Two Pillars     

Currently, CAP is structured on two pillars. The first pillar[32] includes payments to farmers (basic payments, young farmers’ schemes, greening, etc.) which in turn have to abide by certain standards (cross-compliance). The second pillar[40] focuses on rural development: local authorities can formulate long term plans for specific regions. Among the goals of the second pillar can be found: “Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and forestry; Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors; Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas.”

 

​

Support measures

There are 3 types of measures employed[32] in the farmers’ support as part of the two pillars. The first one is called income support and consists mainly of direct payments programs. The second type of measure is directed towards the markets. The last measures are knows as “Rural development measures.” These entail the development of national and regional programs aimed at the conservation of rural environments.

​

​

Financing

An important detail regarding the two-pillar partition is that each of these is funded separately[33]. Pillar one is financed from the EAGF (European Agricultural Guarantee Fund). Pillar 2 is financed from the EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development).

 

In 2018 approximately 36 % of the EU budget (€58.82 billion) was allocated to CAP. From those almost €60 billion 71% (€41.74 billion) was spent on income support, 4.6% (€2.7 billion) on market measures and 24.4% (€14.37 billion) on rural development measures.

 

​

Implementation

CAP relies on the EU member states for implementation. Every member state is responsible for putting in place certain structures such as the FAS (Farming Advisory System)[31] and manage the allocation of subsidies.

​

​

Criticism: from the European Court of Auditors

As expected from any complex system, and even more so with the dynamic socio-political and economical environment, there are many points of improvement for CAP. The European Court of Auditors issued a report in 2008 in which they investigated the effectiveness of the cross compliance policy [11, 16]. Some of their findings included: “the objectives and the scope of cross compliance are not well defined, making it unclear what cross compliance is designed to achieve” and “data provided by the Member States on checks and infringements is not reliable and the Commission’s performance monitoring was found wanting.”[16] 

 

​

Take-away

•  CAP used to be a cornerstone of the EU and it changed throughout the years to stay relevant.

•  The implementation of CAP differs across the EU member states.

•  The current CAP has many shortcomings; accounting for biodiversity is one them.