Transcript The Family Farm

Territorial Impacts of the CAP.
ESPON Project 2.1.3 Final Report
Mark Shucksmith, Ken Thomson, Deb Roberts,
and partners
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
and
Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research
University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Introduction
• Aims: In the context of the ESDP to deepen
understanding of the territorial impacts of
the CAP and RDP, across EU-27 at NUTS3.
• Methods:
– Assessed against higher-level EU objectives
using multivariate techniques
– Case Studies and literature
– Used outputs from CAPRI model of MTR
Gradual CAP reforms.
• MacSharry reforms (1992) and Agenda 2000
reduced price support, tariffs and export
subsidies, but offset by direct payments.
• New pressures from WTO & EU expansion.
• Movement from market support (Pillar 1) to
rural development measures (Pillar 2).
• Mid Term Review of CAP in June 2003
introduced partial decoupling.
CAP Subsidies
• EAGGF expenditure totalled €40.5bn in 2000.
– Intervention expenditure (€30.5bn) of which most
are direct payments to farmers (€25.6bn).
– Export refunds (€5.6bn)
– Rural development payments (€4.2bn) (Pillar 2)
• Expenditure figures exclude Market Price
Support - subsidies (c.€ 56bn) received by
farmers thru higher prices paid by consumers.
Key Findings
• Most CAP support is through Pillar 1 - Market
Price Support, Direct Payments, etc (€90bn pa).
• This support benefits richer, core regions, with
lower unemployment rates. This reflects their
larger farms, farm type and core location.
• Only direct payments are consistent with
economic cohesion, but these are outweighed
by dominant Market Price Support (€56bn pa.)
Map 4.1 Total Pillar 1 support per AWU, 1999
Key Findings
• Surprisingly, Pillar 2 (€4.6bn) does not support
cohesion either. Agri-Environmental, and even
LFA payments tend to benefit richer regions,
mainly because of differing national priorities.
Poorer countries prioritise farm modernisation.
Nevertheless, there is potential to adjust Pillar 2
so as to support cohesion objectives.
Key Findings
• MTR makes little difference. Reformed CAP
will still work against cohesion, unless national
implementation aims at territorial cohesion
through their Rural Development Plans.
Accessibility and regional type
• While Pillar 1 favours core, Pillar 2 favours
more peripheral and less accessible regions.
• Using OECD typology, rural regions receive
45% of Pillar 1 and 50% of Pillar 2 support.
• Using TPG 1.1.2 urban-rural typology, though,
CAP support goes to urban regions .
• Our own typology confirms support goes to
core regions and meso-accessible regions.
Impacts of Selected Measures
• Case Studies of selected measures:
–
–
–
–
–
Farm household adaptation to changing policies
Agri Environment programmes
Less Favoured Area Scheme
Early Retirement Scheme
LEADER and Article 33 measures
to deepen insights into the core issues and to
elaborate the cause/effect relationships.
LEADER-type measures
• The measure most closely related to the concept of
integrated rural development.
• Emphasis on multi-sectoral approach and on local
participation and institution-building.
• Flexible programme structure can be adapted to the
diverse contexts of rural regions – unusual in being
suitable for addressing regional inequalities.
• Now more effective and targeted.
• Process of capacity-building and collective learning.
Policy Proposals
• Welcome the Commission’s gradualist
proposals to allow member states to spend
more on LEADER-type measures
(Commission’s proposals for RDR 2007-13).
• Increase Pillar 2 budget progressively, as
proposed by the Commission.
• Broaden RDR to include more measures for
sustainable rural devt beyond agriculture.
• Support rural community development.
Policy Proposals
• Review rates of co-financing in convergence
countries, since this inhibits use of the RDR.
• Allocate RDR budget according to criteria of
relative needs for rural development and
environmental management.
• The more that WTO negotiations lead to cuts in
Pillar 1 Market Price Support, the greater the
resulting consistency of the CAP with the EU’s
territorial cohesion objectives.
Policy Proposals
• Review institutional arrangements for rural
development and agriculture.
• Finally, information on CAP expenditure and
implementation at regional level is very poor.
It will be very important to support policy-making
in future through improving the database to enable
comparable European wide analysis, and this will
require administration of CAP instruments to take
into account the regional and territorial dimension.