Who bears a greater share of the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy?

The third world.
7% (13 votes)
The environment.
13% (24 votes)
EU consumers.
13% (25 votes)
EU taxpayers.
68% (129 votes)
Total votes: 191

Comments

Un nou raport de la Greenpeace arata modul direct si indirect in care agricultura influenteaza schimbarile climatice si sugereaza modul in care sectoarele isi pot limita emisiile, informeaza GreenBiz. “Impactul de mediu al industriei fermiere a atins un nivel critic. Guvernele trebuie sa sprijine activitatile agricole care nu actioneaza impotriva naturii”, a declarat Jan van Aken, reprezentant Greenpeace pentru agricultura. Se estimeaza ca agricultura este responsabila pentru 17% pana la 32% din emisiile de gaze cu efect de sera produse de activitatile umane. Principala cauza ramane folosirea excesiva a fertilizatorilor. Mai mult de jumatate din fertilizatori ajung in atmosfera sau in ape si, in fiecare an, se inregistreaza 2.1 miliarde de tone de emisii de dioxid de carbon. Metanul provenit de la cirezile de vite este a doua sursa de poluare in agricultura.Defrisarea padurilor si a vegetatiei pentru a crea spatiu pentru plantatii distruge surse importante de absorptie ale carbonului. Raportul Greenpeace cere mai multa atentie in folosirea fertilizatorilor pentru a reduce emisiile excesive de gaze cu efect de sera si pentru a limita poluarea resurselor de apa. Organizatia mai face si alte precizari care vizeaza scaderea cererii mondiale de carne si cultivarea unor plante care absorb dioxidul de carbon. Brian Halweil, expert agricol al Worldwatch Institute, sustine ca, desi fermierii contribuie la incalzirea globala, tot ei se lupta cu efectele ei devastatoare. El ii sfatuieste pe fermieri sa se axeze pe culturi variate pentru a-si limita vulnerabilitatea in fata schimbarilor climatice si sa foloseasca mai putini fertilizatori. Raportul Greenpeace subliniaza ca politicile guvernamentale care promoveaza monoculturile si descurajeaza autosuficienta fermierilor locali ameninta viitorul fermierilor si contribuie la amploarea schimbarilor climatice. Surse: http://www.green-report.ro/activitatile-agricole-amplifica-efectul-schimbarilor-climatice/
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 24
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Ignorând regulile ofertei și cererii, politica agricolă comună este extrem de risipitoare. Aceasta duce la supraproducție, formând munți de produse excedentare care fie sunt distruse, fie aruncate asupra țărilor în curs de dezvoltare, subminând mijloacele de existență ale fermierilor de acolo. Agricultorii reprezintă 3% din populația UE. Ele generează aproximativ 6% din PIB-ul Uniunii. Cu toate acestea, ele primesc 30% din bugetul total al UE prin intermediul materialelor PAC. În momente cu dificultăți economice,acest lucru nu are sens. Fermierii europeni de scară mică sunt săraci în țările în curs de dezvoltare si sunt blocați de pe piețele europene. Contribuabilii plătesc din nou miliarde în subvenții, in timp ce prețurile la alimente cresc. Pretul pentru "securitatea alimentara",asa cum este prezentat nu este unul echitabil.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 22
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

If we talk about the costs as a real dimension, think, the EU taxpayers bear the biggest burden. The EU consumers receive some advantages from the qualitative agricultural production. Trying to enter the EU common agriculture market, the third countries (for example, Ukraine) lost some revenues and profit as a result of CAP. At the same time they gain when their products get into this market. And the state of the environment, think, isn't a direct effect of the CAP.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 20
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Not fair, Farmers represent only 4.7% of the European Union's working population. However, they receive 39% of the total EU budge (From 71% of the EU budget in 1984 to 39% in 2013) through CAP (do not forget they only generate about 6-7% of the Union's GDP). By disregarding the rules of supply and demand, the common agricultural policy is extremely wasteful and leads to overproduction, creating surplus of products that either are destroyed or send to undeveloped countries, undermining farmers there.To my opinion Agricultural Policy should align with other policies regarding spending policy!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 21
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Financial support of common agricultural policy is possible due to the unified budget of the association, and the main source of any budget is tax revenue. Therefore, undoubtedly EU taxpayers bear the main burden of the CAP
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 17
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Even if CAP reforms mainly focused on simplifying the way subsidies are awarded, efficiency policy and reduce budget costs, this evolving from a policy that focuses on direct production support to market oriented policy focusing on quality, environmental, food safety, efficient and sustainable resource use. For example Romania has a significant agricultural potential and for the countries who joined the EU implementation of the CAP was generally considered a major success, but we can t say the same thing about Romania. Almost years after accession, the situation of the agrifood sector hasn t improved substantially in any way, although some (week) signs of a rapprochement with the European model of agriculture are visible. And the main concerns of the Romanian administration in the last years have been to implement Europeanb regulations (quite sophisticated) with the purpose of absorbing community funds for agriculrure, and less to develop some programs to transform the agrifood sector and rural space. And also Romania needs a self-evident view of agriculture which departs fromthe reality of the two sectors-subsistence/ agroindustry and which integrates into the CAP.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 19
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Europe’s agricultural policy is determined at EU level by the governments of Member States and operated by the Member States. It is aimed at supporting farmers’ incomes while also encouraging them to produce high quality products demanded by the market and encouraging them to seek new development opportunities, such as renewable environmentally friendly energy sources. European people can enjoy good food at affordable prices, but they have to pay for these opportunities as taxpayers.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 19
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I think that EU taxpayers bear the most, because they pay money for it and they has less benefits than third world and consumers. Consumers pay VAT, but they receive products with a good quality. The third world receive a profit, when they export their products. If we talk about the environment, then nowadays the EU cares about it, because they received a lot of complains from people, who thought that the CAP badly affects on environment.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 16
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Look at the third video carefully...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 3
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

As my piers already suggested, Eu farmers demografic is somewhere in between 3 and 4.5 % of the total EU populace. They contribute approximately 6 percent of EU`s GDP but assimilate 39% percent of the EU budget (2013 archived record). It is bashfully wasteful but we also have to look at the bigger picture. By regimenting an indirect barrier/or encouragement (be it by enforcing a quanta on products per farm, or limiting farm size) to set the price for agricultural products across the EU member states, it largely succeeds in conserving native producers. Why is this important you ask ? Let me give you an example: Let`s say we have a milk producer based in Germany that has a cutting edge refinement machine (protected by company secret and anti-trust laws, and in most cases patents) that halves costs, and thus sells its milk cheaper than the native competition, but more importantly external competition. If all goes smoothly, this producer might take a big share, of the milk market in that external country (and dictate or influence prices after it out-ed the competition which have not way of lowering costs) This phenomenon repeats itself, and is known as a snowball-monopoly. The EU CAP tries to regulate to prevent this from happening on federal level, but not interfering on the state level (state market versus federal EU market). Unfortunately the cost on the taxpayer`s wallet is still high, but is decreasing in average ( as my colleague pointed out From 71% of the EU budget in 1984 to 39% in 2013). All small player EU states have encountered the influence of "Big Industries" before they were members,and if you have been abroad heading west, prices are relatively the same but the wage gap is wide. Most EU States have become dependent on providers of products that franchised internally, sold products are on par qualitatively but cheaper monetarily. The market adapted, and the producer organically out-ed competitors or bought them out. Steadily they increased the prices after achieving oligopoly or monopoly and with no competitors, the populace faced no other choice but buying from the only few providers. All in all, I believe that each state should achieve float market autonomy in all the necessary needs markets (energy, food, care, education, natural resources). Dependence on an external provider is a one way relationship, on which we have to accept the price.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 20
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote