.

Farming should protect Europe’s environmental resources not use them up

In 2009, farm incomes fell across the whole of the EU, not least in France. Dairy farms have been hardest hit with average prices down twenty per cent. This is despite the EU spending 55 billion euro on the common agricultural policy, one of whose aims is to ensure farmers a fair standard of living.

Not long ago the lists of who gets what from farm subsidies were considered ‘state secrets’. No wonder. They reveal that far from supporting small family farms, as the public might suppose, the CAP is lining the pockets of Europe’s biggest landowners and agri-businesses. The data shows that across Europe, 85 per cent of aid goes to the top 17 per cent of recipients.

This is because under the twisted logic of the CAP, the biggest farms with the best land get the most public assistance. Besides helping the rich get richer and big farms to buy out their smaller neighbours, subsidies for land ownership and production rights creates a kind of closed shop. Young farmers must buy their way in and are saddled with heavy debts.

Modern agriculture has brought an abundance of food but it has come at a price that goes beyond the financial costs of the CAP. Over the past quarter century, 40 per cent Europe’s farmland birds have disappeared. Bee colonies, so necessary for pollination of arable crops, are experiencing sudden collapse. Rivers and seas are fouled with fertilizers, pesticides and animal effluent. Each year more ancient natural pasture is put to the plough and more wetlands are drained: once gone, forever lost. The CAP has done little to help. In France, for example, payments for farmland conservation amount to 380 million euro in 2008. They are dwarfed by old-style subsidies of 9.34 billion euro.

Things have improved a little in the past few years and Europe is no longer hurting farmers in developing countries by dumping big surpluses overseas. Farmers are mostly free to farm to market demand rather than to government diktat. Yet these reforms have been opposed at every turn by farm unions and the politicians and civil servants in ministries of agriculture, between whom there are often close ties.

And now, even this modest progress is at risk from a new wind of protectionism blowing across the continent. With a growing world population and a changing climate the question of how humanity will feed itself is back on the political agenda. And rightly so. During the winter of 2007/08, food prices leaped to record levels and the world’s poor faced hunger and even comparatively wealthy Europeans felt the pinch. The response in some quarters has been to adopt a siege mentality and aim for self-sufficiency in food. Why, it is argued, should we put ourselves at the mercy of global markets when there is more we can squeeze out of our own lands?

To base an entire agriculture policy on this logic would be a mistake. Seductive though it may be, the promise of European food self-sufficiency is an illusion as it would come through even greater dependency on on imports of natural gas from Russia for fertilizer and oil from the Middle East to run farm machinery.

Instead of a renewed push for unsustainable agricultural intensification, we should encourage more environmentally-friendly farming. Climate change will increase the risk of drought, flooding and poor harvests and the frightening reality is that any food shortages we may have experienced lately are nothing compared to what we might expect mid-century. We would be wise to safeguard the fertility of our own over-exploited soils, conserve our own precious water, protect the biodiversity we need for the pollination of fruits and vegetables and the ecological resources we will need in an uncertain future. In Europe there is little ‘spare land’ to cultivate and big increases in yields will be hard to find. Increasing global food production can best be achieved by helping farmers in poorer countries whose agricultural productivity lags far behind ours.

Following the election of a new European Parliament and the appointment of a new Commission, the EU will this year embark on a fundamental review of its agriculture policy, which still accounts for 40 per cent of the community’s entire budget. Aside from providing income support to a sector of society that is, more often than not, richer than the average citizen, taxpayers get little for our money. The future must be a common European policy to protect and preserve Europe’s lands, recognising the role played by sustainable farming.

It is certain that such a shift will be fought hard by those who have got used to receiving ‘money for nothing’ but at a time when government budgets are under such strain, we cannot go on like this. In 2009 we discovered where money goes and witnessed the sheer the waste and inequity of a system that in 2008 paid 1,583,120 euro to Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein and 253,987 euro to Prince Albert of Monaco. This year we must start taking action to build a better policy.

Jack Thurston is co-founder of farmsubsidy.org, a network of journalists, researchers and activists pushing for greater transparency in the CAP.

The German Council for Sustainable Development has just published a report highlighting the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture and calling for a reform of the CAP direct payments system. It proposes a three-fold structure of payments: an environmental basic payment, a series of targeted agri-environmental payments for farmers who accept higher obligations, and a series of payments for high nature-value areas where the continuation of agricultural production is desirable but threatened on economic grounds.

For the environmental basic payment, it suggests that eligibility would be conditional on farmers turning over at least 10% of their area to environmentally-friendly husbandry with a view to maintaining a high level of biodiversity in the agricultural landscape throughout the EU.

The Council explicitly argues against the idea that farmers should be remunerated for fulfilling their statutory obligations with respect to the environment, animal welfare and food safety (cross compliance). It also justifies full EU financing of most of the payments “so long as these are directed to fulfilling EU objectives”, thus apparently advocating that some of the existing co-financed agri-environmental payments in Pillar 2 might be moved to Pillar 1 at least as far as financing modalities are concerned.

The report provides an excellent summary of the state of the debate on the environmental implications of agricultural policy (in German only, at least for the moment).

Read it here. Google Translate renders a passable English version of the press release for non-German speakers here.

I am a great fan of BirdLife’s work on the CAP, but in their joint position paper with the European Landowners’ Organization (ELO), presented on 27 January 2010, BirdLife has taken a step in the wrong direction. What’s more, it has announced that this is only the beginning of their cooperation with the ELO. [...]

Over at the excellent farmpolicy.com Roger Waite, editor of Agra Facts, has posted a thorough account of the appointment of the new EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos. He says that while Romania had sought the powerful position, it was really a case of appointment by default:

I tend to feel that Barroso was left with no other option, as no one was willing to put forward a good candidate – and that he was the only suitable candidate from among the nominees.

[...]

Five leading European farming and environmental NGOs, who between them boast several million members, have jointly published a blueprint for a new Common Agricultural Policy. In an unusual and very modern step, they have published a draft proposal and opened it for consultation. They will produce a final version in 2010. The proposal, which runs to 28 pages, is for a radical reorientation of the CAP away from a productivist and income support model towards a ‘public money for public goods’ ethos. [...]

When the negotiators in the Uruguay Round of the GATT introduced the concept of the ‘green box’ – farm support measures that are minimally or non-trade distorting and therefore exempt from any limits – few would have foreseen that within 15 years, the bulk of farm support in the developed world would be in the green box. A new book “Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals”, published by Cambridge University Press, shows the extent to which farm support has been shifted out of more traditional, trade distorting measures and into the green box. It addresses the vexed question of whether green box supports are really as trade-neutral and environmentally beneficial as they are claimed to be. [...]

A relatively new argument being used to justify support for agricultural production in the EU is that reductions in EU food production would be made up by increases elsewhere where less efficient production systems exist and thus would result in a heavier carbon footprint. This raises the question whether this statement is factually correct and what do we know about the relative carbon efficiency of production systems in different parts of the world? [...]

Anyone who has followed the CAP debate this past few years will have observed how the term ‘public good’ has been adopted by almost everyone seeking to advance their own vision of the CAP, from the dinosaurs of COPA-COGECA, to the more moderate National Farmers Union to the José Bové’s Via Campesina, organic farmers like the Soil Association, food policy wonks like Sustain and the Food Ethics Council, and of course the various environmental groups from where the public goods idea orignally hailed. [...]

The Green-10 grouping of European environmental groups (including big-hitters like Birdlife, WWF and Greenpeace) has produced a dismal scorecard of the outgoing European Commission’s environmental record. The report describes Agriculture Commissioner Fischer Boel has having begun well but quickly reverted to a ‘disappointing business-as-usual approach’ to the common agricultural policy. [...]

Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money intended for environmental projects is instead being used to prop up damaging farmning practices across Europe, according to a report Could Do Better compiled for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds by Birdlife International. The report highlights some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitats for wildlife. [...]

The influential Land Use Policy Group will be launching their vision for the future of the CAP after 2013 in Brussels on March 30th. This will be an important event in the long-term effort to clarify thinking about future policy so that it delivers benefits to the environment and rural communities. [...]

I’m told that the Finnish and Swedish governments (backed by the French EU Presidency) are working right now to insert a loophole to new EU biofuels sustainability standards that would allow the destruction of the world’s peat lands, with appaling consequences for increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter and verse from BirdLife International after the jump.
[...]

It’s no wonder that the Commission suppressed the Court of Auditors report on cross compliance for as long as it could – the report is damning and undermines the Commission’s case for the legitimacy of EU farm subsidies.

Speaking in 2005, Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel explained how she sees cross compliance in relation nearly 40 billion euros of public expenditure on payments to farmers:

“I would emphasise that decoupled payments are not “money for nothing”. To get the cheque in the post, a farmer has to respect a demanding range of standards related to the environment and animal welfare. We call this system “cross-compliance”.”

Today’s report by the Court shows that such a view is at best wishful thinking and at worst deliberately deceitful. Cross compliance does not represent a ‘demanding range of standards’ at all.

It should be stressed that this study is the biggest and most comprehensive to date. The Court says that it “carried out an audit in 2008 of the cross-compliance policy at the Commission and in seven Member States representing the diversity of agriculture across Europe”.

The top line conclusion pulls no punches:

“the objectives of this policy have not been defined in a specific, measurable, relevant, and realistic way, and that at farm level many obligations are still only for form’s sake and therefore have little chance of leading to the expected changes, whether reducing the size of payments or modifying farming practices.”

Senior officials at the Court are reported to be fuming at the suppression of the report until after the CAP health check was concluded. They should rest assured that their work has not been in vain: this report will play a big part in the discussions of the future of the CAP as part of the EU budget review.

Read the press release and the full report (60+ pages).

As Wyn Grant has observed, the Court of Auditors annual report on the 2007 EU budget published on Monday identified a clutch of weaknesses associated with the controls on spending on EU farm policies. The Court observes that “Some 20 percent of payments audited at final beneficiary level and revealed incorrect payments, a limited number of which had a high financial impact.” It concludes that farm subsidies remained “affected by a material level of error of legality and/or regularity”.

Strangely absent from the Court’s report was an evaluation of cross compliance – the environmental and animal health and welfare conditions that are required of all recipients of CAP direct payments: public expenditure which totals some 36 billion euros a year (28 billion euros of which is spent under the Single Payment Scheme). Could this be because the Court has just adopted a separate special report on this very subject? But that the report is being held back until the health check is concluded? [...]

Agra Focus has been conducting a series of interviews on EU farm policy and one of the longest and most interesting to date is with Allan Buckwell. He is currently policy director with the (England and Wales) Country and Land Business Association, but is also chair of the policy committee run by the European Landowners Association. He was for many years a respected agricultural economics and policy academic at the now sadly diminished Wye College. Perhaps his most interesting role in policy terms was when he spent a year in DG Agri in 1995-6 and chaired a group which wrote a report on a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe. [...]

When the Commission unveiled its proposals for the health check back in November 2007, the DG Agri spin machine highlighted the proposals to introduce upper limits on the subsidies that are paid to Europe’s largest, wealthiest and most competitive farmers. What got much less attention was the plan to introduce lower limits, at a level of €250 per annum. This could make life even harder for some of Europe’s poorest farmers and shepherds who barely get a look-in when it comes to Brussels handouts. [...]

Several bloggers have noted the amazing disappearing biofuels poll (an online poll about EU biofuels policy that suddenly vanished from the website of the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso without any explanation). Following repeated enquries to the Commission President’s press office that were completely ignored, a more formal approach under the EU access to documents law has yielded a very comprehensive reply from Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, the Commission President’s Deputy Spokeswoman. I can now reveal the results. [...]

The current high prices for arable crops mean that farmers in the US and Europe are reconsidering whether putting their land into government-financed conservation schemes is such a good idea financially. The EU is well on the way to releasing all its set aside land back into production, and in the US Congress is considering whether to allow farmers to leave long term conservation contracts without facing any penalties. [...]

Three new reports published this week have called on the EU to drop or severley scale back its biofuels targets. These latest interventiosn by the European Parliament Environment Committee, a study group commissioned by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a leading Brussels-based think tank show that the tide has now firmly turned against the EU’s current subsidy-fueled march towards using ever more of Europe’s land to grow fuel for cars instead of food for people. [...]

In order to animate a transparent debate on the purpose, intensity and spatial distribution of CAP expenditure, a number of maps overlaying CAP expenditure data and high nature value farmland have been produced as part of a study recently completed by IEEP for the UK Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). [...]

The vast majority of expenditure under the CAP continues to be directed to income support and is not explicitly targeted at responding to biodiversity, or other pressing environmental objectives. According to a new IEEP study for the UK Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) the distribution and allocation of CAP funding, and the uses to which it is put to, should be adjusted in order to help meet the EU’s international commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity.

[...]

A row over the banning of GM feed by British supermarkets raises wider issues about how far new technology can be used to solve problems of world food shortage. There have been calls for a second ‘green revolution’, but the first green revolution was based on intensive use of fertilisers and irrigation. Fertilisers are rocketing in price while irrigation is a less environmentally friendly option in a time of climate change. [...]

The Less Favoured Areas directive is one of the few examples of British influence on the design of the CAP. It was originally conceived as the Mountain Areas Directive with France pressing for a definition that would have excluded Britain’s hills and uplands. But the British emphasis on latitude rather than altitude won the day in 1975. Other member states saw the Less Favoured Areas directive as a good route to justify more cash for their farmers and by 1995 56 per cent of the utilised area of the EU was designated as less favoured. In Scotland, 85 per cent of the farmed area has LFA status. [...]

We all know that the legislators who write US farm policy are not the brightest bulbs in the box. Even so, Senator Chuck Grassley treated us to an unusual insight into his own very special, mixed-up world during a telephone press briefing last week, reported in the Des Moines Register. Asked about the contribution of the US Government’s massive food-to-fuel subsidies to rising world food prices and the resulting hunger, poverty and social unrest, Grassley denied there was any connection and suggested the responsibility lay with people in China eating too much meat. [...]

Two new studies published in Science magazine add to the mounting evidence that most biofuels are actually increasing carbon emissions, rather than reducing them. The current boom in biofuels in the EU and US is entirely driven by government policies and subsidies, which are invariably presented as a way of addressing climate change by reducing carbon emissions. [...]

As Jack Thurston has well exposed in his recent entry, the “food security” argument seems to be the new rally call for those trying to justify continuation of untargetted payments to farmers, or even a return to production support (albeit disguised as “risk management”, “income insurance” and the like). At a recent debate I was struck by the fact that the “food security” threat, and hence the need to support further agriculture intensification was almost universally endorsed, including by “CAP reformers”. While Jack has given a powerful argument for refuting the neo-Malthusian scaremongering about looming food shortage, you don’t actually need to believe in a future of plenty to call the bluff on this line of reasoning. [...]

A new report commissioned by the Budget Committee of the European Parliament makes interesting reading. The report, written by Jorge Núñez Ferrer (a former Commission fonctionnaire) and Eleni A. Kaditi, both of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, aims to asses whether the CAP provides ‘added value’. Núñez Ferrer and Kaditi define this as whether “the benefits outweigh the costs, not only of implementing the policy, but also the costs created in other areas.” The authors don’t pull their punches, particularly when it comes to direct payments which, costing some €30 billion a year, are by far the biggest ticket item in the CAP. [...]

The European Parliament is seeking an outcome to the CAP Health Check that does not compromise the competitiveness of EU farming or diminish the value of farm subsidy receipts. This is the vision presented in a working document drafted by German MEP Lutz Goepel of the Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The paper acknowledges the need for some evolution of the CAP, but presents a sometimes inconsistent set of suggestions, a number of which are likely to run counter to arguments in favour of promoting a more environmentally sustainable CAP. The paper is examined in further detail below. [...]

The objectives of the present incarnation of the CAP are the subject of intense debate in policy circles. Cross compliance is seen by some as a way to justify the Single Payment Scheme, by aligning the receipt of largely untargeted subsidy payments to the delivery of public goods. To some extent this is true. Farmers need to meet a set of fairly basic standards centred on pre-existing EU environment, food safety and animal welfare legislation (called Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) in CAP jargon). They must also respect a set of baseline soil and habitat maintenance standards (collectively referred to as standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)). In the event of non-compliance, recipients of the Single Payment risk a deduction to the following year’s subsidy payment. [...]

A new survey of public opinion released today by the German Marshall Fund of the United States shows strong support for ‘consumer agenda’ in EU and US agriculture policies focused on food safety, the environment and the food supply. There was significantly less support for producer-oriented priorities like providing emergency financial relief to farmers, insuring farmers against unpredictable market conditions and preserving small family farms. [...]

The Commission’s “CAP Health Check” communication acknowledges the fact that European Farming and countryside face unprecedented environmental challenges: continuous biodiversity decline, increasing climate change and a looming water crisis. The Communication fails however to come up with credible proposals for dealing with these challenges. It was hoped that the Commission would use the Health Check to outline a long-term sustainable vision for European farming and land management. Instead, the Communication seems bent on a business as usual scenario. [...]

The recently leaked Commission Green paper sets the scene for the upcoming health check. What emerges at the moment is a very cautious and minimalist approach, in line with what the Commissioner has been promising for a while. Two things seem striking. The first is the choice to ignore the budget review debate. The second is the lack of courage in confronting the CAP’s failings. [...]

Idling land resources through set aside never made a lot of economic sense and was largely a way of dealing with over production encouraged by the old style CAP. However, many environmentalists felt that set aside encouraged biodiversity. This was particularly the case for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) which with over a million members, largely urban gardeners whose bird identification skills are sketchy, is a very influential conservationist group in the UK. Defra policy is strongly influenced by the RSPB which has framed the agenda in terms of, for example, using farmland bird populations as an indicator of environmental stress, although they may not the best measure. [...]

Analyses of the contents of the Commission’s Health Check Communication have heightened in recent days with the content of the leaked draft document reported in the agriculture press. Of particular interest from an environmental perspective, is the resurgence of the little applied Article 69. This article is housed within the current CAP legislation, Regulation 1782/2003, and allows a Member State to skim off up to ten per cent of the monies to be directed at one sector and provide an additional payment that is targeted at the ‘protection or enhancement of the environment’, or for ‘improving the quality and marketing of agricultural products’. [...]

European agriculture should face the same ‘user pays’ principle as other EU consumers of water in the coming year in order to address the growing problem of water scarcity, according to a Commission Communication. The report by the Environment DG recognises that at least 20 per cent and maybe 40 per cent of water is wasted in the EU. [...]