Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 19.2
Characteristics of the post-productivist transition.
in policy circles, so much so that the two farming
systems (productivist and post-productivist) are
likely to coexist in the future. This may comprise
an intensive system of farming, which emphasises
food
quantity,
and a more extensive system, which
espouses sustainability and food
quality
. It is
probable that the two farming systems will
become further spatially differentiated, with the
prosperous agricultural regions in Europe
producing for the mass food market and the more
marginal agricultural areas providing quality food
products for niche markets.
During the PPT, the CAP has been responding
to, rather than stimulating, change. Initially, this
took the form of production control measures,
through for example milk quotas and arable set-
aside (Briggs and Kerrell 1992; Naylor 1993).
However, these had limited impact because farm
subsidies were still coupled to the amount of food
produced. It was not until the so-called
MacSharry reforms of the CAP in 1992 that the
idea of decoupling farm incomes from the volume
of food production was taken seriously (Robinson
and Ilbery 1993). This began through a system of
income aid,
in the form of arable area payments
(AAPs) and voluntary agri-environmental
programmes (AEPs).
Nevertheless, the movement towards
agricultural de-intensification in the EU has been
slow, and in 1995 the equivalent of 49 per cent of
farm incomes still came in the form of subsidies;
this compared with 15 per cent in the USA and 3
per cent in New Zealand. Such a high level of
government support reflects deeply embedded
attitudes, which make a move away from
agricultural productivism politically difficult.
Despite this, mounting macro-scale pressures,
including the internationalisation of the food
supply system and the greening of agricultural
policy, are being placed on the CAP to decouple
farm incomes completely from government
economic subsidies.
These pressures have gained momentum
through the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 1993
GATT agreement on world agricultural trade, and
the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act (FAIR) in the USA. The FAIR
programme has replaced subsidies through
deficiency and set-aside payments with a seven-
year system of decoupled payments, where farmers
are not obliged to produce particular crops or any
crop at all in order to receive income aid (Harvey
1996). Thus income is not tied to production (as it
is in the EU's AAPs). Farmers are still able to sell
their farm produce, but income from this is
dependent on market, not guaranteed, prices.
These ideas, especially the move towards market
orientation, are almost certain to influence the
next round of the WTO (formerly GATT)
negotiations beginning in 1999 (Ritson and
Harvey 1997). Indeed, the European Commission
has already responded to the pressures through
publication of its Agenda 2000 proposals, which
advocates further major cuts in guaranteed prices
paid to farmers, more decoupled income aid (but
with an upper ceiling) and the channelling of
support to the poorest farmers in marginal
agricultural areas.
Clearly, farm households are having to adjust
to policy change and the PPT; it is at the farm
