Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Farm Subsidy Transparency
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Farm Subsidy Transparency

1,113
views

Published on

Slides accompanying talk given in Poland by Jack Thurston on 28 October 2008

Slides accompanying talk given in Poland by Jack Thurston on 28 October 2008

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

2 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • I see I commented a year ago. The Environmental Working Group misunderstands these issues, and therefore works against their own goals and values. It seems that you also don't see the bigger picture of knowledge, justice and strategy that are hidden behind the myth of subsidies. We need market management instead of subsidies. I now have slide shows up showing much more data than the data of subsidies, to then explain these issues.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Subsidies compensate crop farms for cheap prices. Not shown here, the net result of lower prices + subsidies (is it up or down?). The US had fair trade Price Floors, but lowered them, to lose money on our massive farm commodity exports (to secretly subsidize the corporate commodity buyers that fund political campaigns). The EC (now EU?) once had Price Floors & supported better prices for all farming countries. No subsidies are needed with fair trade Price Floors (backed up with supply reductions as needed to balance supply and demand). Corporate buyers benefit from low/no price floors, which are what cause the cheap prices & dumping. Cutting subsidies doesn't make Cargill pay fair prices! In the US the bottom 80% of subsidy recipients farm only 7% of full time on average. The bottom 50% 3.3%, the bottom 33%, 1% of full time. Most of the top 10% are family sized farms or quite similar.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
2
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Where does the money go? 28 October 2008 Puławy, Poland Jack Thurston Co-founder, farmsubsidy.org
  • 2. If Europeans knew how the EU spends €55 billion a year on farm subsidies... Would they approve?
  • 3. Our method Freedom of information Vigorous debate + = + Investigative Better policy reporting
  • 4. Data obtained - timeline May 06 May 07 August 08 Value of €33 billion €55 billion €66 billion payments Number of n/a 8.2 million 12.1 million payments Number of 0.9 million 2.6 million 6.5 million recipients Countries 8 18 21
  • 5. CAP payments in Poland, 2007 Number of Number of Amount € payments recipients 2 098 371 339 3 218 470 1 396 874
  • 6. In Poland the biggest 20 per cent of recipients got 67 per cent of all payments (2007)
  • 7. Top 10 recipients, 2006 & 2007 Recipient name Location Amount € Spółdzielcza Agrofirma Witkowo Witkowo Pierwsze 4 255 935 Top Farms Głubczyce Spółka Z.O.O Głubczyce 4 064 372 Top Farms Wielkopolska Sp. Z O. O. Piotrowo Pierwsze 3 991 238 Kombinat Rolny Kietrz Sp.Zo.O. Kietrz 3 814 261 Poldanor S.A. Przechlewo 3 798 350 Kom-Rol Kobylniki Spółka Z O.O. Kobylniki 2 221 563 Agro - Skandawa Spółka Z Ograniczoną Aptynty Odpowiedzialnością Agro - Skandawa 2 084 845 Sp. Z O.O. Z O.O. Rolnyvik Sp. Barciany 1 922 988 Polska Hodowla I Obrót Zwierzętami Szymankowo Sp. Z O.O. Szymankowo 1 808 175 Agri Plus Spółka Akcyjna Konarzewo 1 558 059
  • 8. 6 | | BUSINESS Business & Media | 21.05.06 CASH COWS WHAT IT COSTS THE TAXPAYER TO DESTABILISE DAIRY MARKETS British export subsidies, by Export subsidy granted, by company, 2004 and 2005 destination country, 2004 and 2005 Fayrefield Foods* £22,149,818 Philpot Dairy Products £21,957,002 SAUDI Dale ARABIA Farm* £19,391,504 £2,147,003 INDIA £1,244,914 Nestle UK £7,442,672 JA N APAN UAE BANGLADESH £1,24 273 £ 44,2 ALGERIA £6,016,605 £3,479,499 £9,413,948 TMC Dairies EGYP YPT (NI) £6,421,069 MEXICO £3,03 340 ,031,340 £7,714,200 PH IPPINE PHILIP NES JAMAICA JA AICA £1,7 ,901 ,708,9 £2,296,9 7 £2 296,987 OMA OMAN Hoogwegt £4,660,97 ,660,973 International £6,016,872 SUDAN THAILA D HAILAND IVORY COAST IVO £3,906,970 £6 06,805 £6,706,80 VENEZUELA £5,722,515 722,515 Lakeland Dairies £2,274,752 (NI) £4,863,754 NIGERIA £11,782,308 IND INDONESIA ESIA £2,94 8 £2,947,118 Eilers & Wheeler Sales £4,009,257 Meadow Foods £3,335,750 KEY F Uhrenholt Dairy £3,084,188 *includes subsidiaries £1 to £4m £4 to £7m £7m+ £0m 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC: CATH LEVETT PHOTOGRAPH: ALAMY SOURCE: FARMSUBSIDY.COM Who’s creaming off EU subsidies? Exports of cheap European dairy products are crushing the livelihoods of developing world farmers, writes Heather Stewart B ritish-based exporters, including known as the EU ‘butter mountain’ cow is one of the most reliable ways of on behalf of the EU, said Britain would Nestle and Dairy Crest, have (‘wine lakes’ were another manifestation Peter Mandelson lifting yourself out of poverty,’ says like to see them abolished. claimed £126m of taxpayers’ of the same problem). But after a barrage agreed to Europe Thurston, who is trying to compile a ‘We would prefer that export refunds money over the past two years for of criticism of this very visible waste, giving up export Europe-wide directory of how Cap disappeared as soon as possible; but as sending surplus butter and milk powder to Brussels switched its attention – and its subsidies by subsidies are spent. long as they are there, British farmers are poor countries such as Nigeria and cash – towards exporting the products. 2013. Critics say Sheila Page of the Overseas Develop- entitled to claim them just like all EU Bangladesh, according to a new report Since the EU price is so much higher this is no help to ment Institute says small-scale farmers farmers,’ he said. He added that the gap obtained exclusively by The Observer. than the world average, farmers are farmers driven in Bangladesh or Indonesia would prob- between the fixed EU price and the Export support for British dairy prod- given a refund for each kilogram of but- out of business. ably not be the beneficiaries if the subsi- world price had narrowed in recent ucts is only a tiny part of the complex ter or skimmed-milk powder they dies were removed; but more efficient years, and argued that the amount spent €43bn web of farm subsidies that export, so that they can sell at something exporters, such as Argentina and Aus- on export refunds had been ‘withering stretches across the European Union. closer to the market price and avoid major destinations for exports are sur- tralia, could win such markets in fair away’. But by anatomising this one subsidy in making a huge loss on the transaction. prising. British firms were handed (unsubsidised) competition. Britain’s small-scale dairy farmers, detail, the figures provide a startling pic- This year the subsidies are €109 (£73) for £11.8m over the two-year period for ‘If they weren’t getting it from the EU, many of whom have been driven out of ture of how the Common Agricultural every 100kg of butter exported. sending milk products to Nigeria, for they would be getting it from some- business recently, see little of the benefits
  • 9. LaTribune Jeudi 3 novembre 2005 - 1,20 * LE QUOTIDIEN ÉCONOMIQUE ET FINANCIER www.latribune.fr Agriculture : à qui profite Renault chute sur un marché la PAC en France I « La Tribune » publie l’étude français en baisse d’un groupe de recherche qui lève une partie du voile L es immatriculations modèles de l’ex- Régie ont baissé de 11,7 % en octobre. La plupart des sur ce que touchent 24 gros plongent. Le gâteau automobile français s’est replié de 5,8 %. bénéficiaires de la politique P. 14 agricole commune européenne. I Mais la France refuse ÉCONOMIE toujours de révéler leur nom EMPLOI. Le Cerc veut en s’abritant derrière réformer l’indemnisation du chômage. P. 4 la protection des données privées. ENTREPRISES I Pourtant, sous la pression CLUB MED. Retour à des ONG et avec la bénédiction l’équilibre en 2005. P. 18 de Bruxelles, plusieurs pays RENSEIGNEMENTS. France européens ont livré des listes Télécom compte rester nominatives. leader du marché. P. 22 P. 2 ET 3 ET ÉDITORIAL P. 43 FINANCE RÉASSURANCE. Swiss Re affaibli par les cyclones. P. 24 32.000 SUPPRESSIONS D’EMPLOIS D’ICI À 2008 MARCHÉS Purge sociale chez Deutsche Telekom EURONEXT. Activité historique en octobre. P. 27 D eutsche Telekom, premier opérateur européen de télé- sur 111.000 à temps plein qui, à la fin 2004, représentaient près de patron, Kai-Uwe Ricke, n’a ja- mais exclu que des mesures de ra-
  • 10. EU Budget Transparency (at last!) 30 Sept 2008: Pillar 2 + non-CAP 30 April 2009: Pillar 1
  • 11. That’s 27 websites! (even though the Commission possesses all the data itself)
  • 12. ✔ Name ✔Municipality ✔ Amount
  • 13. ✘ Business ID ✘ Geodata ✘ Schemes
  • 14. Some analysis
  • 15. A flat rate for direct payments would benefit new member states
  • 16. Direct payments, € per hectare, 2013 Elláda Malta Nederland Belgique/België kypros/Kibris Danmark Deutschland Ireland Luxembourg France Italia Slovenija Sverige Česká republika Suomi/Finland United Kingdom Österreich Magyarország Slovensko España Polska Portugal Bulgaria Lietuva Eesti Romania Latvija 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
  • 17. Direct payments, € per hectare, 2013 Elláda Malta Nederland Belgique/België kypros/Kibris Danmark Deutschland Ireland Luxembourg France Italia Slovenija Sverige Česká republika Suomi/Finland United Kingdom A flat payment at Österreich Magyarország Slovensko España at €229 per hectare Polska Portugal Bulgaria Lietuva Eesti Romania Latvija 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
  • 18. Countries that lose Elláda Luxembourg Malta France Nederland Italia Belgique/België Slovenija kypros/Kibris Sverige Danmark Česká republika Deutschland Suomi/Finland Ireland United Kingdom
  • 19. Countries that gain Österreich Bulgaria Magyarország Lietuva Slovensko Eesti España Romania Polska Latvija Portugal
  • 20. Subsidy cut per hectare / € Elláda 366 Malta 359 Nederland 211 Belgique/België 209 kypros/Kibris 133 Danmark 128 Deutschland 110 Ireland 82 Luxembourg 58 France 54 Italia 39 Slovenija 32 Sverige 22 Česká republika 14 Suomi/Finland 14 United Kingdom 7
  • 21. Subsidy gain per hectare / € Latvija 149 Romania 110 Eesti 108 Lietuva 99 Bulgaria 78 Portugal 69 Polska 49 España 45 Slovensko 34 Magyarország 10 Österreich 1 0 100 200 300 400
  • 22. Subsidy gain per hectare / € Latvija 149 229 Romania 110 Eesti 108 Lietuva 99 Bulgaria 78 Portugal 69 Polska 49 España 45 Slovensko 34 Magyarország 10 Österreich 1 0 100 200 300 400
  • 23. A flat rate for direct payments would benefit new member states but presents big political challenges
  • 24. New member states get a better deal from rural development than from direct payments
  • 25. 600 Direct Payments / € per ha 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 Rural Development / € per ha
  • 26. 600 Direct Payments / € per ha Poland 500 400 300 O 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 Rural Development / € per ha
  • 27. Entitlement approach v. Programming approach
  • 28. Thank you for your attention jack@farmsubsidy.org