scholarly journals LINEAR-DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING AS A BASIS FOR SETTING THE DIRECTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT FOR FIELD FARMS AGAINST CHANGES IN THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN MEDIUM-TERM PERSPECTIVE

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-153
Author(s):  
Marek Zieliński ◽  
Wojciech Ziętara
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Programming ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Soil Classification ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Dynamic Programming Method ◽  
Linear Dynamic ◽  
Parity Level ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost

The purpose of the article is an attempt to determine, in the 2019 perspective, the economic situation of farms specialising in cereals, oilseeds and protein crops, with the economic size of 4–25 (very small), 25–50 (medium-small), 50–100 (medium-large) and 100 thousand EUR and more (large), operating on lower soils with the soil classification index (SCI) of up to 0.7, with an emphasis on changes in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2014–2020 as compared with the CAP 2007–2013. This was made using a model-based method (linear-dynamic programming method). These models adopted the maximisation of agricultural farm income as a criterion for optimisation. It was determined that the growth in income of these farms will be limited in case unfavourable pricing conditions on the market of biotechnological products and production measures last until 2019. This will mean that, in 2019, very small cereal farms will have no funds to pay the cost of farmer and his family’s labour at the parity level and the cost of development, while medium-small cereal farms will have no funds for development. Only medium-large and large cereal farms will retain the possibility to pay the cost of farmer and his family’s labour at the parity level and the cost of further development.

scholarly journals What Common Agricultural Policy after Brexit?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 40-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christilla Roederer-Rynning ◽  
Alan Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Urban Rural ◽  
The Common ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Suppose we were in 2028: what would the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) look like then? Would it be significantly different from the policy we know today? How, and why? And to what extent would Brexit have catalyzed these changes? The CAP is one of the founding policies of the EU and a strategic lever to address critical 21st century challenges such as climate change and the rising demand for food at the global level. It also has an important role in Europe to address the growing urban-rural divide and its potentially destabilizing impact on European politics. In this article, we examine the impact of Brexit from a political-economic perspective emphasizing the multi-level context within which the CAP is embedded. As an EU member state, the UK found a way to partly accommodate the CAP to its needs even though this policy was a source of intense UK dissatisfaction with the EU. Post-Brexit, the budgetary and market implications of the UK’s departure may favour positions that support a return to a more traditional policy of farm income support. On the other hand, more radical farm policies in England and Wales could partly offset these effects by setting the agenda for continued CAP reform, if they are seen to be successful.

scholarly journals “Green” Transformation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Its Impact on Farm Income Disparities

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (24) ◽  
pp. 8242
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Pawłowska ◽  
Renata Grochowska
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Development Economic ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Agricultural Income ◽  
Income Inequalities ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

Taking into account the evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it is wondered to what extent the “green” transformation of this policy and the accompanying change in the distribution of direct payments between farms contributed to the elimination of disproportions in agricultural income. The aim of the study was to investigate the changes in the proclaimed concepts related to the development of the EU agricultural sector in terms of their “green” transformation, and to assess the impact of “green” CAP payments on income inequalities between farms. The research was conducted based on the data representative for Polish commercial farms for the years 2004–2019, covering three financial perspectives of the agricultural policy. The methods of counterfactual modelling and assessment of income inequality were used in the study. The analyses showed that the evolution of the CAP priorities, and hence instruments, towards the pro-environmental (or, more broadly, towards sustainability) have so far had a rather negative impact on the income of Polish farms. In its current form, the support dedicated to environmental and climate protection did not fully compensate farmers for income losses resulting from the use of pro-environmental agricultural practices. Moreover, “green” CAP payments did not play a significant role in shaping income inequalities. Therefore, we can conclude that the CAP instruments do not contribute sufficiently to sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental), because they do not support/motivate farmers to change their production standards.

scholarly journals The impact of the support instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy on economic and financial stability of farms in EU countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (319) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Soliwoda
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Agricultural Income ◽  
Country Level ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

EU subsidies influence the economic and financial situation of farms through several complex channels, although their economic and financial impact may be observed with a delay. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of selected support instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP (including direct payments and subsidies from Pillar 2) on economic and financial stability (respectively, the level of net farm income and debt/asset ratio) of farms in EU countries at regional level. The research goals included: (1) to present differences in the level and the structure of instruments of CAP support (excluding investment subsidies) at the level of member states; (2) to determine significance, strength and direction of the relationship between amounts of subsidies received and selected indicators of economic and financial stability of farms. The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) database provided secondary data for the study. The dynamics of changes was analyzed for years 2007 and 2012. At the country level, the share of subsidies related to rural development programs gradually increased during the years 2007–2012. A weighted regression approach with correction of heteroscedasticity (a total of four models) was employed separately for the 2007 and 2012 (based on data from the FADN regions). Although subsidies (excluding for investment) under the CAP influenced quite strongly the level of agricultural income, the impact of subsidies on the financial stability was ambiguous. This may lead to the refinement of regional approach in relation to the selection of support instruments and the determination of the amounts of support provided under the CAP.

scholarly journals Qualitative analysis of the European Union members positions under the Common Agricultural Policy reform

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (No. 10) ◽  
pp. 453-460
Author(s):  
P. Blížkovský ◽  
L. Grega
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
Agricultural Trade ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conservative Group ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in 2003 represents the entry into the third phase of the CAP. The final shape of the reform packet is a result of a compromise between external and internal interests of the EU members. The external interests, such as the liberalization of the agricultural trade under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and EU enlargement, represented a common platform that in principle did not create a barrier between the member’s positions. On the other hand, internal interests of the members affected significantly their positions. The most important internal interests may be classified as follows: the EU budget spending, level of farm subsidies, effects of the reform on farm employment, farm income, rural viability, consumers, environment, food safety or animal welfare. Positions of the individual EU members were a function of the agricultural structures and competitiveness. Coalitions of the EU members were created during the reform negotiations: reform-liberal group, cohesion group, conservative group and the group of specific interests. Aims of the future members of the EU (10 candidate countries) in the reform were not to deteriorate their EU entry conditions and to guarantee equal treatment, comparable with that of the EU-15. The analysis of the EU member’s positions under the CAP 2003 reform is an inspiration for defining of the Czech Republic’s position, as a new member state, in the agricultural area.

Implementation of the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy: expectations, fears, failures

1979 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner J. Feld
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Structural Improvement ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Agricultural Price ◽  
Community Decision

During the 1970s the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), acclaimed only a decade earlier as prominent evidence of successful integration of member states, manifest major defects. Farm prices to the consumers increased continually, large surpluses of certain farm commodities accumulated, the cost of operating the CAP rose tremendously, and recurring changes of member state currencies made a shambles of the common price and market concept. Several general and specific causes of those problems can be identified. Strongly influenced by powerful national farm lobbies, the member governments have imposed their own interests, often at variance with the “common” interest, upon the Community decision-making framework. The large number of national officials participating in the CAP implementation process has tended to strengthen trends toward policy outcomes undesirable from the Community perspective. More specifically, the main cause for disrupting agricultural price and market unity has been the system of “green” currency rates and the monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) which have provided the member governments with opportunities to reconstitute national control over farm prices. Fear of domestic political repercussions has restricted the creation of vigorous policies to counter surpluses, and structural improvement of farms, badly needed in some regions of the Community, has been slow.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document