Standing at the Crossroads – the Future of a Strong Common Agricultural Policy is at Stake A la croisée des chemins – l’avenir d’une politique agricole commune forte est en jeu Am Scheideweg – die Zukunft einer starken Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik steht auf dem Spiel

Standing at the Crossroads – the Future of a Strong Common Agricultural Policy is at Stake The issues and targets in the European Union’s agenda are largely in line with Hungarian objectives; job creation for example is one of the main targets of the Europe 2020 strategy and also of the Hungarian Government. Hungary’s development and competitiveness are linked to the internal development and global competitiveness of the European Union; and so our primary objective is to strengthen the integration process and to obtain a strong Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP has reached the highest level of integration among EU policies and its original objectives have been reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty. Europe needs a strong and common agricultural policy beyond 2013; the main task of agriculture will be to ensure the security of food supplies. The future success of the CAP requires appropriate financial support to secure future targets. Rural development has already become an integral part of the CAP structure; but rural areas will not be viable without an evolving agriculture. Without the provision of a proper level of income subsidies many farms would be forced to stop production. CAP adjustments should promote the catching up of new Member States and eliminate the current system of direct subsidies that disadvantage the new members.     

Eastern enlargement of the EU and its implications for agriculture and agricultural policies

In 2004 ten Eastern and Southern European countries will join the EU. Agriculture and agricultural policy is an important issue in this EU enlargement process, for several reasons. This paper assesses the implications of the enlargement process for agriculture and agricultural policies.     

AGRICULTURE IN THE URUGUAY ROUND: AMBITIONS AND REALITIES

Agricultural trade policies are basically a function of domestic policy considerations which have produced high levels of support in many countries. New policy instruments such as direct payments, which are more demanding in terms of information costs but which distort resource allocation less, are becoming more attractive. Unilateral liberalisation is, however, unlikely. Freer trade is a public good which requires international collective action to be provided. Countries which have a clear-cut trade interest in liberalising markets for commodities they export can play the role of catalyst in international co-ordination. The existence of big players is a favourable factor. Hence, the drift of the Round towards a co-ordination of US-EC interests. Both political economy and trade interest considerations suggest that an agreement reached will have its main impact on crops which are widely traded. The main constraining factor of an agreement on EC and US agriculture will be the discipline it will impose on the use of export subsidies. Agriculture will still not come fully under GATT rules which apply to other sectors, but in the future the CAP will be more constrained by international commitments than in the past.     

Innovation in Labour Organisation and Social Conditionality: Implications for Farm Advisory Services

There is growing concern about the evolution of working conditions for employees on European farms. In the new Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), financial support to farmers will soon be subject to a social conditionality clause. As a result of this change in CAP regulations, in this paper we ask if the need for specific advice can already be foreseen? Examining recent investigations that focused on new forms of labour organisations on farms can help to answer this question. Investigations were conducted across France, combining qualitative field studies with a comprehensive analysis of statistical and administrative data. The results show a growing complexity of farm labour organisation that generates needs for new types of advice. In particular, an increasing proportion of the people working on farms are employed by another organisation (foreign and domestic service providers, employers’ alliances, etc.). The administrative data provides strong evidence of the scale of this trend which has little visibility in the agricultural census data. We should therefore be cautious about oversimplified representations of labour patterns at farm level. They can distort policy design, implementation and assessment by overlooking a part of the worker population and needs for new types of advice, including those that will be required to meet social conditionality requirements.     

A Competitive,Sustainable and Diverse Agriculture: A View of the CAP Beyond 2013 Pour une agriculture compétitive,durable and variée : un point de vue sur la PAC après 2013 Eine wettbewerbsfähige,nachhaltige und vielfältige Landwirtschaft: Ein Ausblick auf die GAP nach 2013

A Competitive, Sustainable and Diverse Agriculture: A View of the CAP Beyond 2013 New challenges make clear that past achievements of the CAP cannot be taken for granted. A strong European agricultural policy remains necessary after 2013, at the service of Europe’s citizens and agricultural sector. However, in order to realise the vision embedded in the European agricultural model, the CAP will have to evolve. Beyond dealing with the negative consequences of the economic crisis, more attention should go to competitiveness and entrepreneurship. The functioning of the supply chain should be improved leading to a fairer distribution of costs and benefits. Producer organisations should be expanded and strengthened. Work is needed to put into practice the concept of green growth and to explore the synergy between the demand for public goods and the need for higher farm income. An improved system of direct support remains justified, to compensate for extra costs and to stabilise income. The CAP post-2013 should offer a strong EU framework, able to meet shared challenges, with clear objectives and sufficient funding. Within that framework, diversity is a fact, and regions should be able to deploy CAP policies and funds in a more flexible way to accommodate local needs and problems and to be able to react to changing circumstances.     

Coping with Crisis Risk in European Agriculture

Coping with Crisis Risk in European Agriculture
This article summarizes the major findings of an international workshop on coping with crisis risk in European agriculture. The workshop took place as part of an EU sixth framework project entitled: Income stabilisation: Design and economic impact of risk management tools for European agriculture. The meeting focused on ex ante crisis risk, which is defined as a foreseeable and predictable risk that potentially hits many farms at the same time. More specifically, the workshop focused on technology risks - such as food safety and livestock epidemic risks - and weather risks. State of the art discussions pointed towards little attention being paid to crisis risk management in EU agriculture and the incompleteness of risk management instruments available. Proposed solutions, although not entirely agreed upon by all workshop participants, envision some form of public–private partnership. For technology risks, which are rather'manageable' by individual farmers, partnerships are recommended to be a mix of regulation, risk mitigation and non-subsidised market instruments with a clear focus on incentives for risk prevention. For weather risks, these partnerships include financial aspects whereby governments offer free cover for the catastrophic part of losses. The Income Stabilisation project will integrate workshop recommendations with wider research project activities and will eventually advise on prospective risk management instruments for various farm types and regions throughout the European Union.     

Investing in Bulgarian Agriculture Investir dans l’agriculture bulgare Investitionen in die bulgarische Landwirtschaft

Investing in Bulgarian Agriculture The Programme for European Development of Bulgaria has set agricultural development as a basis for economic growth. The first strategic objective of the Programme is to make agriculture an attractive industry and to guarantee a high standard of living for people working in the sector by stabilising and increasing their incomes. The priorities of the Bulgarian government regarding agriculture follow the priorities of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and we strictly adhere to the two pillars of the CAP. A Food Safety Agency is being established to guarantee the safety and increase the quality of food and a legislative base is being created to allow producers to supply directly to consumers thus enhancing market opportunities. Bulgaria is in the middle of the first programming period of the Rural Development Programme (2007–2013) and expectations of the programme are high. It has the largest budget in Bulgaria and the fund absorption rate of about 20 per cent is the highest in the country. Bulgarian government priorities are consistently focused on the goal of increasing the competitiveness of Bulgarian agriculture through technical and technological modernization of the sector and on the sustainable development and stabilization of rural areas under the conditions of EU membership.     

European Agriculture in Transition

The uncertainties facing European agriculture have rarely been greater. The combination of the Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the agricultural negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the impact on agricultural trade of the liberalisation of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) economies produce a greater set of challenges than at any other time this century. These three sets of issues have four features in common. First, they are all of such a scale that they could have signifcant effects on the economic circumstances facing European farmers. Second, they are intensely political and thus the outcome is extremely difficult to predict. Third, they all involve processes which will span several years, they are not once-off events. Fourth, they all move in the direction of increasing competitive pressures on West European agriculture. The paper proceeds in four parts. Parts one to three summarise the main components of each of the three issues and the scale and timetable of the changes they may bring about. The fourth part contains a discussion of the interactions between the three issues and assessment of the direction and magnitude of the effects of the changes. Anticipating the conclusions, imagine agriculture in the EC (and, mutatis mutandi, EFTA) as a basket of sikworm cocoons! Our farmers have already been through several stages of their metamorphosis. Having gorged themselves for decades on the mulberry leaves of taxpayer-provided subsidies, they are now cosily embraced in the tangled and extremely protective web of the CAP. For sound internal and external reasons, this protective shield of silk is being unwound. The result will be an industry which is more exposed to the elements. The environment facing farmers will be less certain, more variable, there will be more competition and less protection against predators. Many of the moths will not survive the harsh climate outside the cocoon. Equally, however the larger, better nourished and fitter ones will make it. They will ensure the survival of the species. But as is often the case in nature, many may perish in order that the rest survive. It is also likely to be the case that fewer of those who care for and supply to the silkworms will be required for this smaller, stronger, more productive surviving population.     

Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the KASSA project

According to KASSA findings, conservation agriculture is less adopted in Europe compared to other adopting regions and, reduced tillage is more common than no-tillage and cover crops. Currently, it is not popularised and it is less researched. The lack of knowledge on conservation agriculture systems and their management and, the absence of dynamic and effective innovation systems make it difficult and socio-economically risky for European farmers to give up ploughing which is a paradigm rooted in their cultural backgrounds. In Norway and Germany the adoption of conservation agriculture has been encouraged and subsidised in order to mitigate soil erosion. In the other European countries the adoption process seems mainly driven by farmers and, the major driving force has been the cost reduction in machinery, fuel and labour saving. Soil and water conservation concerns did not appear as main drivers in the European farmers’ decision to shift or not to conservation agriculture.The shift of European farmers to conservation agriculture is being achieved through a step-by-step attitude, large scale farms are the most adopters. This adoption trend may grow in the future. Indeed, the need to improve farms’ competitiveness, the market globalization and the steady increase of fuel cost will likely contribute to arouse European farmers’ interest in conservation agriculture as it slashes significantly the production costs.Conservation agriculture is not equally suitable for all the European agroecosystems. The need of soil and water conservation in Europe requires anticipating the ongoing process in order to improve its ecological and socio-economic sustainability. Priority would be to define which regions in Europe are the most suitable for conservation agriculture taking into account climate and soil constraints, length of growing period, water availability and quality, erosion hazards and farming conditions. Policy favouring the use of soil cover and profitable crop rotations as management strategies for weed, pest and diseases control will certainly allow developing and disseminating efficient and acceptable conservation agriculture systems.     

杨凌农业科技示范园区创新能力评价

[目的]文章以对园区创新能力进行科学合理的评价为目的分析了杨凌农业科技示范园区2013—2015年3年来的创新能力发展状况,从技术创新能力、制度创新能力与创新环境支撑3个方面出发构建评价指标体系。[方法]在查找与园区创新能力相关文献和数据的基础上,采用层次分析法和模糊评价法,对杨凌现代农业示范园区创新能力进行纵向对比分析。[结果]杨凌现代农业示范园区的创新能力逐渐提升;2013年、2014年、2015年园区创新能力得分分值不断增加,其分值分别为1.710 2、2.314 6、2.518 2;其创新能力对应的等级从2013年和2014年的一般发展到2015年的良好。[结论]2013—2015年,园区的经费与科技人员等投入充足,科技孵化能力增强,各项科技收入增加,表明技术创新能力有所发展;制度创新能力在各项政策的大力支持下也进步明显,其中园区创新环境支撑的飞速进步对园区创新能力发展的贡献最大。     

江门市农业区域布局研究

该文分析了江门市现代农业发展现状,提出了未来江门农业产业发展打造"四带三轴双核心"的区域主导产业布局与该区域功能定位,并指出建设珠三角及港澳地区的鲜活农产品供应基地、现代化农业休闲旅游基地、农产品现代物流基地以及农产品出口生产基地的发展目标,对未来江门农业的进一步发展具有重要的指导意义。     

Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison

Integrated Assessment studies have shown that meeting ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation targets will require substantial amounts of bioenergy as part of the future energy mix. In the course of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), five global agro‐economic models were used to analyze a future scenario with global demand for ligno‐cellulosic bioenergy rising to about 100 ExaJoule in 2050. From this exercise a tentative conclusion can be drawn that ambitious climate change mitigation need not drive up global food prices much, if the extra land required for bioenergy production is accessible or if the feedstock, for example, from forests, does not directly compete for agricultural land. Agricultural price effects across models by the year 2050 from high bioenergy demand in an ambitious mitigation scenario appear to be much smaller (+5% average across models) than from direct climate impacts on crop yields in a high‐emission scenario (+25% average across models). However, potential future scarcities of water and nutrients, policy‐induced restrictions on agricultural land expansion, as well as potential welfare losses have not been specifically looked at in this exercise.     

European Agriculture after Brexit: Does Anyone Benefit from the Divorce?

The UK exited the EU on 31 January 2020, with a transition period agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement. During this transition period the UK and the EU will decide on their future trading relationship. No matter what form this relationship takes, there will be disturbances to agri‐food markets. This study analyses four different scenarios with increasing barriers to trade, ranging from a very close relationship similar to the European Economic Area to a distant relationship in which the UK and EU trade on Most Favoured Nation terms, using the EU focused global agricultural sector model CAPRI. In the UK, food prices will increase in all scenarios, making consumers in the UK the biggest losers. Only in a free trade agreement scenario does the UK show an unambiguous positive net welfare gain in just the agri‐food sector. In the case of the European Economic Area scenario, which assumes continued access to the single market, the net welfare impact would depend on the size of the UK’s continued contribution to the EU. In the EU, declining food prices would benefit consumers but the sum of the loss in farmers’ incomes and the UK’s EU CAP contribution would be much greater than the consumer’s gain. These impacts in agricultural markets under different future trade arrangements will also be influenced by the UK’s agricultural policy changes in direct payments as well as by possible further UK trade liberalisation after the end of the transition period.     

CAP and Advisory Services: From Farm Advisory Systems to Innovation Support

Farm advisory services have become an important topic in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU). The aim of this article is to draw lessons from the implementation of the regulation and measures of the current 2014–2022 CAP in knowledge transfer and advisory services to contribute to debates about the future of farm advisory policies. Findings are based on two studies commissioned by the European Commission: an evaluation study implemented by a consortium of consultancies and researchers and a comparative analysis implemented in the frame of the H2020 research project AgriLink. The article first provides a historical perspective of the ‘knowledge and advice’ dimension of the CAP since 2007. We show a gradual transition towards greater flexibility of measures supporting innovation and knowledge flows. The professional status of farm advisors across European countries was more strongly acknowledged, offering new life-long training opportunities to advisors. However, the implementation of CAP’s advisory measures remains complex. As a result, the effects of these measures have been rather limited, with only few farmers reached overall. Fostering an inclusiveness of these measures remains an ongoing challenge for policymakers.     

粮食主产区农村公共产品投入对农业增长的影响分析

粮食主产区在中国农业生产格局中占有非常重要的地位,加大对粮食主产区农村公共产品投入有利于实现农业长期、稳定增长。本文运用1993—2007年粮食主产区13个省的面板数据分析了公共产品投入对粮食主产区农业增长的影响,分析表明,农村教育、农村电力、农村公路和农田水利等公共投入对农业增长有正向促进作用,其中农村教育的弹性最高,农村电力的贡献份额最大。     

AGRICULTURE IN A WORLD OF TRADING BLOCS

The recent trend towards the negotiation of free trade areas has potentially important implications for agriculture. Agricultural trade will increasingly be influenced by the treatment of agriculture within free-trade areas and other regional trade associations. Such blocs will have to deal internally with many of the same issues as face the GATT. This will tend to reinforce the move to less trade-disruptive domestic policies. Moreover, independent trade policies become difficult to maintain in a trade bloc, even if there is no common external tariff. This could lead to harmonisation of external policies. As a consequence, the inclusion of agriculture in free-trade areas could be an important part of overall trade liberalisation in years to come.     

GUARANTEE THRESHOLDS AND THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

In recent years an important development in the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community has been the acceptance of the principle that the price guarantees can no longer be unlimited in nature, and that, if production exceeds a certain level, action should be taken to ensure that producers share in the responsibility for additional production. In 1981 the term ‘guarantee threshold’ was introduced to denote this level of production. Different mechanisms have been introduced in the various market regulations to give effect to the guarantee thresholds, and it is necessary for policy makers to realise that these mechanisms have different economic consequences. The case of milk is particularly instructive, for here the European Community in 1984 made a radical change by switching from the mechanism of reducing price support, if the guarantee threshold is exceeded, to a system of quotas for milk deliveries. Guarantee thresholds also exist for other products (cereals, processed fruit and vegetables, oilseeds) and in other cases there are analogous measures (sugar, wine, fruit in syrup, cotton). In the future development of the CAP, guarantee thresholds will continue to play an important role. How far can the Community expect to succeed in controlling its agricultural production by price or quantitative action, and what accompanying measures will be necessary?     

THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ITALIAN AGRICULTURE

The relative importance of Italian agriculture in the EC, both in terms of net value added and of employment, has never been matched by a comparable impact on the CAP policymaking process. Mediterranean agricultural products in particular have been less favoured by the overwhelming common policy instrument of product price support, which has also a negative impact on the economy as a whole. The most relevant effects of the CAP are reviewed: the impact on resource allocation, including international income transfers, and the effects on the environment, as well as the effects on interpersonal income distribution. An evaluation of CAP is then made from different points of view: the likely perspective of present Italian farmers, a national perspective and an overall perspective, including the interests of non EC countries and future generations. Lower and more balanced price support, together with higher concern for structural and environmental policies especially in less favoured areas, are advocated.     

The environmental sustainability of national cropping systems: From assessment to policy impact evaluation

The European political framework of the last decade aims to drive agriculture towards economic and environmental sustainability. Thus, European institutions have paid great attention to environmental impact assessment and to the definition of a complex indicator capable of restoring the multidimensional nature of environmental sustainability.In this work, a possible methodology for assessing the environmental sustainability of European national cropping systems by a synthetic indicator is provided. More specifically, the environmental impact of agriculture is assessed through a synthetic indicator, whose definition is based on a methodological improvement of the ecological footprint approach, which quantifies the balance between exploitation and availability of natural resources used in agriculture.The analysis shows how national cropping systems can contribute to Europe’s environmental impact through agriculture. To assess an eventual relationship between agriculture’s environmental performance and the ability to support more sustainable agriculture at the national level, the results are then compared with the subsidies for agro-environmental measures provided by the second pillar of the CAP. In addition, the synthetic indicator chosen for the study, giving the possibility of quantifying the dynamic of the environmental impact of agriculture between two different periods, permits the analysis of the possible causes that may have generated the observed changes.The implications of this approach should stimulate new reflections on the significance of the ecological relationships embodied into agricultural production and the environmental role of farmers.     

A quick scan tool to assess the relative prospects of European regions for sustainable agriculture in a liberal market

The European Union (EU) most likely will continue to adapt its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to a more liberal market policy. We assume that this process will take place in the next 20 years. A relevant question then is which European regions, under such conditions, have prospects to maintain a sustainable agriculture in terms of the objectives within the ‘People, Profit and Planet’ framework of sustainability. We explored the question by defining simple indicators for the 3 P-objectives, quantifying the indicators per region, ranking the regions per indicator and defining the prospect of a region in comparison to other regions. The approach is very robust, easy to update and indicative for quickly assessing future prospects of regions. The results are presented in three maps showing more than 160 regions of the EU-25 member countries classified according to their agricultural prospects for competitiveness (Profit), employment (People) and land use (Planet). By considering the three maps in combination, the overall prospects for sustainable agriculture under “liberalised” conditions can be assessed. Based on this quick scan, it is concluded that: (a) the few highly developed and highly productive regions in the UK, the Netherlands, France and Germany will out-compete the numerous still poorly developed and low-productive regions in the Southern and Eastern EU member states; (b) these regions in the UK, the Netherlands, France and Germany will maintain their already minimized and highly productive employment at the expense of the member states with a relatively high agrarian employment, notably Poland and the Baltic states; (c) the sparsely populated regions of France, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Czech Republic and Germany will maintain their agrarian land use, at the expense of densely populated regions with relatively small holdings in Poland, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain. Policy makers and entrepreneurs can obtain an integrative view by taking into account the three prospect maps to support decision-making on long-term policies and sustainable investments in terms of the 3 Ps.