Q&A on MTR CAP reform proposals
MetadataShow full item record
CTA. 2003. Q&A on MTR CAP reform proposals. Agritrade, February 2003. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/52422
External link to download this item: http://agritrade.cta.int/Back-issues/Agriculture-monthly-news-update/2003/February-2003
A Commission Memorandum of January 22nd 2003 sets out in question-and-answer...
A Commission Memorandum of January 22nd 2003 sets out in question-and-answer format the case for the implementation of the Commission's proposals for further reform of the CAP. The questions addressed are: Why is it necessary to reform European agricultural policy now? What is the CAP reform looking to achieve? Didn't the Brussels Council of October 2002 exclude further CAP reforms? What is the rationale behind proposing new rural development measures? What does de-coupling mean in practical terms? Does de-coupling mean paying farmers for doing nothing? Will the reform lead to a shrinking farm production harming farmers and industry? What will happen to farmers' incomes? What does de-coupling mean in WTO terms? How would cross-compliance be applied? What is the advantage of introducing a Farm Advisory System? What is the Commission's intention for the dairy industry? Why introduce such a radical price cut for rice? Why cut intervention prices for cereals? Why exclude rye from intervention? Will the proposals for the CAP reform result in a real simplification? Significant points highlighted in the memo include: only a 7% reduction in beef production is expected, with farmers gaining from improved prices and net incomes increasing; the EU will remain an exporter of beef; the EU will remain a significant exporter of cereals; the proposals will have a positive effect on the EU food industry by reducing the costs of raw materials; market balances will be significantly improved; overall farm incomes will increase by 1.7%; reform would place a larger percentage of EU farm aid in the 'green box' making it easier to defend in the WTO. Comment: Singularly missing in the Q&A presentation was any consideration of the effects the proposed reforms would have on traditional preferred suppliers such as the ACP. For example, the impact of the 50% price reduction in the rice sector on Guyana's and Surinam's rice exporters. This represents a major oversight which the EU needs to urgently address.
- CTA Agritrade