RunājumiCAP after 2013: the progress we should expect and suggest...Guna Salputra, Latvijas Valsts agrārās ekonomikas institūts (LVAEI)
15.07.2010 Gunas Salputras sagatavotais pētnieciskais ziņojums sarunai ar Latvijā vizītē atvestajiem Eiroparlamenta deputātiem. "EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development delegation visit to Latvia: meeting with experts of agricultural policy" ### Lasāmai lietošanai pielikumā pievienots PDF fails. Pievienotie dokumenti1. Runājuma bilžrāde PDFCAP after 2013: the progress we should expect and suggest...EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
delegation visit to Latvia: meeting with experts of agricultural policy
Guna Salputra, (Latvian State Institute of Agrarian Economics)
15 July, 2010
Outline of presentation
CAP in 2007-2013: the main weakest points to be improved
Comparison of proposals of 3 recent studies regarding change of CAP after 2013
do they contribute in reduction of weak points?
what policy scenarios should be selected for further analysis?
Direct support scenarios results: what could be the production and market effects?
CAP in 2007-2013: the main weakest points to be improved
Mixed policies – agricultural, environmental, cohesion - between 1st and 2nd Pillar and in total, bringing to
Unclear targeting of policies.
Outdated or not quantified “objective” criteria for eligibility of support, bringing to:
Unequal application of policy measures,
Unfair competition conditions.
Recent studies – background for changes of CAP...
Public Money for Public Goods: Winners and Losers from CAP Reform,
ECIPE Working Paper, No. 08/2009;
The Single Payment Scheme after 2013: New Approach - New Targets,
Study requested by European Parliament, April 2010
Forthcoming modifications of the EU Agricultural and Rural Development Policy from Baltic perspective,
LSIAE study (using AGMEMOD model) requested by MoA of Latvia, 2009
CAP after 2013: ECIPE proposal...
Proposal from study regarding SPS...
Issues to be considered: what would destroy good resolves...?
Complete analysis of CAP should capture both 1st and 2nd Pillar.
National co-financing up to country decision might bring again to different and unfair levels of support like it can be observed in current co-financing of 2nd Pillar. Therefore limits or quantified criteria should be set up.
Too long period for phasing out the most unfair former 1st Pillar country envelope.
Agricultural labour as a criteria for support might not enhance productivity growth.
Focusing on organic farming in Public goods might not comply with food security targets and efficient use of resources.
To proceed to clear and fair policy...
To define targets/objectives;
To quantify objective criteria both applicable at the EU and country level;
To avoid any direct or market support at the level defined by countries themselves (co-financing, “objective” criterias etc.);
To specify foreseeable time period for implementation of reforms
Latvia’s proposal (taking into account the outcome from different studies)...
Latvia’s proposal...
1st Pillar
Public goods component – normative calculation for maintenance of agricultural area in GAEC (in order to ensure food security);
Income support component – sharing between countries proportionaly to agricultural area and GDP per capita in pps;
2nd Pillar
sharing between countries proportionaly to agricultural area and in inverse ratio of GDP per capita in pps (in order to capture the different levels of economic development in Member States).
Latvia’s proposal... 1st Pillar
Latvia’s proposal... 2nd Pillar
What policy scenarios should be selected for further analysis?
Baseline scenario with continuation of the policy as agreed under the Health Check
EU Flat Rate
Scenario where reduced EU-wide Flat Rate Payment is set at 100 Euros per hectare.
The modulation rate is set at zero as the Pillar I funds are redistributed through the reduced direct payments.
ABOLISH
Direct Payments Abolition Scenario examines the impact of a gradual linear cut of all direct payments over a 7-year period from 2013 to 2020.
What could be production and market effects in respect of food security?
Policy scenario results using the methodology of EU FP6 project AGMEMOD 2020
Scenario results: Soft wheat
Scenario results: Beef and veal
Thank You for attention!
E-mail: guna@lvaei.lv
|
|
Trešdiena, 3. jūlijs
 |
