The 2016 cap reform accommodating wto pressures Mobil 3g seks
Again representing a compromise from originally more far-reaching proposals, the policy changes made included the extension of milk quotas and set-aside, and much more importantly, for the first time significant reductions in the level of institutional prices for cereals and beef.
In compensation for these cutbacks in price support, farmers were given direct payments (“cheques in the post”) per head of livestock and hectare under crops, more-or-less up to a maximum of their pre-reform quantities.
For example, production quotas in the milk sector were introduced in 1984, and since 1988 arable farmers have been given money if they “set-aside” from production part of their land.
But this and subsequent reform attempts were substantially watered down by the politicians who make the policy choices.
Thus today the CAP still absorbs more than two-fifths of the EU budget.
To attempt to achieve these objectives (some of which were potentially conflicting), two main mechanisms were used.
First, a generous EEC-wide common “target price” was set for each of the major farm products.
Importantly, this met a number of the CAP’s original objectives, but by the early 1980s as domestic production consistently ran ahead of domestic consumption the EC was compelled to purchase and store large amounts of surplus commodities, producing so-called “butter mountains” and “wine lakes” which often had to be resold at a loss on world markets; or else the EC had to entice traders to sell overseas by paying them export “refunds” (export subsidies) equal to the difference between the Community intervention prices and the lower world prices.