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, agrienvironment
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
Social farming, Columbini, Italy
Regional
products
trail, PNR
Chartreuse,
France
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?