Universidad Carlos III de Madrid - UC3M


Portada del sitio > Asignaturas / Teaching > Economics of European Integration > Readings on Economics of European Integration > CAP reform and the multianual financial framework 2014-20 and (...) > Post-2013 EU Common Agricultural Policy, Trade and Development

Post-2013 EU Common Agricultural Policy, Trade and Development

By Alan Matthews. Issue Paper No. 39, ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development. Issue Paper No. 39, 2011 Oct.

Jueves 27 de octubre de 2011, por Carlos San Juan


Downlable in: http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/10/matthews_post-2013_eu_cap_trade__development_legislative_proposals.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development ix friendly farming practices, and the redistribution of direct payments towards farms in more marginal and less productive areas, will lower the EU’s production potential compared to a status quo scenario. This will affect arable production in particular. Resulting higher feed prices will reduce EU pig and poultry production and will also constrain any expansion in milk production which might be anticipated after the elimination of milk quotas. The slight reduction in coupled cotton payments will lead to lower EU cotton production. While the abolition of milk quotas is not expected to have any significant impact on world markets, the proposed elimination of sugar quotas could result in a substantial increase in production, depending on the level of world market prices over the next decade. This would result in lower imports from preferential suppliers, particularly least developed countries and ACP exporters. However, there are divergent views on the potential for expanded EU sugar production and thus considerable uncertainty regarding the future of EU sugar imports. Moreover, the continuation of coupled supports which, on the basis of past experience, will be directed mainly to beef and sheep production, together with the effect of redistributing direct payments to more marginal farming areas where beef and sheep production is more important, will keep EU production of these commodities higher than would otherwise be the case. This CAP reform was not intended to address the trade barriers used to keep some EU market prices higher than world market levels. The EU has reduced the impact 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. Nonetheless, developing countries will be disappointed that the opportunity was not taken in this reform to set a final date for the ending of export subsidies. A more ambitious CAP reform, in which the targeting of direct payments was pursued more insistently and coupled payments were phased out, would also have a greater impact in removing the remaining distortions caused by the CAP to world markets.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF CAP TERMS iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v

FOREWORD vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii

1. STATE OF PLAY OF THE CAP 2020 DEBATE 1

2. COMMISSION PROPOSALS 4

2.1 Direct Payments 4

2.2 Market Measures 9

2.3 Rural Development 11

3. PRODUCTION AND TRADE EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 14

3.1 Impacts from Elimination of Milk and Sugar Quotas 14

3.2 Greening Impacts 17

3.3 Impact of Moving to More Uniform Direct Payments 17

3.4 Coupling Impacts 18

3.5 Future WTO Compliance of EU Direct Payments 20

4. FINAL REFLECTIONS 23

4.1 Food security impacts of the Commission proposals 23

4.2 Coupled payments 24

4.3 Sugar 24

4.4 Cotton 25

4.5 Rice 25

4.6 Final remarks 25

ENDNOTES 27

REFERENCES 30

ANNEX 33


Seguir la vida del sitio RSS 2.0 | Mapa del sitio | Espacio privado | SPIP | Contacto: csm@eco.uc3m.es