150 likes | 156 Views
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:
E N D
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: • 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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
Positive signs for the future Local initiatives, public funding for planning and ‘start-up’ actions
Food, people and enjoyment - making the links…. Micro-regional marketing, Regionen Aktiv, Germany Regional products trail, PNR Chartreuse, France Social farming, Columbini, Italy
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?