CAP reform, competitiveness and sustainability

Abstract

Franz Fischler has recently published his proposals for (further) reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In summary they amount to an attempt to achieve an agricultural industry that is not only more competitive and profitable but also ecologically and environmentally sustainable. For Franz Fischler, sustainability is defined as more than the effective conservation and regeneration of natural resources; it also involves sustaining the presumed contribution of farming to rural development. This latter objective is the focus of the newly introduced second pillar of the CAP and can be interpreted as an attempt to arrest the steady decline in the number of smaller-sized farm businesses. Franz Fischler has pointed to the widespread support for these three objectives across EU populations and, subject to WTO constraints on trade distorting policies, the right of every society to choose its own agricultural policy. However, the analysis of the reform's objectives contained in this paper is that they form an irreconcilable trinity and ultimately policy makers will have to choose between a competitive industry and the protection of smaller farm businesses. This paper argues that in reality there is no choice. Globalisation will both drive and demand a more productive and competitive food chain in order to meet the demands of rising affluence and a burgeoning world population. It also argues that the industrialisation of farming is not automatically in conflict with the conservation and regeneration of natural resources.

What kind of countryside do the public want: community visions from Wales UK?

“…This reconstruction of the countryside arena within what is termed 'accessible countryside' or exurbia gives rise to new tensions and conflicts associated with the intersection of both production and consumption functions within the same geographical space (Cadieux 2005). Here, external pressures from diverse points of origin such as Common Agriculture Policy reform (Rickard 2004), centralisation of public services (Pinch 1989), variations in local housing markets (Gallent et al 2003), commuting, population change (Findlay et al 2001;Stockdale 2005) and leisure demands (Scott 1998), combine to make simple urban-rural conceptualisations redundant in favour of an approach that recognises the differing nature and extent of urbanrural interrelationships (Browder 2002;Hodge and Monk 2004;Scott et al 2008). However, whilst such views command significant support, Evans et al (2002) provide a powerful paper challenging evidence that such concepts have permeated the culture and behaviours of key rural stakeholders.…”

Spatial differentiation of farm diversification: How rural attractiveness and vicinity to cities determine farm households’ response to the CAP

“…The need to generate additional income represents the main motivation for the introduction of farm diversification (Maye et al, 2009;Pfeifer et al, 2009;Meert et al, 2005;Daskalopoulou and Petrou, 2002). Particularly for small and marginal farm holdings, engagement in farm accommodation and tourism, for example, is recognised as a survival strategy (Maye et al, 2009;Rickard, 2004;Meert et al, 2005). Sociologically, farm diversification is rooted in the familyrun farm business, often providing additional income resources for women and other family labour force in off-peak seasons (Gasson and Winter, 2002;Garcia-Ramon et al, 1995).…”

What would farmers' strategies be in a no-CAP situation? An illustration from two regions in France

“…In the EU, Rickard (2004), Breen et al (2005), Douarin et al (2007), Tranter et al (2007), Gallerani et al (2008), Genius et al (2008), Maye et al (2009), Lobley and Butler (2010) and Bougherara and Latruffe (2010) shed light on the potential effects on European farmers' behaviour of the 2003 CAP reform and of the introduction of hypothetically fully decoupled support. In general, studies reported that in the EU Old Member States the ten-or five-year plans of the surveyed farmers were not substantially affected by the reform.…”