A Fairer CAP? For Now Mostly in Words
The following text is an adaptation of ARC 2020 article https://www.arc2020.eu/a-fairer-cap-really/
In short
The CAP reform post-2022 promised a fairer CAP for small-medium scale farmers. Now that the CAP Strategic Plans are approved and running, let’s face the bigger picture and ask whether CAP will fulfil this promise. And whether fairness will be a priority in the upcoming debate for the future CAP?
Reading the communications of the Commission DG AGRI, one could think that the issues of unfairness are now sorted out. But looking deeper in the matter some important questions emerge. ARC2020 analysis over sample of CAP Strategic Plans, namely France, Ireland, Germany, reveals two interconnected problems that need to be addressed at policy and political level. Although CAP fairness can be seen from many perspectives, the analysis refers mostly on the distribution of direct payments among beneficiaries.
On one hand, the CAP Strategic Plans 2023-2027 have not systematically and coherently addressed all the elements of unfairness and, overall, just made small adjustments to avoid the required meaningful shift from the previous direct payment arrangements. On the other hand, DG AGRI’s analyses and communications, while useful to provide a synthesis across countries, fail to account for the trade-offs, loopholes, and nuances of each Member States’ decisions compared to their baselines situations and needs.
Yes, France, Ireland and Germany introduce some positive elements in their Strategic Plans, but overall remain static – notably, there are many loopholes with which the timing and scale of approved changes can be mitigated. Or allow to make minimum permissible steps in comparison to public expectations and announced commitments for a fairer CAP.
This mixed situation can be seen in other countries too. Italy, for instance – the report points out that some improvements are implemented (e.g., setting up of a maximum unit amounts, eligibility criteria for targeting redistributive payments), but some of them were still very weak (e.g., a max unit amount set at 2 000 EUR /ha is still a very high threshold compared to average. Italy also removed the capping of large beneficiaries above EUR 500 000/year for the sake of “simplifying the CAP”. This is an example for a step backwards compared to the previous version of CAP, but it’s not been stated in any press or letter from the Commission. The Italian decision to avoid capping large beneficiaries in the name of protecting “labour intensive” large-scale companies is an argument reiterated also by other Member States without substantial evidence neither in the plans, nor in their ex-ante evaluations.
This report comes at crucial time for the CAP debate anticipating the EU elections in 2024 and a possible mid-term CAP reform taking place in parallel with the CAP Strategic Plans’ performance reviews in 2025. Especially because the speculations about food security and market instability are raising and can strongly deviate the political attention from these issues, this analysis suggests the Commissions should keep unfairness in CAP at the center of the political agenda.
Some more words on topic
Even if the CAP Strategic Plans have been approved no so long ago and the CAP post-2027 seems far away, the debate on the future of CAP is bustling again. The ARC2020 report explains why it is important to bring this debate, and specifically questions about the fairness of the CAP, to the table now, in the early stages of building a new agricultural policy cycle.
According to the ARC2020 report, this debate will gravitate around the following issues:
- New forms of neoliberal interventions weakening public rules, including strategic food stocks and market support with poor socio-environmental strings attached;
- Further deregulation of state aid;
- Higher public budgets available for private agricultural insurance schemes;
- Agri-chemical exceptions from competitions laws; and,
- Public money to large-scale corporations disguised as producer organisations in sectorial interventions.