Transcript Capping

Stefan Tangermann
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development
Direct Payments
in the CAP post 2013
EP Workshop "CAP towards 2020", Brussels, 7 February 2011
The challenges
• The Communication explicitly identifies three
challenges external to the CAP
– food security
– environment and climate change
– territorial balance
• However, there is one additional challenge
internal to the CAP:
What is the future of direct payments?
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
2
Direct payments: backbone of the CAP?
• Originally, direct payments had an important role,
to compensate farmers for price cuts
… but no decision on their future was taken
• The Communication now suggests (implicitly) that
they are to remain a permanent feature of the CAP
… and proposes only very limited changes of other
instruments
• The Communication is essentially about the future
of direct payments
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
3
Direct payments and the challenges
• Provision of important public goods requires policy
support, but …
• Food security: no need for DP to stimulate extra
production in Europe
… and DP cannot enhance 'true' competitiveness
• Environment/climate change: requirements are
location-specific → Pillar 2 measures work best
• Territorial balance: needs differ from place to
place → Pillar 2 measures work best
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
4
Which role for direct payments?
• The Communication suggests that DP are needed
– to provide basic income support
– as precondition for provision of basic public goods
• Income support for equity reasons should be based
on household income, like in other sectors
• Provision of 'basic public goods' depends on land use
… which would continue in most of the EU even in
the absence of direct payments
• DP per hectare to all farmers are a blunt instrument
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
5
The "active farmers" issue
• Objectives cited in Communication do not provide
basis for any definition of "active farmers"
– agricultural activity vs other enterprises:
management of natural resources can also be achieved by
other activities
– working farmers vs absent landowners:
DP are capitalised in land values → tenants have little
benefit, territorial development is not enhanced
– 'normal' farm size vs super large farms:
large farms can also provide public goods
• "Active farmers" is a matter of public perception,
rather than consistency with CAP objectives
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
6
Treatment of small farms
• Providing more support (per hectare) to small farms
is neither justified, nor would it enhance their
'true' competitiveness
• Reducing transaction cost makes sense
… not through making larger payments (e.g. same
payment to all farms below threshold)
… but through less requirements (cross compliance)
• Payments could be made once in five years,
or through marketable certificates ("bonds")
to provide means for investments (on or off farm)
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
7
Impact on supply, and WTO compatibility
• Communication proposals would not have
noticeable impact on supply
… unless "voluntary coupled support" were to
become larger element
• DP would probably continue to be compatible
with WTO Green Box, unless
– "active farmers" definition were to require production
– "greening" component were to undermine decoupled
nature of payments (e.g. permanent pasture, crop
rotation)
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
8
Basic component of direct payments
• Redistribution among Member States is a purely
political matter, and no economic advice can be
given regarding 'right' distribution
– equity would require means testing
– public goods provision requires specific targeting to
natural, economic, social conditions
• "Capping", in absence of means testing, does not
improve equity
… but distorts land market and has negative
implications for structural development
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
9
"Greening" component
• Would substitute for part of current payments
… but generates less farm income
• Which role is "greening" component thought to play?
• 'Super cross compliance'?
– new environmental issues? Why not yet included?
– why not revise current cross compliance?
• Moving measures from Pillar 2 to Pillar 1?
– why is Pillar 1 better place?
– would budget also move? And co-financing?
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
10
"Greening" component for public goods?
• "Green" public goods are location-specific,
because of either their nature or their costs
→ EU-wide policy under Pillar 1 is less efficient than
more differentiated policy under Pillar 2
• Member State governments will be under pressure
to make sure 'money from Brussels' actually flows
• "Greening" component is not a convincing way to
achieve better targeting
• "Greeenig" component is proposed to make
payments "more understandable to the taxpayer"
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
11
"Areas with specific natural constraints"
and "voluntary coupled support"
• Would areas with specific natural constraints
receive larger payments than today?
… or would budget be shifted from Pillar 2
to Pillar 1 (and why so?)
• There are no good reasons to provide any coupled
support
… which effectively makes farmers pay for the
costs of producing the outputs considered
desirable (for which reasons?)
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
12
Conclusions (1)
• Communication identifies important challenges
… but proposes only limited changes to CAP
… not a real reform
• Meeting the challenges requires new policies
– food security and 'true' competitiveness are enhanced
through more innovation, R&D, education, training, less red
tape, better functioning land markets, lower land prices
– environment, climate change require location-specific
measures on contractual basis, with local engagement
– territorial balance is achieved through broad-based support
to rural areas, infrastructure, social services, education
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
13
Conclusions (2)
• "Greening" component is not a convincing way of
achieving better targeting
• Redistribution among Member States may be
politically necessary, but there is no economic
advice regarding 'right' distribution
• "Capping" does not achieve equity, distorts land
market
• Coupled support should be terminated
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
14
Conclusions (3)
• Provision of public goods is an important objective
of the CAP, and requires public support
… but support must be specific
• Payments should be provided not per hectare,
but per unit of public good provided (Pillar 2)
• CAP should now enter into a new phase:
market support → decoupling → targeting
(1960s-1980s)
(1990s-2000s)
(post 2013)
support per tonne
… per hectare
Stefan Tangermann, University of Göttingen
… per public good
15