Tot slot van mijn blogs ter ondersteuning van de GLB-na-2013 discussie memoreer ik nog maar even twee artikelen van eigen hand die voor de meningsvorming uit economisch perspectief wellicht nuttig kunnen zijn.
Drie jaar geleden publiceerde ik een artikel in SPIL waarin ik een beeld schetste van een veehouderij van de toekomst die als normale bedrijfstak is georganiseerd:
Veehouderij in Nederland in transitie: van ondersteunde sector naar business-as-usual
in: SPIL 207-208, 2004
En in een editorial in het blad EuroChoices van twee jaar geleden schilderde ik voor een internationaal publiek wat er de afgelopen jaren is veranderd. Ter afsluiting van mijn bijdrage aan de discussie enkele passages in het Engels daaruit:
The storylines [in the newspapers] offer several lessons. Anticipating the WTO negotiations, the European Union changed farm commodity subsidies into direct payments. This is a step forward, but the problem remains that these payments still reflect the outdated agricultural policy mindset from the middle of the last century. In the long run that policy is unsustainable, because circumstances have clearly changed.
The times when farmers were living along unpaved tracks, without cars or telephones, are long behind us. Today they are in the network; satellites have even brought access to the internet. Social security is now available, and also for farmers without income and wealth. Agricultural policy as a tool to fight regional poverty is therefore outdated; especially as farmers are now a small proportion of the local work force. And although poor farmers certainly exist, poverty problems in the banlieue of the big cities (and not only in France) seem to be a bigger problem for society.
Food (and dollars) are not as scarce as they were after the Second World War, as Europe has become a net exporter of food. This implies that agricultural policy as a tool for economic policy or as a security issue is an outdated concept too, although some may want to argue this point.
The new Single Farm Payment reflects the historically justified but now outdated agricultural policy. Further changes, after or before 2013, are needed. Those who want to maintain the flow of subsidies should give them an objective that is sustainable in the future. Public services are then the most important candidate. Governments can help to organise the supply of nature, open-air recreation, water management and other public goods, but that does not justify a flat rate payment for all land.
Farmers, we might say, are normal entrepreneurs, and so the supply of such ‘green services’ should fit into their farm strategy. In the supply of such services, the market can play an important role. Most likely larger farms can maintain our riversides and hedges at a lower cost then smaller ones; and presumably the scale of holdings has only a small influence on the landscape (assuming hedges, ditches and other landscape elements are adequately protected). There is, moreover, an interesting question if the payments for such services should be decided upon in Brussels or if, according to the principle of subsidiarity, these should be decentralised. It is unlikely that the voter in Latvia or Lerida has a good picture of the nature development needed at the Lüneburgerheide, and therefore subsidiarity or co-financing could make sense. Regionalisation of such a landscape policy does not necessarily hurt the common market for food products.
The times when farmers were living along unpaved tracks, without cars or telephones, are long behind us. Today they are in the network; satellites have even brought access to the internet. Social security is now available, and also for farmers without income and wealth. Agricultural policy as a tool to fight regional poverty is therefore outdated; especially as farmers are now a small proportion of the local work force. And although poor farmers certainly exist, poverty problems in the banlieue of the big cities (and not only in France) seem to be a bigger problem for society.
Food (and dollars) are not as scarce as they were after the Second World War, as Europe has become a net exporter of food. This implies that agricultural policy as a tool for economic policy or as a security issue is an outdated concept too, although some may want to argue this point.
The new Single Farm Payment reflects the historically justified but now outdated agricultural policy. Further changes, after or before 2013, are needed. Those who want to maintain the flow of subsidies should give them an objective that is sustainable in the future. Public services are then the most important candidate. Governments can help to organise the supply of nature, open-air recreation, water management and other public goods, but that does not justify a flat rate payment for all land.
Farmers, we might say, are normal entrepreneurs, and so the supply of such ‘green services’ should fit into their farm strategy. In the supply of such services, the market can play an important role. Most likely larger farms can maintain our riversides and hedges at a lower cost then smaller ones; and presumably the scale of holdings has only a small influence on the landscape (assuming hedges, ditches and other landscape elements are adequately protected). There is, moreover, an interesting question if the payments for such services should be decided upon in Brussels or if, according to the principle of subsidiarity, these should be decentralised. It is unlikely that the voter in Latvia or Lerida has a good picture of the nature development needed at the Lüneburgerheide, and therefore subsidiarity or co-financing could make sense. Regionalisation of such a landscape policy does not necessarily hurt the common market for food products.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten