sustainability of flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy
DESCRIPTION
Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy. Kris Bachus EEEN-forum, February 9, 2012. Outline. Environmentally harmful subsidies Case 1: Direct payments to farmers Case 2: renovation subsidy Methodological challenges. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Des
ign
Cha
rles
& R
ay E
ames
- H
ang
it al
l ©
Vitr
a
Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy
Kris BachusEEEN-forum, February 9, 2012
![Page 2: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline
1. Environmentally harmful subsidies
2. Case 1: Direct payments to farmers
3. Case 2: renovation subsidy
4. Methodological challenges
![Page 3: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
1. Environmentally harmful subsidies
• EHS: Patrick• Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe:
– Milestone: By 2020 EHS will be phased out, with due regard to the impact on people in need.
– Member States should:• Identify the most significant EHS pursuant to established
methodologies (by 2012);• Prepare plans and timetables to phase out EHS and report
on these as part of their National Reform Programmes (by 2012/2013);
![Page 4: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
“Established Methodologies”
OECD – IEEP “Integrated assessment framework tool”→ designed for evaluating individual subsidies
Main parts:1. Analysis of the objectives2. Subsidy design3. Effectiveness analysis4. Incidental impact analysis5. Impact of policy reform
Social, economic and environmental effects
![Page 5: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
2. Case 1: Direct payments to farmers
• CAP ‘Pillar I-support’• Before: coupling with production• ‘direct income support’• Past reforms: continuing decoupling
![Page 6: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
• CAP: evolution of decoupling
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
100
200
300
400
500
600rechtstreekse steun
bedrijfstoeslag
marktinterventie
mio euro
![Page 7: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
2.1 Objectives
• Main objective: to provide a livable income for the Flemish farmers in a number of subsectors
![Page 8: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
2.2 Conditionality
• Income support so not conditional on production
![Page 9: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
2.3 Economic impact
• Beef cattle sector: very dependent• Arable farming: limited impact; • Other subsectors: no support;
![Page 10: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
2.4 Social impact
• Support is unequally distributed;• Support is regressive in absolute terms; progressive in
relative terms;
![Page 11: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
2.5 Environmental impact
• Decoupled support much less harmful;• Calculations based on ‘historical production’ is
negative;• Cross compliance: not very ambitious;• Soil erosion: positive impact
![Page 12: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
2.6 Recommendations case direct payments
• Decoupling = most of the reform is already done;• Cross compliance can be made more ambitious;• Anticyclical; more targeted towards low incomes;• Environmental criteria in awarding;
![Page 13: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
3. Case 2: renovation subsidy: objectives
1. Increasing the number of Flemish households owning the house they live in (74,4% in 2005)
2. Improving the quality of the housing stock in Flanders3. Reviving neighbourhoods4. Making it possible for financially vulnerable people to
keep and maintain their houses (stimulating the affordability of housing)
![Page 14: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
3.1 Effectiveness
• Additionality is very limited: estimated 15-30%;• Effect on ownership very small;• Quality of the housing stock: poor targeting• Reviving neighbourhoods: negligible;• Housing the poor:
– Poort targeting (8th decile)– Real problem is elsewhere (property rental market
(7%-30%)• Conclusion: no effectiveness towards the social objective
![Page 15: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
3.2 Incidental impacts
• No positive environmental impact (is not an objective);• Other impacts: negligible• Only ‘major’ side effect: impact on the budget (0,5%).
• ‘Rental subsidy’ en ‘more social housing’ are much more effective than the existing subsidy;
• Better targeting of the existing subsidy would already be a significant step forward.
3.3 Reform: How to spend the 125 mio euro more effectively?
![Page 16: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
3.4 Conclusions of the case on the Renovation Subsidy
• Lack of targeting totally erodes effectiveness;• Designed for the average citizen;• Conclusion: potential impact not realized
Recommendations:
• Better and stricter targeting:– housing quality standards;– income borders;– Include value of the house;
• Pre-financing or tax credit;• Use the supplementary available budget for a rental subsidy
![Page 17: Sustainability of Flemish subsidies: casestudies on direct payments and the renovation subsidy](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062813/56816498550346895dd66e29/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
4. Methodological challenges
• Effectiveness – side effects;• Qualitative answers to quantitative questions;• Complexity;• Useful to supplement other research, and as
a structuring instrument;• identify not quantify : suited for in-depth case
studies, but not for quantification;