Posts

Posted on

15 April: Ciolos wants to hear from YOU!

Better cancel that early summer holiday. There are just two months to contribute to the European Commission’s latest public debate on the future of the CAP.
The EU’s agriculture commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, launched the debate on Monday, unveiling an exciting new website where “stakeholders” are encouraged to share their thoughts about structure and objectives of the CAP after 2012. But hurry: the website will be open for contributions until June 2010.
“The Common Agricultural Policy is not just a matter for experts,” Ciolos said. “It’s a policy for all Europeans.” Quite so, one was tempted to add. We’re paying for it.
So, who does Ciolos want to hear from? Farmers, naturally, but also environmental protection groups, consumers, and animal welfare groups. “We must open this debate up as much as possible,” he said.
Ciolos gave one or two hints about which way he’s leaning. (Or isn’t.)
On the one hand, the commission is willing to limit payments to some of Europe’s largest farmers, and the subsidies system “needs to be fairer.” On the other hand, the financial crisis and volatility in the agricultural markets illustrate that the CAP “has a more important role than ever.”
Thus, while any reform should consider the need to intervene during crises, and if possible avert them, because “a lack of intervention could cost much more in the medium-term,” the market should be allowed to “play its role”.
So what happens next? The website is up and running and stakeholders have until June to contribute. The commission hopes to get as wide an array of submissions as possible. Its aim is to respond before the end of the year and deliver legislative proposals some time next year.
Elsewhere this week, Europe’s new environment minister, Janez Potocnik, called for a shake-up of the CAP so that farmers and businesses would get subsidies only if they took on a far wider stewardship role and adopted a “greener” agenda. He said it was time Europe focused on “resource efficiency” as much as energy efficiency to improve land quality and create a more sustainable way of life.
Tapping a similar vein, the head of the European Commission’s water unit, Peter Gammeltoft, said water efficiency in farming – which accounts for two thirds of EU water use – should be one of the priorities in reforming the CAP.
Although the CAP Health Check introduced some positive measures in that respect, Gammeltoft said more should be done “to make agriculture contribute to water efficiency.” He also referred to Australia, where water savings regulation in agriculture has apparently even improved the profitability of farming.
Meanwhile, addressing the General Assembly and Working Groups in Brussels, Joris Baecke, president of the European Council of Young Farmers, said the legitimacy of direct payments based on historical references is declining.
CEJA also released figures this week showing that seven percent of EU farmers are under 35, compared with 32 percent are over 65.
On the capreform.eu blog, Valentin Zahrnt criticized the European Parliament’s own-initiative report on the post-2013 CAP.
Though better packaged, and sexed-up with a ‘green growth’ tag, the content is just as dull and conservative as an earlier incarnation, he says. Worse still, it “captures the intellectual deficiency of the CAP-insider bubble.”
In particular, Valentin examines the “peculiar lines of reasoning that are considered to prop up the case for a strong CAP”: the reference to past spending as a justification for future spending; the blindly mercantilist appetite for world market shares; and the all-or-nothing drama when it comes to the survival of European agriculture and the public goods that depend on it.
Together, he says, these are examples of a fundamental problem: “the CAP debate is taking place in a bubble … by people who want to keep the CAP as it stands or to reform it as much as is necessary to preserve it.”
Valentin also looks at a new study by two consultancies which spells out the budgetary needs involved in meeting environmental and landscaping objectives in the UK. The report claims farm subsidies could be reduced in the UK to as little as £2bn.
This, he argues, supports the case for EU-wide subsidy reductions. “What is needed is a serious, EU-wide estimate of the costs of different CAP policy options ahead of the negotiations for a new long-term budget,” he concludes.
Elsewhere, Wyn Grant notes the European Commission has announced plans for a new EU Animal Health Law. Promoting animal welfare is a key aspect of a ‘public goods’ oriented CAP, and there is need to move from dealing with animal disease outbreaks to stopping them happening in the first place.
As ever, though, “the big question is: who pays?”
Posted on

EP draft report: Whereas all this is nonsense

The EP own-initiative report on the post-2013 CAP is taking shape as a new draft has become available (dated 24.3.2010). Though it is better packaged, and sexed-up with a ‘green growth’ tag, the content is just as dull and conservative as the earlier draft. The report captures the intellectual deficiency of the CAP-insider bubble.

The draft report suggests 5 ‘key building blocks’: area-based direct income support, climate change mitigation payments, payments to areas with natural handicaps, payments for biodiversity and environmental protection, and green growth subsidies with a focus on renewable energy. The first two payments are to be fully financed by the EU, and the other three co-financed by the member states.

I will not go into the reports’ food-security and fair-income arguments (though they thoroughly deserve criticism) but will limit myself to commenting on some peculiar lines of reasoning that are considered to prop up the case for a strong CAP.

whereas the share of CAP expenditure in the EU budget has steadily decreased from nearly 75% in 1985 to a projected 39.3% in 2013; whereas this represents less than 0.45% of the EU’s GDP; whereas the decline in budgetary expenditure on market measures is even more significant – from 74% of all CAP expenditure in 1992 to less than 10% at present;

“Measured against the EU budget and GDP, we are wasting less money today than in the past.” This is correct as an empirical assertion about past policy changes. It is not an argument that could justify the expenditure of a single euro on the CAP. Maybe 0.0% is the right spending target. It could theoretically also be optimal to spend 1.0% of GDP on agriculture through the CAP. Whatever the right solution is, reference to past spending levels is not acceptable as an argument in the debate about desirable future policy choices.

whereas the EU continues to experience a widening trade deficit in agricultural products

and

insists that EU agriculture must remain competitive against fierce competition from well-subsidised trade partners; therefore believes that competitiveness should still be a fundamental objective of the CAP post-2013 to ensure that the EU has the raw materials to produce high-value European food products and they continue to win a greater share of the world market

Where is the problem with a trade deficit in agriculture? And why should the EU gain shares in world agricultural markets? The basic assumption of economists is that each country benefits if it specializes according to its comparative advantage. In those developing countries where the most competitive sector happens to be agriculture, governments are often skeptic about excessive specialization and prefer a more complex economic argument based on the dynamic gains of investing in manufacturing and service sectors that allow their country to climb up the value chain in the future. But the EU’s competitive advantage is much more concentrated in high-value-added sectors (high-tech, professional services, luxury goods, research and innovation). In other words: we are lucky. It makes no sense to work against this specialization and export more agricultural products. Since trade accounts roughly balance in the long-term, more agricultural exports would automatically imply fewer exports of these high-value-added products and services in which the EU enjoys a comparative advantage.

recalls, therefore, that unless farming activity is preserved across the EU, no provision of public goods will be possible;

and

insists that the cost of support through a strong CAP is nothing compared to the costs of no action and its negative unintended consequences;

The death of European agriculture is again at the doorstep. The day the CAP is abolished, there is no country to walk in, no food to eat, no water to drink, no air to breathe. These wild beliefs can be divided into two ‘analytical’ steps: first, that agriculture would actually collapse, and second, that this would create overwhelming problems. In reality, agricultural production will most likely continue to grow – with or without policy support (see DG Agri study: Don’t be afraid of liberalization and Crystal ball gazing: Scenar II study on the effects of CAP reform). If agricultural production were to decline dramatically, this would cause some problems – but it would also create great benefits, notably in terms of water quality and climate change (though this depends on second-order effects abroad). But CAP supporters rarely say “We believe that without the CAP, there would be a slight decrease in production, and this would have negative effects on balance.” They almost inevitably turn to the dramatic – “unless farming activity is preserved across the EU, no provision of public goods will be possible” – a situation that would be so horrible that the €55 billion we are paying every year must be deemed nothing short of “nothing”.

I have criticized three points: the reference to past spending as a justification for future spending; the blindly mercatintilist appetite for world market shares; and the all-or-nothing drama when it comes to the survival of European agriculture and the public goods that depend on it. Together, they are examples of a fundamental problem in EU agricultural policy-making: the CAP debate is taking place in a bubble. Agricultural ministries, DG Agri, the EP Committee on Agriculture, farmers, the landowners and rural interests reinforce each other in the CAP-insider community. Radically critical voices are sidelined. The CAP is made within a bubble by people who want to keep the CAP as it stands or to reform it as much as is necessary to preserve it. Lines of arguments such as those I have picked out above can prosper in such an environment. Strikingly unsound statements, which would, in other policy domains, be dismissed with laughter as intellectually deficient, are the respectable mainstream in agriculture.

Posted on

Poll Shock: Europe loves the CAP!

Every so often DG Agriculture commissions an opinion poll to find out how much European citizens love the common agricultural policy. As a democractic exercise it is somewhat reminiscent of elections in the former German Democratic Republic (99 percent for the communists!). The result of these ‘Eurobarometer’ surveys, which are carried out by TNS Opinion, a reputable polling company, is never in doubt: European citizens love the CAP a lot.

Among the findings of the recently released poll are the following:

  • Nine out of ten of Europeans regard agriculture and rural areas as important for the future. I’m rather curious about the one in ten who don’t. Could the pollsters have unearthed a previously unknown European Inedian cult?
  • While two out of five Europeans surveyed have heard or read about the CAP only 13% say that they have a clear idea of what the policy actually is. The number of respondents who really know the truth about the CAP is, of course, far smaller and these individuals have been rounded up and are currently being detained in a bunker on the rue de la Loi for deprogramming.
  • Six out of every ten respondents (61%) do not think agriculture is one of the major causes of climate change. Europeans are obviously unaware that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ranked agricultural and changing land use through agriculture as two of the top three causes of climate change (alongside burning fossil fuels). Livestock farming is responsible for 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Besides revealing the lack of knowledge of key agricultural issues among European citizenry, when it comes to the CAP itself, the survey is quite shameless in steering respondents towards its preferred answers. Take this question, on income support for farmers:

Incomes in the agricultural sector can vary greatly from year to year according to market and weather conditions. The European Union is currently giving payments to farmers to help stabilize their income. Personally, are you in favour or opposed to the European Union continuing to do so?

83 per cent said they were in favour. Another way of putting the question might be,

Incomes in the agricultural sector can vary greatly from year to year according to market and weather conditions. The European Union is currently giving payments to farmers in such a way that the biggest farms with the best land get the most income support. Personally, are you in favour or opposed to the European Union continuing to do so?

As a question, it’s just biased as the question asked by TNS Opinion, yet something tells me the answer would be rather different.

Looking at the future level of the CAP budget, the survey trumpets the finding that,

“A majority of EU citizens believe that financial support to farmers should be either maintained or increased in the next ten years.”

This is an unsurprising result as the survey asked “over the next 10 years would you like to see an increase, decrease or no change in the European Union financial support to farmers?” This completely fails to confront respondents with the trade-offs inherent in budgetary decision-making. The survey ought to have teased out the trade-offs in maintaining CAP expenditure at current levels: allocate no new money for other priorities or pay more taxes. But of course, it didn’t.

In my experience of working on surveys of this kind I would guess at a cost of at least half a million euros – remember it was carried out in all 27 member states, with a 1000 respondents in each country. Besides being a collosal waste of public money, it is perhaps most worrying because it shows that, despite all the talk of a big public debate, the DG Agriculture officials responsible really couldn’t care less about what kind of farm policy citizens want, and are much more interested in getting a few phony factoids with which to pepper the Commissioner’s speeches defending the CAP status quo.

If you have an interest in seeing how far an opinion poll can be twisted to give the desired results, or maybe just a masochistic streak, you can read the survey in full:

Eurobarometer: What Europeans think of agriculture and the CAP

Posted on

EP own-initiative report on the post-2013 CAP

The Rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (ComAgri), George Lyon, has presented his take on the post-2013 CAP. Once the document has been discussed and amended by ComAgri, it will be voted upon first in ComAgri (June) and then in the EP plenary (July).

The starting point of the draft already chills expectations: “The Common Agricultural Policy has been largely successful in fulfilling the objectives it was set out to accomplish so far.”

Three groups of objectives are identified. 1) Supporting economic needs – including an EU agriculture competitive on world markets, EU food security in an unstable world context, and the valuable contribution EU agriculture and the downstream agri-food sector make to EU growth and employment.

2) Responding to social concerns – to enhance farmers’ incomes that are lower than the EU average in most member States and that decreased in 2009; to support the sustainable, dynamic and balanced socio-economic development of European rural communities; to attract younger generations to rural areas and activities; and to tackle rural unemployment.

3) Delivering benefits in terms of public goods – with a focus on the positive externalities of agriculture, justifying ‘a strong and well-supported CAP’.

From these objectives, the draft moves to an outline of future CAP measures and structures. The basic tenet is: keep things roughly as they are. Maintain some market measures as a safety net, continue with the Single Farm and the Less-Favored Area Payments, and uphold flexible spending entitlements that are fully community-financed (roughly corresponding to Art. 68). The current budget should also be kept, and co-financing limited to the sort of measures that currently fall under co-financing.

At some point, the report asks for the “maximisation of the delivery of environmental goods”. But this is misleading rhetoric. You can spend any Euro only once. If you want to serve many objectives and finance many measures that have nothing to be with environmental goods, you are leaving little for the environment.

For this draft, any argument is good enough if it results in payments to farmers. In the category “Supporting economic needs”, one objective is “corrections to market failures such as exposure to natural disasters, high risk and price volatility, lack of demand elasticity, farmers’ position as ‘price takers’ in the food chain, etc.” Since when are natural disasters a market failure? Or high risks, or a lack of demand elasticity? These are market conditions that determine how profitable a given sector is and who should be in this sector (according to how successful individual economic actors are in coping with these conditions). They can, in particular circumstances, give rise to market failures, and these market failures can, again in particular circumstances, justify efficient state action (which is unlikely to take the form of round-about income support or market intervention to support prices). But considering all these phenomena enumerated above as ‘market failures’ that somehow warrant the Single Farm Payment or price intervention is untenable.

What is most upsetting is that this draft comes from George Lyon, who happens to be a Liberal Democrat from the UK. These are the best reform credentials one could wish for. Once MEPs from other party groups and member states have introduced their amendments, the outcome will likely be worse.

But why would a Liberal Democrat from the UK write such a draft? Have a look at his homepage. Mr. Lyon was brought up in a seventh-generation tenant-farming family, occupied different positions within the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) starting in 1989, and had a stint as President of NFU Scotland in 1998-1999. He is hardly a special case. ComAgri MEPs frequently have close farming ties, which helps to explain why they overwhelmingly support a CAP that serves farmers first. If the EP wants to be worthy of its new powers in agriculture, it must intervene early and forcefully in the work of ComAgri.

Posted on

Sarkozy and Cameron on collision course?

David Cameron, leader of a British Conservative Party that is well ahead in the opinion polls just weeks ahead of a General Election, has already ruffled feathers across La Manche, with reported jibes about the diminutive stature of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is reeling from personal life scandals and a drubbing in regional elections. The remarks provoked a reaction from Paris, which accused the British Opposion leader of lacking respect for the French Head of State.

Such a trifling spat may be just the start of a tricky Anglo-French relationship over the future of EU budget, in particular the €60 billion common agricultural policy and Britain’s special budget rebate. The rebate or “chèque Britannique”, as it is sometimes known, rankles with France, which feels Britain is too often a semi-detatched member of the European club: free riding on the benefits of the common market while resisting ‘ever deeper union’ and refusing to pay its way. The rebate was won in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher who swung her handback and demanded ‘my money back’. It has since entered into Conservative Party political iconography of a by-gone ‘golden age’ when Mrs T. defeated Argentina in a war over the Falklands, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ronald Reagan against the Soviet ‘Evil Empire’, took on striking coal miners and unleashed a wave of privatisation and deregulation that transformed the British economy. It is hard to imagine a Conservative government ever agreeing to give up such a totemic symbol as the EU budget rebate, the effect of which is to ensure Britain gets almost the same from the EU budget as it puts in.

In policy terms, the rebate is only really necessary because the EU budget is dominated by agricultural spending (nearly half of the budget goes on the CAP) and Britain is a relatively wealthy country with a relatively small farm sector. This gives rise to the structural budget imbalance that Mrs Thatcher sought to address with the rebate. If the CAP were scaled back then Britain would not need a rebate. Or so the argument goes. This was the case made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the EU budget negotiations of 2005 and 2006. In the end he was comprehensively outmanoeuvred by President Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, giving up a portion of the rebate in exchange for a ‘budget review’ that has yet to bear any fruit.

There is irony in the fact that that Nicolas Sarkozy, the man who most wants to see the end to the British rebate, has only this week declared himself to be a powerful opponent of downsizing the CAP, the most natural way of achieving that goal. Earlier today, in his first public comments after his UMP party’s defeat in regional elections, President Sarkozy declared:

“I am ready to confront a crisis on a European level, rather than to accept the dismantlement of the Common Agricultural Policy… I will not let our agriculture die.”

Could this put Nicolas Sarkozy, defending the CAP, on collision course with David Cameron, defending the British rebate? Perhaps, but there is an important twist and a possible solution. British farmers and landowners, who get around €4 billion a year from the CAP, largely vote Conservative. At heart they’re anti-EU but when they think with their heads they don’t want to see an end to the EU subsidies that they would be very unlikely to win from the British Treasury. Conservative politicians find it easy to talk tough on the CAP but there would be political hell to pay if they actually succeeded in abolishing subsidies for British agriculture.

Meanwhile, as President Sarkozy talks tough on preserving the CAP, the enlargement of the EU to 27 member states means France is on course to become a net payer into the CAP, rather than a net beneficiary. This will not have gone unnoticed in the French Ministry of Finance which has traditionally formed a strong alliance with the Agriculture Ministry and French farming, regarding the CAP as bringing ‘good German money to rural France’. When he sees the turning of the fiscal tide, and French taxpayers start paying to support Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian farmers, President Sarkozy may revise his view. There is a single solution to both dilemmas: cofinancing of the CAP. Rather than a CAP funded from a common European pot, with all that means for politically difficult budget imbalances, each country will meet a much larger share of its own farm subsidy bill. Of course this will go down very badly with the new member states, who will have to fund their own farm subsidies, but in the face of an Anglo-French alliance, with large net payers Germany and the Netherlands also likely to lend their support, they may have no choice. One man who may find himself in a rather tricky position is Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos, who will find it difficult to sell such a policy to his Romanian countrymen.

Posted on

CAP Reform Conversations: Ariel Brunner, BirdLife International

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.

Posted on

Voters punish Sarkozy, Le Maire stays on

It’s been a turbulent few weeks for French President Nicolas Sarkozy and voters expressed their dissatisfaction with his centre-right UMP party in regional elections yesterday. A resurgent Socialist-led opposition alliance took 52% of the vote and the UMP just 35%, squeezed in sevearl contests by the far-right National Front, which scored 9.4% of the national vote but took more than 22% in its two core regions in the north and south. Opposition candidates won in 21 of France’s 22 mainland regions.

Among the losers was French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire (pictured, right), who was rejected by voters of Normandy, where he was standing for election as Regional President. Had he been succesful he would have stepped down as national farms minister. It now means he’s likely to stay on in the post and continue as France’s main man in the negotiations on the reform of the CAP.

Photo credit: Bruno Le Maire / flickr.com / creative commons

Posted on

How can direct payments be justified after 2013?

This is the question that former OECD trade and agriculture supremo Stefan Tangermann poses in a recent issue of Agra Europe. In effect the answer that the agricultural economist gives is that they can’t be, although he is too canny to say that in so many words. But he takes each argument for the SFP in turn and demolishes it.
He points out that direct payments make up nearly three-quarters of EU expenditure on the CAP, equivalent to about one third of the Union’s total budget. The argument that they are compensation for earlier reforms can no longer be used to justify their continuation.
What about the view that farm incomes lag behind incomes in other parts of society, which in fact is not necessarily the case? Then payments would have to be in line with the criteria for other income support policies. It would have to be means tested so that better off farm families received less. Moreover, payment would have to be higher in member states where the gap was greater which is not compatible with the idea of a level playing field in a single market.
What about the food security argument, the desire to safeguard a viable agriculture in Europe? Tangermann points out that empirical studies show that farm support is largely capitalised in land values. Where land is rented, most of the direct payments flow to landlords. If support was eliminated, ‘Land rents will adjust and farming continues.’ This perhaps reveals an economist’s faith in automatic adjustment in functioning markets. In fact adjustment would probably only occur after a time lag and then not fully. That delay could be cricial for some farmers.
What about enhancing competitiveness? Tangermann points out that competitiveness depends on productivity, know-how, product quality and the like. Education, training, extension services and research and development are the policies that help, not per-hectare payments.
What about the argument that environmental and other standards are more demanding in Europe than other parts of the world? Tangermann notes, ‘Research has shown that they differ very much from sector to sector within the farming industry, but also from farm to farm. Overall, though, any such extra costs are relatively small, certainly much smaller than the level of payments currently granted to EU farmers.’
What about cross-compliance? Most of the requirements under cross-compliance would have to be respected anyway: ‘Justifying payments on these grounds is akin to granting payments to all car drivers, which are then claimed back from drivers exceeding speed limits.’
So Tangermann concludes that it is doubtful whether any credible justification can be developed for direct payments. But when he gets on to political ground is touch is less sure. Having a good case matters, but there is also a lot of raw power politics surrounding agriculture with many member states willing to spend political capital to defend their farmers. Tangermann says that ‘Europe’s taxpayers are keen to know why they are expected to finance such payments’, but I see little evidence of such interest. Hence, it is possible for agricultural lobbies to mount ‘business as usual’ arguments with little effective challenge.

Posted on

How can direct payments be justified after 2013?

This is the question that former OECD trade and agriculture supremo Stefan Tangermann poses in a recent issue of Agra Europe. In effect the answer that the agricultural economist gives is that they can’t be, although he is too canny to say that in so many words. But he takes each argument for the SFP in turn and demolishes it.

He points out that direct payments make up nearly three-quarters of EU expenditure on the CAP, equivalent to about one third of the Union’s total budget. The argument that they are compensation for earlier reforms can no longer be used to justify their continuation.

What about the view that farm incomes lag behind incomes in other parts of society, which in fact is not necessarily the case? Then payments would have to be in line with the criteria for other income support policies. It would have to be means tested so that better off farm families received less. Moreover, payment would have to be higher in member states where the gap was greater which is not compatible with the idea of a level playing field in a single market.

What about the food security argument, the desire to safeguard a viable agriculture in Europe? Tangermann points out that empirical studies show that farm support is largely capitalised in land values. Where land is rented, most of the direct payments flow to landlords. If support was eliminated, ‘Land rents will adjust and farming continues.’ This perhaps reveals an economist’s faith in automatic adjustment in functioning markets. In fact adjustment would probably only occur after a time lag and then not fully. That delay could be cricial for some farmers.

What about enhancing competitiveness? Tangermann points out that competitiveness depends on productivity, know-how, product quality and the like. Education, training, extension services and research and development are the policies that help, not per-hectare payments.

What about the argument that environmental and other standards are more demanding in Europe than other parts of the world? Tangermann notes, ‘Research has shown that they differ very much from sector to sector within the farming industry, but also from farm to farm. Overall, though, any such extra costs are relatively small, certainly much smaller than the level of payments currently granted to EU farmers.’

What about cross-compliance? Most of the requirements under cross-compliance would have to be respected anyway: ‘Justifying payments on these grounds is akin to granting payments to all car drivers, which are then claimed back from drivers exceeding speed limits.’

So Tangermann concludes that it is doubtful whether any credible justification can be developed for direct payments. But when he gets on to political ground is touch is less sure. Having a good case matters, but there is also a lot of raw power politics surrounding agriculture with many member states willing to spend political capital to defend their farmers. Tangermann says that ‘Europe’s taxpayers are keen to know why they are expected to finance such payments’, but I see little evidence of such interest. Hence, it is possible for agricultural lobbies to mount ‘business as usual’ arguments with little effective challenge.