Common Agricultural Policy
Outside Brussels proper, the impact of the powerful farming lobby has been a factor in determining EU agricultural policy since the earliest days of integration.
[citation needed] In recent times change has been more forthcoming because of external trade demands and intrusion in agricultural affairs by other parts of the EU policy framework, such as consumer advocate working groups and the environmental departments of the Union.
Proponents claim that the CAP is an exceptional economic sector as it protects the "rural way of life" although it is recognized that it affects world poverty.
The Health Check of the CAP agreed in November 2008 added on a number of measures to help the farmers to respond better to signals from the markets and to face new challenges.
Among a range of measures, the agreement abolished arable set-aside, increased milk quotas gradually leading up to their abolition in 2015, and converted market intervention into a genuine safety net.
The UK government decided to run a dual system of subsidies in England, each year transferring a larger proportion of the total payment to the new scheme.
Alterations to the qualifying rules meant that many small landowners became eligible to apply for grants and the Rural Payments Agency in England received double the previous number of applications (110,000).
[16] The three objectives and overall purpose of the CAP include: However, in practical terms RDPs are drawn up with reference to six more specific priorities, which are further divided into more detailed focus areas.
[23] A MS / region draws up its RDP in close consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including bodies representing Civil society.
RDPs usually need to be amended several times during their seven-year life, to keep them as relevant, effective and efficient as possible – in light of changing circumstances and the findings of monitoring and evaluation.
The key stages are: The monitoring and evaluation processes draw on a range of indicators concerning financial execution, outputs, results and impact.
The EU has reduced the effect of these barriers for a number of developing countries through extending the scope of preferential access under various trade agreements, and a further reduction is being negotiated in the WTO Doha Round.
"[27] In another study, Prof. Matthews showed how linking EU farm subsidies to goals such as environmental protection could help farmers in poor countries, although much depends on the size of the payments and how they are made.
[37] In 2010, the EU decided to use existing intervention stocks (cereals, milk powder and limited quantities of butter) for its "Food Aid for the Needy" scheme for 2011.
It is argued that many African and Asian dairy, tomato,[39][40] grain and poultry farmers cannot keep up with cheap competition from Europe, thus their incomes can no longer provide for their families.
The 2005 Human Development Report states "The basic problem to be addressed in the WTO negotiations on agriculture can be summarized in three words: rich country subsidies.
Health groups have become increasingly vocal in their call for agricultural policies to contribute towards resolving the consumption problems of food; such as, excessive intake of saturated fatty acids (FSA), sugar and salt, or under-consumption of vitamins (leading to hypovitaminosis) and minerals.
Although most policy makers in Europe agree that they want to promote "family farms" and smaller scale production, the CAP in fact rewards larger producers.
[50] In England, farmers have been lauded by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds because the five most threatened bumblebees have made a comeback to the English nature due to the agri-environmental schemes.
[52] In Hungary, a special scheme was launched to protect the great bustard, maybe the world's heaviest flying bird, which needs areas with minimal disturbance and an abundant supply of insects to breed.
Another aspect is difference between older Western European and newer Central and Eastern member states, due to transitional arrangements the latter received smaller payments.
[61] The coupling of the subsidy means that they will continue to have significant trade-distorting effect, most notably on West African farmers who are unable to compete with subsidised cotton.
However, the political clout of farmers, and the sensitivity of the issue in nations that still remembered severe food shortages during and after the Second World War, delayed the CAP and its implementation for many years.
[80]The conference's Final Resolution argued for the vital importance of agriculture in economic and social life and expressed their unanimous wish to preserve the character of European farming, which was predominately based on small-size, family holdings.
[84] In December the Council agreed to a system of import levies (for grain, sugar, pork, eggs and poultry) and to commodity regimes for agricultural produce.
[87] A year later, two arms of the Fund were established, the Guarantee side implemented market and price support and the Guidance part supplied structural aid.
He, therefore, suggested that production methods should be reformed and modernised and that small farms, which were bound to disappear sooner or later, according to Community experts, should be increased in size.
The current reform issues in EU agriculture are: lowering prices, ensuring food safety and quality, and guaranteeing stability of farmers' incomes.
The political scientist Peter Nedergaard analysed the 2003 reform on the basis of rational choice theory and stated that, "In order to arrive at an adequate explanation, an account of the policy entrepreneurship on the part of Commissioner Franz Fischler must be given.
The Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development Dacian Cioloş, outlined seven major challenges that the future CAP needed to address: food production, globalization, the environment, economic issues, a territorial approach, diversity and simplification.
