1 / 28

CAP Reform

CAP Reform. Ref: CAPreform feb07. Introduction . Original system – problematic Pressure for reform Budget External Consumer Environmental Fig1: welfare consequences Compare CAP with self sufficiency under free trade ( consider Pw & P intv)

ezekial
Download Presentation

CAP Reform

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CAP Reform Ref: CAPreform feb07

  2. Introduction • Original system – problematic • Pressure for reform • Budget • External • Consumer • Environmental • Fig1: welfare consequences • Compare CAP with self sufficiency under free trade ( consider Pw & P intv) • If exported outside EU, export restitution = area abcd ( + storage costs)

  3. Fig1 CAP:Impact on consumer surplus & producer surplus loss of consumer surplus (CS) – area A gain in producer surplus (PS) – areas B + A P S a b Pintv Pw c d D Q

  4. Fig1 CAP:Impact on consumer surplus & producer surplus loss of consumer surplus (CS) – area A gain in producer surplus (PS) – areas B + A P S a b Pintv Pw c d D Q

  5. Fig1 CAP:Impact on consumer surplus & producer surplus loss of consumer surplus (CS) – area A gain in producer surplus (PS) – areas B + A P S a b Pintv A Pw c d D Q

  6. Fig1 CAP:Impact on consumer surplus & producer surplus loss of consumer surplus (CS) – area A gain in producer surplus (PS) – areas B + A P S a b Pintv B A Pw c d D Q

  7. Early 1980s ‘Guidelines for European Agriculture’ • Aim: reduce production & prices • Partially implemented, not significant

  8. Reform: Milk Quotas 1984 • Marketing quotas imposed • Large surpluses • EU budget problems • Milk accounted for30% of EAGGF • Price support maintained but excess production ‘taxed’ (super-levy) • Fig 2: Milk quota • EU saves areas C+D • CS - no change • PS – loses area C

  9. Fig2 CAP:Milk quota Quota P S Pintv C D Pw D Q Qs

  10. Assume quota allocated efficiently between farmers, if not ….. • EU direct control over output • Effective as ‘bottleneck’ in production • Monitor • Ineffective for other products eg.cereals • Other methods used which may also penalise over production • Co-responsibility levies • Budgetary stabilisers • Not so effective

  11. Quotas v Reduction in price support • Fig 3: Reducing price support (Pintv to P1intv) instead of introducing quotas • Increase in CS: area F • Fall in PS: areas F + G • Net welfare loss: area G • Argued reducing price support more beneficial than intro quotas

  12. Fig3 CAP: Alternative - price support reduction v quota P S Pintv P1intv Pw D Q

  13. Fig3 CAP: Alternative - price support reduction v quota P S Pintv F F P1intv Pw D Q

  14. Fig3 CAP: Alternative - price support reduction v quota P S Pintv F G F P1intv Pw D Q

  15. McSharry Reforms • Most radical yet • International pressure • Partial change • Aims incl. • Reduce support prices • Increase competitiveness • Control production & increase demand • Protect environment • Improve international relations

  16. How • Reduce price support • Eg intitial 30% for cereals • See fig 3 for benefits • Introduce DIRECT INCOME PAYMENTS to farmers to compensate potential loss of income – SET ASIDE for cereals • Now price supp. & income payments • Partly DECOUPLED farm income supp. • Slippage may be a problem • Early retirement • Consolidation of holdings

  17. Environment: Discourage intensive production methods • Subsidies no longer depend upon output alone • Cross-compliance • Exclude small farms

  18. Choice: Set-aside or not? • Depends upon market price for cereal & yields • Choice • (1) use all arable acreage & receive lower price • (2) set-aside & receive 2 components • compensation payment + higher (‘original’) price

  19. Fig 4 • Assume • All farmers participate in set-aside scheme • All farmers are equally efficient • New supply curve Ssa • If direct compensation equals at least area H, rational farmer will set-aside • Greater complexity • Farms not equally efficient • Prices change after S shifts to Ssa • See additional handout

  20. Fig4 CAP: Choice - set aside or not? Ssa P S a b Pintv Pw D Q Qsa

  21. Fig4 CAP: Choice - set aside or not? Ssa P S a b Pintv H Pw D Q Qsa

  22. Further Reform • WTO • Agenda 2000 • 2000 onwards • Still 2 systems • Continued move to price supp. • Milk unchanged • Greater emphasis on environment • Greater burden on States • subsidiarity

  23. CAP reform, June 2003 • 2003-2013 • Further development of 1993 reforms • CAP comprises 2 pillars • Pillar 1: Market support measures & direct subsidies • Pillar 2: Rural development programmes/policy • Pillar 1 spending 1% growth ceiling (nominal terms) –Brussels Ceiling 2002

  24. Move to single farm payment - decoupling • based on value of previous output • Payment linked to environment/food safety/animal welfare standards - cross compliance • Direct payments (Pillar 1) reduced, switch funding to (Pillar 2) Rural Devt. Programmes (RDP) • modulation: transfer funds direct payments to RDPs • incremental

  25. Pillar 2 supports • Agriculture as provider of public good • Development of rural areas • Exemptions, eg. cereals 25% payments linked to production (France) • 2007-2013 Financial Perspective • Allocates more to Pillar 1, but Brussels Ceiling. - Pressure! • Proposed expenditure for both pillars CAP down to 26% of EU budget (2013)

  26. Source: House of Lords EU Committee, The Future Financing of the CAP, session 2005-06

  27. UK linked further CAP reform to the UK budget rebate (2005)

  28. Conclusions • CAP has achieved some of it’s objectives • Move from price support since McSharry, but now more complex with 2 systems • CAP expenditure as part of budget lower • Conflict with single market? • Political & social aspects • Fraud • Enlargement • Further reform required

More Related