Common Agricultural Policy
Related Reports
- Oil Crops Outlook: March 2013
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade
- Resources, Policies, and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa
- Oil Crops Outlook: February 2013
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2022
- Rising Grain Exports by the Former Soviet Union Region
- Rice Outlook: January 2013
- Cotton and Hydropower in Central Asia: How Resource Competition Affects Trade
- Southeast Asia’s Rice Surplus
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook; December 2012
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: November 2012
- Rice Outlook: November 2012
- Economic Policy and Cotton in Uzbekistan
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: October 2012
- Rice Outlook: October 2012
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook: September 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: September 2012
- Wheat Outlook: September 2012
- Rice Outlook: September 2012
- Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: August 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: August 2012
- Wheat Outlook: August 2012
- Rice Outlook: August 2012
- Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Impacts on U.S. and Foreign Suppliers in Commodity and Manufactured Food Markets
- China’s Market for Distillers Dried Grains and the Key Influences on Its Longer Run Potential
- Dynamic PEATSim Model Documenting Its Use in Analyzing Global Commodity Markets
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: July 2012
- Rice Outlook: July 2012
- International Food Security Assessment, 2012-22
- Policy, Technology, and Efficiency of Brazilian Agriculture
- Vegetables and Pulses Outlook: June 2012
- Indonesia’s Modern Food Retail Sector: Interaction With Changing Food Consumption and Trade Patterns
- Estimating the Range of Food-Insecure Households in India
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: May 2012
- Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: May 2012
- U.S. Net Textile and Apparel Imports Decline in 2011
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2021
- China’s Volatile Pork Industry
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: January 2012
- Long-Term Growth Prospects for Wheat Production in Afghanistan
- Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: December 2011
- Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: October 2011
- Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico
- Wheat Flour Price Shocks and Household Food Security in Afghanistan
- The Expansion of Modern Grocery Retailing and Trade in Developing Countries
- Brazil’s Ethanol Industry: Looking Forward
- Brazil’s Cotton Industry: Economic Reform and Development
- Reciprocal Trade Agreements: Impacts on Bilateral Trade Expansion and Contraction in the World Agricultural Marketplace
- International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005 International Comparison Program Data
- Peru: An Emerging Exporter of Fruits and Vegetables
- The U.S. and Mexican Dry Bean Sectors
- Japan’s Beef Market
- Food Security Assessment, 2010-20
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: April 2010
- Growth and Equity Effects of Agricultural Marketing Efficiency Gains in India
- Feed Outlook: December 2009
- The Economics of Agricultural and Wildlife Smuggling
- U.S. Cotton Prices and the World Cotton Market: Forecasting and Structural Change
- What the 2008/2009 World Economic Crisis Means for Global Agricultural Trade
- Trade and Development When Exports Lack Diversification: A Case Study from Malawi
- Imports From China and Food Safety Issues
- Food Security Assessment, 2008-09
- Russia’s Growing Agricultural Imports: Causes and Outlook
- China's Ongoing Agricultural Modernization: Challenges Remain After 30 Years of Reform
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2018
- Declining Orange Consumption in Japan: Generational Changes or Something Else?
- Colombia: A New Ethanol Producer on the Rise?
- Food Safety and Imports: An Analysis of FDA Import Refusal Reports
- The EU Sugar Policy Regime and Implications of Reform
- The Environment for Agricultural and Agribusiness Investment in India
- Food Security Assessment, 2007
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: March 2008
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017
- China’s Cotton Supply and Demand: Issues and Impact on the World Market
- How Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) Has Affected World Poultry-Meat Trade
- Beef Production, Markets, and Trade in Argentina and Uruguay: An Overview
- Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook: September 2007
- Global Growth, Macroeconomic Change, and U.S. Agricultural Trade
- China Currency Appreciation Could Boost U.S. Agricultural Exports
- Indian Wheat and Rice Sector Policies and the Implications of Reform
- USDA Agricultural Projections to 2016
- Demand for Food Quantity and Quality in China
- Food Security Assessment 2005, GFA 17
- The Role of Policy and Industry Structure in India's Oilseed Markets
- Trade Liberalization in International Dairy Markets: Estimated Impacts
- Food Security Assessment, GFA 16
- New Directions in Global Food Markets
- Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and Vegetables
- Food Security Assessment, GFA-15
- India's Poultry Sector: Development and Prospects
- International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies
- International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns
- Food Security Assessment GFA14
- Structural Change and Agricultural Protection: Costs of Korean Agricultural Policy, 1975 and 1990
- China's Food and Agriculture: Issues for the 21st Century
- Food Security Assessment GFA13
- Livestock Sectors in the Economies of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Transition from Plan to Market and the Road Ahead
- Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developments and Prospects for Major Field Crops
- Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade
- Agricultural Policy Reform in the WTO--The Road Ahead
- Issues in Food Security
- Food Security Assessment GFA12
- U.S. Farm Exports to APEC Forum Members Up 23 Percent in FY1995, to Record High
Related Amber Waves Articles
Agriculture is the only sector of the European Union (EU) where
there is a common policy. Agricultural policy is proposed by a
supranational authority-the European Commission, agreed to or
amended by agricultural ministers of EU member nations, and
reviewed by the European Parliament. Historically, the EU's Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) has played a critical role in connecting
very diverse European countries and, thus, has helped solidify
national commitment to the EU.
Initiated in 1962, the CAP is a domestically oriented farm
policy based on three major principles:
- a unified market in which there is a free flow of agricultural
commodities with common prices within the EU;
- product preference in the internal market over foreign imports
through common customs tariffs; and
- financial solidarity through common financing of agricultural
programs.
The primary objectives of CAP are to:
- increase agricultural productivity;
- ensure a fair standard of living for farmers;
- stabilize markets;
- guarantee regular food supplies; and
- ensure reasonable prices to consumers.
Policy Instruments
The CAP's main instruments include agricultural price supports,
direct payments to farmers, supply controls, and border measures.
Because of policy reforms in 2003 and 2004, farmers must more fully
comply with environmental, animal welfare, food safety, and
food-quality regulations in order to receive direct payments.
Major reform packages have significantly modified the CAP since
the mid-1990s. The first reform, adopted in 1992 and implemented in
1993/94, began the process of shifting farm support from prices to
direct payments. The 1992 reforms reduced support prices and
compensated farmers for lower prices with direct payments based on
historical yields, and introduced new supply control measures.
These reforms affected the grain, oilseed, protein crop (field peas
and beans), beef, and sheepmeat markets, but farmers had to produce
the commodity to receive a payment.
The second reform, Agenda 2000, was implemented beginning in
2000 in preparation for accession of 10 new members (mostly from
Central and East Europe) in May 2004. Similar to the first CAP
reform, Agenda 2000 used direct payments to compensate farmers for
only half of the loss from new support price cuts. Again, payments
depended on production. Agenda 2000 reforms focused on the grain,
oilseed, dairy, and beef markets.
A midterm review of Agenda 2000 resulted in a third major set of
reforms in June 2003 and April 2004. The reforms represented a
degree of renationalization of farm policy, as each member state
had discretion over the timing (from 2005-07) and method of
implementation. The 2003 reforms allow for decoupled
payments-payments that do not affect production decisions-that vary
by commodity. Called single farm payments (SFP), these decoupled
payments are based on 2000-02 historical payments and replace the
compensation payments of the 1992 and Agenda 2000 reforms.
Compliance with EU regulations regarding environment, animal
welfare, and food quality and safety are required for agricultural
producers to receive SFPs. Moreover, land not farmed must be
maintained in good agricultural condition. Coupled payments, which
can differ by commodity and require planting a crop, are allowed to
continue to reinforce environmental and economic goals in marginal
areas. In practice, coupled payments are only used by a few member
states. Cuts in intervention prices were made in 2005 for rice,
butter, and skim milk powder. Intervention support for storage was
limited for rice and butter and eliminated for rye in 2004. In
addition, increases in the CAP budget ceiling have been limited to
1 percent annually during 2007-13, and-if market support and direct
payments combine to come within 300 million euros of the budget
ceiling-SFPs will be reduced to stay within budget limits.
A reform of hops and Mediterranean products-cotton, tobacco, and
olive oil-was completed in April 2004. These reforms follow the
logic of the 2003 reforms, with decoupled payments based on
historical payments and compliance with EU regulations. Sugar
reform came into force in July 2006. Wine reform was begun in 2008
and completed in 2009.
Domestic price support. Domestic price supports were
the historical backbone of CAP farm support, but have been largely
replaced in this decade by direct payments, which now account for
around 70 percent of the CAP budget. Prices for major commodities
such as some grains (barley, bread wheat, and corn), dairy
products, beef and veal, and sugar still depend on the intervention
price as a guaranteed floor price, but at much lower levels than
before the reforms. If world prices are high, then intervention in
the market is not needed.
Other mechanisms, such as subsidies to assist with surplus
storage and consumer subsidies paid to encourage domestic
consumption of products like butter and skimmed milk powder, also
support domestic prices. The 2003 reforms, however, cut storage
subsidies by 50 percent. Some fruits and vegetables are withdrawn
from the market in limited quantities by authorized producer
organizations when market prices fall to specified levels. Reforms
have lowered the cost of the CAP to consumers, as intervention
prices have been reduced. However, taxpayers now bear a larger
share of the cost because more support is provided through direct
payments.
Direct payments. While price support remains a means of
maintaining farm income, payments made directly to producers
provide substantially more income support. The payments specified
in the 2003 reform are made to farmers based on the average level
of payments made during 2000-02, and no production is required. In
the livestock sector, headage payments (payments per animal) are
made in the beef and sheep sectors based on 2000-02 average
payments, with no production required. Other special payments are
made, but they are relatively minor in value.
Supply control. The 1992 reforms instituted a system of
supply control-through a mandatory, paid set-aside program to limit
production-that was maintained until the reforms of 2008 when
set-aside was abolished. To be eligible for compensation payments
in the 1992 reform, producers of grains, oilseeds, or protein crops
had to remove a specified percentage of their area from production.
Agenda 2000 set the base rate for the required set-aside for arable
crops at 10 percent. Producers with an area planted with these
crops sufficient to produce no more than 92 metric tons of grain
are classified as small producers and were exempt from the
set-aside requirement. While set-aside is no longer used, it could
be re-established if conditions such as over supply returned.
Supply-control quotas have been in effect for the dairy and sugar
sectors for two decades.
Border measures. The CAP maintains domestic
agricultural prices above world prices for many commodities. In
preferential trade agreements, such as those with former colonies
and neighboring countries, the EU satisfies domestic consumer
demand while protecting high domestic prices through import quotas
and minimum import price requirements. The CAP also applies tariffs
at EU borders so that imports cannot be sold domestically below the
internal market prices (intervention prices) set by the CAP.
Although the Uruguay Round
Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) called for more access to the
EU market,
market access to the EU's agricultural sector remains highly
restricted in practice.
The URAA also limited the value and quantity of EU
export subsidies. Bulk commodities can receive export subsidies
that allow the EU to remain competitive in world markets. But
because of reductions in CAP price supports, export subsidies have
declined considerably. EU exports of processed products that
contain a portion of a CAP-supported commodity also receive an
export subsidy, based on the proportion of the commodity in the
product and the difference between the average cost of the raw
material and the world price.
Additional aspects of 2003 reform. Important components
of the 2003 reform reflect a philosophical change in the approach
to EU agricultural policy. For the first time, there was
significant pressure to reform the CAP from environmentalists and
consumers in addition to external pressures. The requirement to
comply with environmental and animal welfare standards to qualify
for the SFP reflects these pressures. Moreover, farmers must meet
food-quality and food-safety regulations for payments to
continue.
Another important feature of the 2003 reforms is a decoupled
income support policy consisting of single farm payments based on
the average historical payments for the 1999-2001 period. EU
farmers now have more choices in their planting decisions because
of the decoupled payments. Commodity support prices continue to
exist, but at lower levels, while direct payments to farmers
without requirements to plant a crop are more widespread.
There is also a marked shift in the way rural development is
treated. The 2003 CAP reforms established two pillars in the
budget: Pillar I for direct payments and market and price support
policies and Pillar II for rural development policies. In the
reforms, a ceiling was imposed on Pillar I spending; increases are
limited to 1 percent per year in nominal terms from 2007-13. The
budget for rural development was intended to more than double by
2013, but budget restrictions have substantially limited Pillar II
spending. Additionally, in a concept called modulation, SFP
payments greater than 5,000 euros are reduced by 5 percent, while
farmers whose SFP is less than 5,000 euros are not penalized. The
budget funds saved through modulation are transferred to the Pillar
II rural development fund. At least 80 percent of the funds from
the penalties will remain in the country where the SFPs were
reduced and are to be used for rural development purposes.
Commodity Regimes
Grains. The CAP regime covers most grain produced by
and imported into EU countries (bread wheat, barley, and corn).
However, high prices for some grains indirectly raise the prices of
unsupported grains, principally feed wheat. As with other
commodities, grain support mechanisms include a mixture of price
supports and supply controls, as described above. CAP reforms have
affected the grain regime mainly by allowing farmers to produce for
the market while receiving direct payments to support income.
The 2003 reforms abolished intervention support for rye and
require a decoupled payment for at least 75 percent of an arable
crop. Since a decoupled payment does not require a crop to be
planted or produced, farmers are free to plant whatever crop they
want or to not plant at all. Durum wheat was allowed a 40-percent
coupled payment in traditional areas to retain people on the land,
while support for durum in nontraditional areas was abolished. In
addition, storage payments for grains were cut by 50 percent.
Nevertheless, EU grain prices will likely remain above world prices
most of the time, but stocks will not accumulate as often as before
because the grain goes to the market, with small amounts going to
intervention.
Rice. Rice policy was radically altered by the 2003
reform. The rice intervention price was reduced by 50 percent and
annual intervention purchases were limited to 75,000 metric tons.
Direct payments were introduced to compensate for 88 percent of the
price reduction. Part of the payment was included in the SFP and
part converted to crop-specific aid to assist farmers in transition
to alternative crops. Intervention stocks had been growing rapidly
and the Everything But Arms (EBA) trade agreement with 49
least-developed countries allows imports of unmilled rice, with
duties decreasing to zero in 2009 (see Regulations Limit Use of African Growth and
Opportunity Act and Everything But Arms
, May 2005).
Dairy. The dairy regime is dominated by a quota system
that is established at national levels. Dairy production above the
quota is subject to prohibitive fines called "super levies."
Products covered by the CAP dairy regime include fresh,
concentrated, and powdered milk; cream; butter; cheese; and curd.
Dairy production is protected through tariffs on dairy product
imports and supported by export subsidies and surplus intervention
purchases of dairy products. The 2003 reforms cut butter prices by
25 percent and milk powder prices by 15 percent over 2005-07.
Intervention purchases of butter are limited to 30,000 metric tons
annually. Compensation for dairy price cuts was incorporated into
the SFP beginning in 2006-07. The Health Check of 2008 allows for
an annual 1-percent increase in the dairy quota from 2009-13. The
proposal also calls for an abolition of the dairy quota in
2015.
Beef and veal. The beef and veal regime relies on price
support, and high tariffs to keep EU market prices above world
prices. Most direct payments to beef producers are based on
historical numbers of male bovines, suckler cows (cows with
calves), a special slaughter payment for heifers, and
"extensification" of livestock production, whereby producers must
observe maximum stocking rates (livestock units per hectare) to
qualify for payments. As part of Agenda 2000, support prices for
beef were reduced by 20 percent from 2000 to 2003, but were
partially offset by higher direct payments. The 2003 reforms
provide member states with alternatives for supporting beef and
veal: a 100-percent decoupled payment based on 2000-02 historical
payments, a 100-percent coupled payment for the number of suckler
cows (with the maximum percentage of heifers who may receive the
suckler cow premium set at 40 percent), a 100-percent coupled
payment for slaughter of heifers, and/or a 75-percent coupled
payment for special male bovines. These reforms have resulted in
the EU becoming a net beef importer when it was previously the
world's largest exporter.
Oilseeds. A relatively low level of self-sufficiency
characterizes the EU oilseed sector, largely due to adverse climate
and soil conditions in Europe. There is a zero tariff on soybeans
and soy meal and a low or nominal tariff on vegetable oils other
than olive oil because of a 1956 agreement within the General
Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, precursor of the WTO. While the
2003 reforms do not directly affect oilseeds, producers have more
freedom to make planting decisions, which could affect oilseed
production through a reallocation of area and resources. A biofuels
directive was passed in 2008 mandating that 10 percent of EU
transport fuels be composed of renewable fuels by 2020. Since
rapeseed oil is the main feedstock used to produce biodiesel in the
EU, expansion of rapeseed production has increased and will likely
continue into the future within agro-climatic limits.
Sugar. Sugar production in the EU has been supported
through a mixture of price supports and supply controls. CAP
support of sugar is restricted to production within a quota, which
raises sugar prices for consumers. Intervention buying of processed
products (raw or white sugar) supports the price of the raw
commodity (mostly sugar beets). Producers also pay to dispose of
surpluses. The principle of producers paying for surplus disposal,
called the "co-responsibility principle," has been most rigorously
applied to sugar producers, who bear the full cost of disposal.
Imports to the EU are effectively blocked by high tariffs. However,
there is unusual liberalized access at zero duty within a quota for
raw sugar from former African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP)
colonies, and raw sugar duty-free imports were phased in for
least-developed countries in 2009 under the EBA trade
agreement.
In February 2006, the EU adopted a reform of the EU sugar sector,
which went into effect in July 2006. The reform provides a
36-percent cut in the guaranteed minimum sugar price and
compensates farmers for loss of income. More notably, it creates a
restructuring fund with financial incentives to encourage
uncompetitive sugar producers to leave the sector or diversify to
other commodities. An expected decrease in its sugar exports should
allow the EU to meet its WTO commitments. Since the reform, the EU
has moved from a large net exporter of sugar to a net importer. For
more information, see The EU Sugar Policy Regime and Implications of
Reform (July 2008).
Fruits and vegetables. The fruit and vegetable regime
includes all fruits and vegetables grown in the EU, with the
exception of potatoes, peas and beans for fodder, wine grapes,
olives, sweet corn, and bananas, for which separate arrangements
operate. Market prices are supported by a system of compensation
for limited withdrawals of produce from the market, as needed to
maintain prices at desired levels. Due to product perishability,
the price support system is not designed to achieve a guaranteed
price over periods of excess and shortage as it is with some other
commodities subject to intervention. Rather, it acts as a safety
net for producers in times of oversupply. Seasonal tariffs and
tariff-rate quotas in over 100 preferential trade agreements are
the principal means of import protection. Processors of some
products also receive processing subsidies to help defray the high
costs of buying EU raw materials.
Mediterranean products and hops. In April 2004, cotton,
olive oil, tobacco, and hops were reformed along the lines of the
2003 reforms. Decoupled payments of varying amounts were
incorporated into the SFP. A brief summary follows:
- Cotton. A decoupled payment of at
least 65 percent of the 2000-02 historical payment began in 2006.
Coupled payments of up to 35 percent are allowed, with a maximum
base of 455,360 hectares split between Greece, Portugal, and
Spain.
- Tobacco. A decoupled payment of at
least 40 percent of the 2000-02 historical payment will be made
during 2006-09. The share increases to 100 percent from 2010
onward. Fifty percent of the payment will go into the SFP, with the
remainder transferred to a restructuring fund. During 2006-09, 60
percent of the payment can be coupled, with any remainder going to
improve quality.
- Olive oil. A decoupled payment of at
least 60 percent began in 2006. Countries could choose 2 years from
2000-03 for the historic period. Payment is only for areas planted
before May 1, 1998. Member states may use up to 10 percent of their
national olive oil envelopes (total national payment level) to
improve oil quality.
- Hops. A decoupled payment of at least
75 percent of the 2000-02 historical payment began in 2005. Up to
25 percent of the payment may be coupled and paid directly to
farmers or through producer groups.
For More Information, See…