1 / 15

The Common Agricultural Policy and its reform: implications for Malta

The Common Agricultural Policy and its reform: implications for Malta. Professor Janet Dwyer, University of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom. Where have we come from?. A policy designed to serve the needs of 6 countries, harmonized approach to farm support:

lamontk
Download Presentation

The Common Agricultural Policy and its reform: implications for Malta

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. The Common Agricultural Policy and its reform: implications for Malta Professor Janet Dwyer, University of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

  2. Where have we come from? • A policy designed to serve the needs of 6 countries, harmonized approach to farm support: • guaranteed prices for key products (beef, dairy, main annual crops); investment aids to improve productivity • Changed with every enlargement, also in response to external trade negotiations: • More ‘regimes’ added to reflect diversity (sheep/goats, permanent crops, oilseeds), from 1970s • Targeted aids (LFA, 1975), ‘greening’ measures 1986 - • Decoupling of support from market signals, 1992 - • growth of Rural Development agenda, 2000-

  3. The implications of history Direct Payments • Northern EU-15 member states / products are better supported than southern or new ones • Large and more productive regions /sectors receive higher payments, generally Rural Development Budgets more based upon ‘needs’ (with some exceptions), but • Require co-financing, and more costly to deliver • Minor share of total budget, EU27

  4. Rural Development: Spending priorities 2007-13 (as in 2007) Malta: 35% – investment, meeting standards 25% – LFA, agri-environment 35% blue – cultural heritage and tourism infrastructure 4% - LEADER

  5. Main points of contrast / distinctiveness (1) Malta pillar 2 budget = 4 x size of pillar 1 – similar pattern in most new MS Land use patterns: the most ‘productive’ sectors don’t use land – many EU payments/measures assume a strong link to land Issues of under-management, UAA-eligibility and lack of structural change in landholdings – not unusual, but insufficiently recognised in Brussels

  6. Main points of distinctiveness (2) The challenges of an island economy in which land-based farming is marginal Weak co-operation / co-ordinated approaches to sectoral or regional production (except dairy) Lack of linkage to final consumers – significant untapped potential, but many barriers to making the links - not a unique position, but particular

  7. CAP reform 1. This is a process with complex politics – who wants what, and why… 2. It is a multi-level process, too – Council, Parliament, Commission, then National level reinterpretation / design of programmes, systems and conditions 3. Other considerations will also have an influence – EU budget, wider economic situation, time-constrained

  8. CAP reform - likely outcomes Cuts to pillar 1 – modest? • Redistribution of Pillar 1 funds: • Basic + LFA top-up and ‘green’ targeting • Malta faces big issues on the basic aid • ending of dairy derogation, move to a flat rate area payment? • How to apply greening? • permanent pasture / landholding requirement

  9. CAP reform - likely outcomes Pillar 2 rural development: • little change to budget overall (?) but • some redistribution to reflect ‘needs’ better • joint strategies with cohesion funds • enhanced menu to cover new challenges • ‘balanced’ and led by objectives, but more flexible delivery mixes • LEADER re-established as a separate approach

  10. The future RDP and new challenges… ‘Green growth’ – which sectors and activities are most sustainable? Water – need to address water scarcity, waste generation Climate change – what scope for energy production? (How to co-ordinate with Structural Funds?) Biodiversity – how to re-vitalise management?

  11. Insights from recent research* • RD policy performance is very different between countries, design and delivery (= how, not what, you do) make a big difference to what the money achieves • Many schemes have good potential, but success depends on creative applications, packages, and involving ‘beneficiaries’ (farmers and rural people, making links) • There is a case to invest in long-term sustainability, and the social benefits from CAP spending, for rural areas • Income underpinning is an important role for CAP in marginal areas, but it must work WITH markets/private funds – identify strengths and develop these, move away from a ‘compensation’ mentality • The difference between CAP pillars is not so great, overall: both can do similar things and should work together *www.rudi-europe.net

  12. Positive signs for the future Local initiatives, public funding for planning and ‘start-up’ actions

  13. Food, people and enjoyment - making the links…. Micro-regional marketing, Regionen Aktiv, Germany Regional products trail, PNR Chartreuse, France Social farming, Columbini, Italy

  14. Questions for discussion • What are your feelings about CAP direct payments (pillar 1) – their role, and possible redistribution after 2013? • How well has pillar 2 served Malta? Is the balance right, and what should be changed as we look to the future needs of the island? • Have lessons been learned from past policy experience? – how could delivery be improved? • What other policies or factors (could) make a big difference to sustainable farming and rural areas in Malta, beyond CAP?

More Related