Jack Thurston talk at EU budget and CAP conference: Prague, 11 December 2008

1,110 views
1,031 views

Published on

'Follow the money'
Jack Thurston is a co-founder of farmsubsidy.org

Published in: Travel, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,110
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jack Thurston talk at EU budget and CAP conference: Prague, 11 December 2008

  1. 1. ‘Follow the money’ Jack Thurston Co-founder, farmsubsidy.org The CAP and the Budget Review Prague, 11 December 2008
  2. 2. If Europeans knew how the EU spends €55 billion a year on farm subsidies... What would they think?
  3. 3. Our method Freedom of information Vigorous debate + = + Investigative Better policy reporting
  4. 4. Data obtained - timeline May 2006 May 2007 August 2008 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. 5. CAP payments Czech Republic, 2007 Total Number of Number of amount € payments recipients 615 million 47 264 23 337
  6. 6. In the Czech Republic the biggest 10 per cent of farms get 76 per cent of the money (2007)
  7. 7. Top 10% of recipients Next 10% of recipients Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Spain Greece France Ireland Italy Hungary Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden UK 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of all direct payments (2006)
  8. 8. Top 10 recipients SAPS, 2007 Recipient name Amount Kor. Amount € AGRO - MERÍN, A.S. 88 867 708 3 127 315 VOJENSKÉ LESY A STATKY CR, S.P. 59 091 118 2 079 456 ZEMEDELSKÉ DRUŽSTVO DOLNÍ 44 129 176 ÚJEZD 1 552 935 ZD MORINA 39 833 202 1 401 757 ZD KRÁSNÁ HORA NAD VLTAVOU 38 179 494 A.S. 1 343 562 ROSTENICE, A.S. 37 664 868 1 325 453 ZEMEDELSKO-OBCHODNÍ 35 845 093 DRUŽSTVO ŽICHLÍNEK 1 261 413 ÚNEŠOVSKÝ STATEK, A.S. 35 672 403 1 255 336 HORYMAS, SPOL. S R.O. 34 831 633 1 225 749 AGRODRUŽSTVO JEVIŠOVICE 32 393 009 1 139 932
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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-
  11. 11. EU Budget Transparency (at last!) 30 Sept 2008: Pillar 2 + non-CAP 30 April 2009: Pillar 1
  12. 12. Farmsubsidy.org 2.0 (March 2009) More interactivity More mapping More analysis Faster and more powerful searching
  13. 13. Some analysis: Two insights
  14. 14. Insight 1 A flat rate for direct payments would mostly benefit new member states
  15. 15. 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
  16. 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 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. Subsidy gain per hectare / € Latvija 149 Romania 110 Eesti 108 Lietuva 99 Bulgaria 78 Portugal 69 € 229 - flat rate Polska 49 España 45 Slovensko 34 Magyarország 10 Österreich 1 0 100 200 300 400
  19. 19. Insight 1.1 A flat rate for direct payments would mostly benefit new member states but presents political challenges
  20. 20. Insight 2 New member states get a better deal from rural development than from direct payments
  21. 21. 2013 600 Direct Payments / € per ha 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 Rural Development / € per ha
  22. 22. 2013 600 EU-15 Czech Republic Direct Payments / € per ha 500 400 300 O 200 EU-12 100 0 0 100 200 300 Rural Development / € per ha
  23. 23. €72 2013 600 EU-15 Czech Rep Direct Payments / € per ha 500 400 300 O €229 200 EU-12 100 0 0 100 200 300 Rural Development / € per ha
  24. 24. Three core questions
  25. 25. Entitlements v. Targeting
  26. 26. Incentive payments v. Regulation & law
  27. 27. Common policy v. National/regional diversity
  28. 28. CAP is... “little more than an instrument for Ministers of Agriculture to get for their farmers in Brussels and in the name of Europe what they would not get at their national Cabinet tables.” Lord Dahrendorf, former European Commissioner.
  29. 29. Thank you for your attention jack@farmsubsidy.org

×