Page 62 - Microsoft Word - CEU_MA_Thesis_ARDI_PRIKS_FINAL_v1.3.docx

despite the weight given to this component of the CAP in the public debates, there is no credible evidence that Rural Development spending is effective in achieving its desired goals (Court of Auditors 2007). Ulrich Koester et al. (2010, 76) even suggest that the whole proposal of rationalization of the CAP is actually just another attempt to continue with agricultural protection in a less transparent way. They find support for this suggestion in the incompatibility of the Rural Development objectives with the other pronounced objectives of the CAP and in the profound lack of systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of rural support measures. “The weakness of implementation and lack of genuine control suggests that the EU cannot guarantee adequate operation of the farm investment programme, so it is highly questionable that the EU should support such a scheme” (Koester and Nello 2010, 76). As for the negotiations, refocus reforms might be able to gain some ground from more reform- minded member states with even some governments supporting the idea. As things stand, there will be some key beneficiary member states, such as France, where government maintains close relations with the farmer’s lobby and which are therefore against both, reduction in the total budget of the CAP and emphasis on the environmental concerns within the Rural Development pillar since the latter leaves farmers’ current rents more than uncertain. Furthermore, in the enlarged EU, some of the larger New Member States (Poland, Hungary, Rumania) will have very large stakes in the future CAP and “they are in favour of the status quo both in terms of the budget and CAP measures and adverse to any possible form of national co-financing of the CAP” (Henke, Severini and Sorrentino 2011, 8). Therefore, the refocusing scenario is unlikely to materialize in the current conditions. 62