Who (Really) Benefits from the Complementary Redistributive Income Support? Qui bénéficie (vraiment) de l'aide redistributive complémentaire au revenu ?  Wer profitiert (wirklich) von der Ergänzende Umverteilungseinkommensstützung?

IF 2.4 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY EuroChoices Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1111/1746-692X.12418
Catherine Laroche-Dupraz, Stéphane Lemarié, Laurent Piet
{"title":"Who (Really) Benefits from the Complementary Redistributive Income Support?\n Qui bénéficie (vraiment) de l'aide redistributive complémentaire au revenu ? \n Wer profitiert (wirklich) von der Ergänzende Umverteilungseinkommensstützung?","authors":"Catherine Laroche-Dupraz,&nbsp;Stéphane Lemarié,&nbsp;Laurent Piet","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced the redistributive payment as an optional scheme to redistribute direct support between farmers by granting them an additional payment for the first hectares up to a threshold. In 2021, only 15 per cent of the direct payments went to more than 75 per cent of European farms (European Commission, 2021). The 2023 CAP reform made this scheme compulsory under the name of the Complementary Redistributive Income Support (CRIS). Under CRIS, a farmer receives Basic Income Support (BIS) plus CRIS for each hectare of their farm up to a certain threshold, and then only BIS for the hectares above the threshold, irrespective of any other supports to which they may be eligible (Regulation 2021/2115, Article 29). Member States are free to decide the per hectare amounts of CRIS and BIS and the threshold level below which CRIS is granted. They can also define different amounts of CRIS for different ranges of farm area sizes, and set all these parameters at national or regional level. With some exceptions, Member States must devote at least 10 per cent of their first pillar direct payments on implementing CRIS, which reduces the budget available for BIS accordingly.</p><p>An analysis of the financial annexes of the national CAP strategic plans shows that, of the 25 Member States implementing CRIS (Malta and Denmark have obtained a derogation), 18 have planned to spend this 10 per cent minimum or more in 2017 (Figure 1), four of them reaching 20 per cent or more. The share of hectares concerned is much more varied: with the same 10 per cent budget, Portugal (PT) will cover 19 per cent of its total supported area while Austria (AT) will cover 68 per cent.</p><p>As intended, CRIS leads to redistribution of part of the payments from larger to smaller farms. However, the farm size up to which farmers actually benefit from the policy is not apparent from the scheme parameters and may be well above the CRIS threshold. Take the example of Czechia's strategic plan (Figure 2). In 2027, a 200 ha Czech farm will receive a total of 36,300 € (green line), with 13,200 € coming from BIS (66 €/ha on every hectare; blue line), and 23,100 € coming from CRIS (154 €/ha up to 150 ha; yellow line).</p><p>Instead, if the same total budget were to be distributed only through a uniform payment per hectare, the same farm would receive a total of 24,000 € (120 €/ha on every hectare; red line). A comparison of the green and red lines shows that farms with a size equal to the CRIS threshold benefit most from the redistribution. However, in Czechia, even farms of up to 430 ha should benefit from CRIS, which is almost three times larger than the 150 ha threshold.</p><p>Figure 3 reports the results of similar calculations for the 25 Member States implementing CRIS, together with their 2020 average farm area. While the maximum area of beneficiary farms is always higher than the CRIS threshold by construction, it is also higher than the average farm size in most cases, suggesting that the degree of redistribution varies between countries.</p><p>From this analysis we conclude that while the new CRIS scheme does redistribute income support from larger to smaller farms, the maximum size of farms that actually benefit from this redistribution is well above the threshold up to which the additional payment is granted. In other words, CRIS payments are still far from being exclusively targeted at the smallest farms.</p>","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"23 1","pages":"34-35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1746-692X.12418","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EuroChoices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced the redistributive payment as an optional scheme to redistribute direct support between farmers by granting them an additional payment for the first hectares up to a threshold. In 2021, only 15 per cent of the direct payments went to more than 75 per cent of European farms (European Commission, 2021). The 2023 CAP reform made this scheme compulsory under the name of the Complementary Redistributive Income Support (CRIS). Under CRIS, a farmer receives Basic Income Support (BIS) plus CRIS for each hectare of their farm up to a certain threshold, and then only BIS for the hectares above the threshold, irrespective of any other supports to which they may be eligible (Regulation 2021/2115, Article 29). Member States are free to decide the per hectare amounts of CRIS and BIS and the threshold level below which CRIS is granted. They can also define different amounts of CRIS for different ranges of farm area sizes, and set all these parameters at national or regional level. With some exceptions, Member States must devote at least 10 per cent of their first pillar direct payments on implementing CRIS, which reduces the budget available for BIS accordingly.

An analysis of the financial annexes of the national CAP strategic plans shows that, of the 25 Member States implementing CRIS (Malta and Denmark have obtained a derogation), 18 have planned to spend this 10 per cent minimum or more in 2017 (Figure 1), four of them reaching 20 per cent or more. The share of hectares concerned is much more varied: with the same 10 per cent budget, Portugal (PT) will cover 19 per cent of its total supported area while Austria (AT) will cover 68 per cent.

As intended, CRIS leads to redistribution of part of the payments from larger to smaller farms. However, the farm size up to which farmers actually benefit from the policy is not apparent from the scheme parameters and may be well above the CRIS threshold. Take the example of Czechia's strategic plan (Figure 2). In 2027, a 200 ha Czech farm will receive a total of 36,300 € (green line), with 13,200 € coming from BIS (66 €/ha on every hectare; blue line), and 23,100 € coming from CRIS (154 €/ha up to 150 ha; yellow line).

Instead, if the same total budget were to be distributed only through a uniform payment per hectare, the same farm would receive a total of 24,000 € (120 €/ha on every hectare; red line). A comparison of the green and red lines shows that farms with a size equal to the CRIS threshold benefit most from the redistribution. However, in Czechia, even farms of up to 430 ha should benefit from CRIS, which is almost three times larger than the 150 ha threshold.

Figure 3 reports the results of similar calculations for the 25 Member States implementing CRIS, together with their 2020 average farm area. While the maximum area of beneficiary farms is always higher than the CRIS threshold by construction, it is also higher than the average farm size in most cases, suggesting that the degree of redistribution varies between countries.

From this analysis we conclude that while the new CRIS scheme does redistribute income support from larger to smaller farms, the maximum size of farms that actually benefit from this redistribution is well above the threshold up to which the additional payment is granted. In other words, CRIS payments are still far from being exclusively targeted at the smallest farms.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁(真正)从补充性再分配收入支持中受益?
2013 年的共同农业政策(CAP)改革引入了再分配付款,作为在农民之间重新分配直接支持的可选计划,为农民的第一公顷土地提供额外付款,但不得超过临界值。2021 年,只有 15%的直接支付给了超过 75%的欧洲农场(欧盟委员会,2021 年)。2023 年的补充性再分配收入支持(Complementary Redistributive Income Support,CRIS)改革使该计划成为强制性计划。在补充性再分配收入支持计划下,农民每公顷农场可获得基本收入支持(BIS)和补充性再分配收入支持(CRIS),直至达到一定的阈值,然后只可获得阈值以上公顷的基本收入支持,而与他们可能有资格获得的任何其他支持无关(2021/2115 号法规,第 29 条)。成员国可自由决定每公顷 CRIS 和 BIS 的金额,以及低于 CRIS 的阈值水平。它们还可以根据农场面积的不同范围确定不同的 CRIS 金额,并在国家或地区层面设定所有这些参数。对国家履约协助方案战略计划财务附件的分析表明,在实施 CRIS 的 25 个成员国中(马耳他和丹麦获得了减免),有 18 个国家计划在 2017 年将这 10%的最低水平用于实施 CRIS(图 1),其中 4 个国家达到 20%或以上。相关公顷数所占份额的差异更大:同样是 10%的预算,葡萄牙(PT)将覆盖其总支持面积的 19%,而奥地利(AT)将覆盖 68%:实施 CRIS 的 25 个成员国平均将其第一支柱直接付款预算的 11% 用于 CRIS,覆盖 53% 的受支持总面积:作者根据国家 CAP 战略计划计算得出。正如预期的那样,CRIS 导致部分付款从大型农场向小型农场的重新分配。然而,从计划参数中看不出农民实际受益于该政策的农场规模,可能远远超过 CRIS 临界值。以捷克的战略计划为例(图 2)。2027 年,一个 200 公顷的捷克农场将获得总计 36,300 欧元(绿线),其中 13,200 欧元来自 BIS(每公顷 66 欧元/公顷;蓝线),23,100 欧元来自 CRIS(150 公顷以下 154 欧元/公顷;黄线)。有 CRIS 和无 CRIS 时,农场层面的支持总额与农场规模的函数关系(2027 财年)注:两条虚线分别代表捷克符合 CRIS 条件的最大公顷数(150 公顷)和农场实际受益于 CRIS 的最大公顷数(430 公顷):相反,如果同样的预算总额仅通过每公顷统一支付的方式进行分配,同一农场将获得总计 24,000 欧元(每公顷 120 欧元;红线)。绿线和红线的比较表明,面积等于 CRIS 临界值的农场从再分配中获益最多。然而,在捷克,即使面积达 430 公顷的农场也应从 CRIS 中受益,这几乎是 150 公顷临界值的三倍。图 3 报告了实施 CRIS 的 25 个成员国的类似计算结果及其 2020 年的平均农场面积。虽然从结构上看,受益农场的最大面积总是高于 CRIS 临界值,但在大多数情况下也高于农场的平均面积,这表明不同国家的再分配程度各不相同。注:在西班牙(ES),CRIS 的实施涉及 20 个地区,每个地区有 2 个付款门槛和水平;因此,符合条件的最大公顷数从 8.43 公顷到 149.88 公顷不等;此处使用的是 55 公顷的总体平均值:作者根据国家 CAP 战略计划和欧盟统计局对 2020 年农场平均规模的计算得出的结论。从这一分析中我们得出结论,虽然新的 CRIS 计划确实将收入支持从大型农场重新分配给了小型农场,但实际受益于这一重新分配的农场的最大规模远高于发放额外补贴的门槛。换句话说,CRIS 的支付还远远没有完全针对最小的农场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EuroChoices
EuroChoices AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: EuroChoices is a full colour, peer reviewed, outreach journal of topical European agri-food and rural resource issues, published three times a year in April, August and December. Its main aim is to bring current research and policy deliberations on agri-food and rural resource issues to a wide readership, both technical & non-technical. The need for this is clear - there are great changes afoot in the European and global agri-food industries and rural areas, which are of enormous impact and concern to society. The issues which underlie present deliberations in the policy and private sectors are complex and, until now, normally expressed in impenetrable technical language.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The 2030 Veterinary Antimicrobial Sales Reduction Target in Europe: Where Are We? L'objectif de réduction des ventes d'antimicrobiens vétérinaires en Europe d'ici 2030 : où en sommes-nous ? Das Umsatzreduktionsziel für veterinärmedizinische antimikrobielle Mittel bis 2030 in Europa: Wo stehen wir? Mandatory vs. Voluntary? How to Conceive and Implement the ‘Right’ Measures to Fight AMR Obligatoires ou volontaires ? Comment concevoir et mettre en œuvre les ‘bonnes’ mesures pour lutter contre la résistance aux antimicrobiens Verpflichtend oder freiwillig? Wie lassen sich die ‚richtigen‘ Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der AMR konzipieren und umsetzen? European Countries have Reduced Antimicrobial Use (AMU) in Livestock but Have They Also Replaced and Rethought AMU? A Qualitative Approach Les pays européens ont réduit l'utilisation des antimicrobiens (AMU) dans l’élevage, mais ont-ils également remplacé et repensé cet usage ? Une approche qualitative Europäische Länder haben den Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel (AMU) in der Nutztierhaltung reduziert, aber haben sie AMU auch ersetzt und überdacht? Ein qualitativer Ansatz AMR as a Global and One Health Issue: the Challenge to Adapt a Global Strategy in Two Low- and Middle-income Countries, Mozambique and Vietnam La résistance aux antimicrobiens comme problème de santé globale et de santé unique : le défi d'adapter une stratégie mondiale dans deux pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire, le Mozambique et le Vietnam AMR als globales und One-Health-Problem: die Herausforderung, eine globale Strategie in zwei Ländern mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen – Mosambik und Vietnam – umzusetzen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1