THE MECHANISMS AND DISCOURSES FACILITATING CAP 2020 REFORM

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC DAYS 2014 "Improving Performance of Agriculture and the Economy: Challenges for Management and Policy FROM GREENING TO GREENWASH : THE MECHANISMS AND DISCOURSES FACILITATING CAP 2020 REFORM Emil Erjavec University of Ljubljana Biotechnical Faculty May 21 23, 2014 Hotel Permon, High Tatras, Slovak Republic 1

2 MOTIVATION CAP (Common agricultural policy) is since 1984 in standing reform process. Two main reforms: MacSharry reform (1992) with reduction of price support and introduction of coupled compensatory direct payments and Fischler reform (2003) with transformation of direct payment into historical payments and further market liberalisations. Broader (paradigmatic) CAP reforms emerge in amplitude +/- 10 years. Many analysis about the impacts, processes and drivers of reform. Last reform (CAP 2020) has been completed: intensive four years decision making process first time public debate on the argumentation of policy first time the co-decision legal decision making procedure (Council & European Parliament) greening as a super heading of the reform new objectives, measures and budget of the CAP 2

3 OPINONS ABOUT THE CAP 2020 EC Change in policy paradigm with the recognition of the joint delivery of private and public goods; The provision of public goods will be supported by both pillars (with notably the introduction a green direct payment) (EC, 2014): Environmental NGO: greening turned out to be a greenwash enabling to continue with the levels of support (IEEP 2013) Scholars: regionalization and greening of direct payments as the main elements of the reform support the role of paradigm change (Bureau 2012) only modifications to immunize public critics against direct payments (Tangermann, 2014) 3

4 ISSUES Objectives: to improve understanding of the content, process and final outcome of the reform Research questions: What were the main drivers and mechanism behind: EC CAP 2020 proposal? The discussion and final outcome of CAP 2020 reform? Is the CAP 2020 reform really the paradigm change? What the reform outcome brings to the CAP future? 4

5 CONTENT CAP 2020 REFORM A. Theoretical frame and approach B. Process and outcomes of the reform C. Mechanisms and discourse analysis D. Concluding remarks 5

6 A. THEORETICAL FRAME AND RESEARCH APPROACH 6

7 THEORETICAL FRAME - BASIC Object: complex CAP with complex reform settings: new policy relevant issues new/eclectic strands of research: o environment, redistribution, equity,.. o EU rural development, agro-environmentalism The CAP reforms are unique events which are embedded in highly specific and interrelated historical contexts, including institutional settings (Garzon 2006; Swinnen 2008). The empirical analysis of the reforms has been based on the process tracing which has been used to support some of the arguments with more general theoretical value (Moyer and Josling 2002) Some of the empirical theory has been criticized for sliding into descriptive historical analysis (Pokrivcak and Swinnen 2004). 7

8 THEORETICAL FRAME - BASIC Political economy approach is gaining some relevance for CAP reform analysis inter-disciplinary, non-ortodox economic approach focus on understanding of the policy changes and decisions making process. Selected approach In order to support more general theoretical arguments individual mechanisms facilitating the reforms will be put in comparative perspective: o causal mechanisms analysis (political science approach). Discourse analysis: Perception of problems and legacies, conceptualisation of solutions by decision makers (Potter and Tilzey 2005; Daugbjerg and Swinbank 2007; Erjavec et all, 2009) 8

9 THEORETICAL FRAME: CAUSAL MECHANISMS ANALYSIS Causal mechanisms of CAP policy reforms - synthesis based on Garzon Moyer, Josling, 2002, Petit, 1995): A. changes in the relevant policy contexts I. External trade context II. CAP budgetary cost III. Paradigmatic change (change in objectives, principles, instruments) B. changes in institutions and decision-making IV. Changes of policy network V. Pathdependency (past decisions influence the actual) VI. Decision making procedures VII.Quality of agents 9

10 THEORETICAL FRAME CHANGES IN RELEVANT POLICY CONTEXT I. External trade Expressed through multi-lateral trade negotiations (GATT/WTO). Pressures on market liberalization and decoupling of the CAP. Key push for MacSharry reform (decrease of price support) and important element of Fischler reform (decoupling of payments) Expectations: As a consequence of the past reforms, EU s domestic prices have already reached world levels. The agreed solutions blocked the restoration of past policies. II. Budgetary constraints Standing pressures on all CAP reforms. Pressures from the net contributing countries to cut down the spending on CAP. Expectations: strong demands to cut down spending on CAP due to economic and fiscal crisis in the EU. Also claim for more fair DP distribution by NMS. III. Paradigmatic change Pressures for better public argumentation of the CAP and external shocks (trade, budget) lead to changes in objectives, principles and instruments paradigmatic change. Focal moment for policy change: presence of charismatic and authoritative leaders. Often no real paradigm shifts! Accumulation of impetus for reforms through time Fischlers reform: European model of agriculture, historical payments, RD policy. Expectations: new issues like environment, climate change and fairness between the MS will lead to the change of objectives and instruments.. 10

11 THEORETICAL FRAME CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Policy network Traditionally strong influence of the transnational organization of farmers unions and cooperatives (COPA-COGECA): redistribution and income aspects of policy.. Change in policy network has acted as a pro-reform factor. Growing presence of the NGOs concerned with environmental and development issues and also by concerns by food industry and consumer organisations. Expectation: Stronger presence of environmental organisations pressures for paradigm change : more environmental concerns of policy. Pathdependency Past of changes induces further movements in the same direction. Past choices over high price supports have caused for dependency of the agriculture on the high income levels. All CAP reforms introduced relatively small changes to the supports to farmers and distribution of supports between the member states. CAP: after changes there is no return to the previous policies. Relative benefit of the current policy is validated with the potential changes. The more complex is policy the greater are start-up costs. Expectation: decision makers will promote the paradigm change. How fare will be the outcome of reforms to the existing policy? 11

12 THEORETICAL FRAME CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Decision making procedures First CAP decisions were made by consent which has contributed to budgetary disputes. CAP reforms went parallel with the quality majority vote. Decision making on CAP has become increasingly influenced by the negotiations on the EU budget and influenced by G and F agreements. Lisbon treaty (2009) included E Parliament first time in the co-decision decision process and granted powers to veto and amend the proposals. Expectation: Conservative majority in the EP, and especially the COMAGRI (strong farmers representatives) will defend a strong CAP.. Quality of agents MacSharry reform and Fischler reform were influenced by the individual qualities of the Commissioners for agriculture. The role played by the Commissioners was supported with the paradigmatic shift which provided them with new transnational allies as well as with the introduction of QMV which increased the maneuvering space. Expectation: With conservative preferences of the EP and less political experiences, the role of the Commissioner Çiolos would be constrained. 12

13 THEORETICAL FRAME CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA) Discourse another way of understanding the paradigmatic change of the policy (Garzon 2006) Discourses serves as perception of problems, legacies and influence the preferences. The discourses are not neutral with regard to the interests and can be one of the sources of the power relations. Political practices realized through language. The shaping of ideologies, systems of ideas that occupy a place in the symbolic field of thought and belief (van Dijk, 1998). The interests of society in general with sectional interests of the dominant class (Fairclough, 2003). The political battle between competing agricultural interests can be seen as waged through discourse. A linguistic analysis of the stakeholders is performed on two levels : an analysis of the macro-propositions and a choice of keywords. 13

14 THEORETICAL FRAME CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA) CDA of the concerned agents texts reveals three main CAP discourses: Neomercantilism/productivistic Production orientation and strong governmental intervention approach. Food security as the main driver of policy. Price or coupled support as the main desired instrument. Multifunctionality Agriculture has additional functions and brings services to the society like environmental protection New argumentation of the policy and new instruments (RD, AEM). Neoliberalism The importance of free market approach, the driver of past reforms The hybrid discourse is prevailing which brings the elements of all three. The appearance of discourse is depending on the issue and situation. 14

15 METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH A. Data and facts collecting Chronological analysis of decision making process o , based on Agra-facts, Agra-focus, Agra-Europe, o internal available documents and positions of MS Text (discourse) analysis on CAP reform o European Commission and European parliement reports, strategies, legal texts, presentations, explanations, policy speeches ( ) In-deepth interviews with participants/actors in the process o Slovenian delegation in the Council and Commission ( ); some MS SCA spokeman, high EC civil servants Broad literature survey o academic literature o stakeholders web sides (interest groups) B. Comparative analysis of causal mechanisms & discourse analysis here only selected findings could be presented 15

16 B. PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF THE REFORM 16

17 I. EC PROPOSAL Objectives of the reform new wording - the sustainable agriculture approach o economic environment territorial/social New structure of direct payments the regionalisation of payments (basic payment scheme) green payment (additional conditions) different options of support (young farmers, coupled support, support for natural constraint areas) small farmers support capping of support Further market liberalisation end of supply management measures/quotas market mesaures only as safety net streghtening of the producer cooperation New rural development priorities upgraded approach with new priorities: innovation, cooperation, climate change, risk management 17

18 I. EC PROPOSAL Financial arrangements (MFF negotations) CAP funds: declining share in the EU budget until 2020 o frozen level in nominal terms o 1. Pillar: minus 12 % to 2013 o 2. Pillar: minus 8 % Direct payments: progressive convergence towards EU average: o Close 33% of the gap with 90% of EU average level o financed by all Member States above the average 18

19 II. KEY ISSUES AND CHANGES (OUTCOME VS. PROPOSAL) NO OR MINOR CHANGES General acceptance or minor changes to EC proposal Objectives of the reform No change (general agreement on proposed structure) Further market liberalization Sugar quota extension to 2017 (lauched by majority of MS, EP) New rural development priorities No change (except some minor technical details) 19

20 II. KEY ISSUES AND CHANGES (OUTCOME VS. PROPOSAL) MAJOR DEVIATIONS New structure of direct payments Basis payment scheme Problem: o redistribution of payments between farmers, some sectors in difficulties Solutions/proposed by: o internal convergence (part of historical right remains) / Irland o redistributive payment (top-up for first ha) / France o reductioncoeficient for permanent grassland / Austria o limits on new payment rights / Spain o SAPS extension / NMS Greening component / ecological focus area Problem: o to strong conditions, Europe needs production and not fallow land Solutions/proposed by: o Less area included in ecological focus areas / Council and EP o Derogation for small and medium farms, regions with high shares on permanent grassland and forest / Council and EP o Inclusion of nitrogen fixing crops,/ Austria 20

21 III. KEY ISSUES AND CHANGES (OUTCOME VS. PROPOSAL) MAJOR DEVIATIONS Capping of support Problem: o some holdings in severe economic troubles Solutions: o only voluntary / European Council Coupled support Problem: o some sectors in severe problems Solutions: o extension of sectors eligible, higher shares of national envelope / Council and EP Financial arrangements Problem: o unfair distribution of direct payments between the MS Solution: o all MS reaching minimum level of direct payments (196 EUR/ha) / European Council / Germany 21

22 C. MECHANISMS AND DISCOURSES ANALYSIS 22

23 MECHANISMS ANALYSIS CHANGES IN POLICY CONTEXT External trade pressures The pressure still exists, but hidden. No clear gains with further changes. Regionalization and greening would decrease the incentives for production. Further market liberalization, but Council and EP postpone the phasing out of the supply controls and increase the share of coupled support. o Impacts on reform changes: low - medium Budgetary costs Strong pressure on CAP finances. The reduction of funds were limited for 1. Pillar (strong pressures by conservatives and lobby groups, but substantial for 2. Pillar. Shifting the funds between MS limited (OMS less on 1., NMS less on 2. Pillar). The available resources allowed less stronger changes at the level of measures. o Impacts on reform changes: low Paradigmatic change Re-writting of the objectives (sustainable concept). Greening as new paradigm shift. Regionalization of payments, increasing convergence between the MS. Conservative approach in term of redistribution. The definition of Greening payments decisive for new argumentation and policy change. EC proposal less technically clear, negotiation brought substantial reduction of concepts. The paradigm shift is limited due to lobby pressures. o Impacts on reform changes: medium (EC) to low (final decisions) 23

24 MECHANISMS ANALYSIS CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Policy network Wide range of interest involved in the public debate. Growing influence of environmental organizations (public debate, the bunch of critical papers, technical details negotiations, media work). Greening argumentation based also on the support of public opinions and debate. During the negotiations the agricultural interest groups and conservative MS managed to defend their positions and diminish the paradigm shift. At the end new interest groups were unable to exert substantial influence on the reform. Environmental organization dissatisfied with the outcome. o Impacts on reform changes: medium (EC) to low (final decisions) Pathdependency Strong impact on decision. The elements of the Commission proposal which would substantially change support levels or introduce additional costs to farmers were rejected by the MS and had to be relaxed. Distribution of funds per MS is God given and not touched significantly. The discussion on the new direct payments schemes is based on intentions how to keep historical rights system a live. When model is implemented and not under strong criticism, no real change in policy (rural development policy, market measures). Impacts on reform changes: strong (final decisions) 24

25 MECHANISMS ANALYSIS CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Decision making process The negotiations on CAP reform were subjected to budget negotiations. Relatively small reductions to CAP budget and relatively small reductions of allocations to past beneficiaries support the argument on the status quo bias of the budget negotiations. Negotiations on budget directly influenced various other elements of the CAP reform, such as the pace and ambition of convergence of payments, greening and flexibility to switch funds between the pillars. European parliament, co-deciding on CAP for the first time, did not play a strong role. The structure of COMAGRI and the majority in European parliament defended a position, which was close to the position of the conservative member states. Impacts on reform changes: low (final decisions) Quality of actor Commission tried to present the reform as a compromise solution. The decision making system further weakened the role of EC and of Commissioner Çiolos, who did not act as a strong pro-reform agency as MacSharry and Fischler did. During the negotiations process Commission agreed on huge compromises with regard to the pace of regionalization, greening and the share of funds available for the rural development programmes. Bureau (2012): Commission managed to keep most of the bad ideas out of the agenda. o Impacts on reform changes: low (final decisions) 25

26 DISCOURSES ANALYSIS STRATEGIC AIMD AND OBJECTIVES The strategical aims of the CAP 2020 reform are mostly a combination of multi-functional and productivistic discourse; both entail an active state role which is in turn required to keep and justify CAP.. Neo-liberal discourse presented to a much lower extent. Multi-functional discourse the concept of sustainable production known from previous reforms has been augmented with social and territorial balance, introducing the social aspect. This reform s multi-functional discourse is characterised most strongly by the terms (adaptation to) climate change and (fostering) green growth / greening. Productivistic discource The guarantee of food security concept, typical after the II WW for agricultural policy, actual food scarcity, has been reinstated in productivistic discourse. This may be seen as a move of individual member states (France, Spain, Ireland) and farmers organisations to retain a strong CAP by intimidating with potential future food scarcity. 26

27 DISCOURSES ANALYSIS MEASURES AND BUDGET COMPARISONS Measures of the 2020 CAP reform, their corresponding discourses and estimated share of the total CAP budget Measure Discourse Estimated budget share (EU 28, ) bio. EUR in 2011prices Direct payments Basic payment scheme Productivistic 42 % Young farmers Productivistic Coupled payment Productivistic Small farmers Hybrid: productivistic and multi-functional 6 % Greening/ natural constraints Multi-functional 25 % Active farms Productivistic budget neutral Market management mechanisms Dairy and sugar qouta Neo-liberal budget neutral New planting rights in wine prod.n Productivistic budget neutral Market interventions Neo-liberal School fruit and dairy schemes Productivistic 4 % Rules for producer organisations Productivistic budget neutral Rural development policy Hybrid: productivistic and multi-functional 23 % 27

28 DISCOURSES ANALYSIS MEASURES AND BUDGET COMPARISONS Reduction of multi-functional discourse In the process of adopting the CAP reform the multi-functional discourse with its strong greening element has been reduced. Finally, productivistic discourse being the most used overall, the CAP s redistributional role is strongly emphasized, an observation corroborated by the CAP budget distribution. Decision makers have put forward a modernised old productivistic discourse which has increased its foothold. Preserving CAP All efforts of preserving the CAP as an important public policy and keeping intact its budget distribution scheme. 28

29 C. CONCLUDING REMARKS 29

30 CONCLUSIONS REFORM DRIVERS? What were the main drivers and mechanism behind: Since price supports have already been phased out external (trade) pressure for the reform was low. Pressures to cut down budget expenditures and to better target the new objectives were strong but were constrained: by agricultural lobby groups defending past incomes, status quo bias of budget negotiations, conservative position of the European parliament, which was for the first time able to co-decide on CAP reform and weak role of the European Commission as a proreform actor. 30

31 CONCLUSIONS PARADIGMATIC CHANGE? Is the CAP 2020 reform the paradigm change? traditional discourses were re-defined with new keywords and meaning emphases: o the European Institutions justified the CAP with a transformation of key discourses by placing emphasis on the widely popular environmental element o while at the same time employing strong productivistic discourse at the level of measures and budget distribution between the EU Member states and farmers groups. o the environmental element did not reach the justification of measures and budget distribution (pathdependency) Contemporary agricultural politics does not rely on a direct relation between aims and measures, but rather employs different discourses in justifying the policy than in the subsequent definition of measures. weak padigmatic change 31

32 CONCLUSIONS FUTURE REFORMS? Future reform process? The CAP reform process is not slowing down. Given institutional and paradigmatic approach to defining CAP cannot result in long term justification of the CAP, which is precisely the original purpose of the CAP reform. Such flimsy justification and its implementation into measures and budget distribution suggest imminent public demands for a new reform. new CAP reform is already on horizon 32