2012 West Coast Model EU; Common Agricultural Policy Reform; Final (passed) Resolutions


Small Farmers Scheme Resolution 2013-2020Signatories: Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia

1.       Expresses its appreciation for the Presidency’s proposed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms, and emphasizes that any CAP reforms approved by this body should be characterized by themes of improving productivity, environmental responsibility, and ensuring state-state equity;

2.   Affirms the unique position of subsistence-based small farmers (of less than 3 hectares of cultivatable land) and acknowledges the difficult of such farmers to contribute significant attention to environmental priorities;

3. Recommends the Small Farmers Scheme (SFS) as a necessary addendum to the CAP as a mechanism for improving small farmers productivity and equity in receiving CAP assistance, wherein the following measures will be implemented by the CAP between 2013 and 2020:

4.       Small farmers shall have the power to independently opt either to participate in the SFS if:
i.      They are no more than 3 ha;
ii.      They decide by October 15, 2014;

5.       Small farmers who opt to participate in the SFS shall be exempt from applying greening measures and penalties to the agricultural sector established by this Council between 2013 and 2020;

6.       The SFS payments shall neither interfere with nor replace Pillar II Rural Development funds for providing advice to small farmers for economic development and restructuring grants in regions with high concentrations of small farms.

Signatories: Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Austria, France, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg

Resolution – Phasing in of dependence on Green Measures for the receipt of subsidies

1. Acknowledges the new challenges which face the Common Agricultural Policy, including climate change, water management, implementation of alternative fuels, and bio diversity while maintaining the common commitment to agricultural productivity and competitiveness;

2. Bears in mind that the European people require a robust and efficient agricultural sector which is capable of meeting the needs of all people;

3. Agrees that the farming subsidy should be conditional on the implementation of greening measures as specified in the “Greening Measures under CAP Reform 2013-2020” resolution hereto for accepted by this body, wherein conditional payments will be implemented in phases across three years where 0% of farmers direct payments will be withheld the first year, 7.5% will be withheld the second, and 15% withheld the final year.

4. Proposes that market incentives are based on each agricultural holding complying with one or more of the five greening strategies. Products produced by compliant farms will be designated as “Save Europe” products.

Greening Measures under CAP Reform 2013-2020

Signatories: Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, UK, Estonia, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Portugal, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic

1. Recognizes the diversity of the European Union, and supports offering five greening initiatives to encourage ecologically sustainable agriculture and offer a broadened opportunity for small farms to develop agriculturally under them. Agricultural holdings, whom participate in the market economy, may choose one or more of five initiatives to implement.
a. Optional greening measures until the year 2020 include:
1. Maintain a permanent pasture through sustainable and more healthy practices.
2. Biodiversity through three crop rotation
3. Reservation of 7% of arable land for agricultural practices
4. Reduction of 20% of carbon emissions
5. Implementing sound irrigation systems to foster water conservation


Equalized Funding Resolution:
signatories: Slovenia, Estonia, United Kingdom, Romania, Latvia
We should advocate a more equalized funding across all the member states. Romania and the UK propose that there is more equalized funding between Eastern and Western European member states. This funding would go to overhauling the agricultural systems and rural development within the agricultural sectors of the newest member states in order to comply with the greening proposals put forward by the presidency. This funding would last until 2020, when we would re-convene to decide whether to renew this funding or phase it out.

Amendment: 60/40 split instead of the current 50/50 split, with at least 20% of the funds going to rural development within the 12 newest member states.

Signatories: Poland, Denmark, United Kingdom, Slovenia,  Malta, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Signatories: Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Belgium

Capping the CAP Draft Resolution

  1. Recognizes that a cap of €300,000 per farm is neither equitable nor realistic for many member states who rely primarily on large farms for production, Acknowledges the EU values of market economy and fairness, and affirm the importance of individual farms to receive supplemental payments through the Pillar 1 of the CAP;
  2. Encourages a redistribution of funds to agricultural areas throughout the EU that are in highest disparity and gravest need for development, technological investment, and increased competitive advantage, while also affirming the importance of ensuring open agricultural markets as disparities are equalized in the future;

  1. Recommends the EU ought cap Pillar I direct payments to farmers at €500,000 per farm. The remaining or excess funds would be then be redistributed 40% back to the domestic country, and 60% held at the supranational level.

    1. The 40% left to the national government will no longer be restricted solely towards rural development. Funding re-allocated to national governments will be completely at their discretion to distribute these funds in such areas/topics that pertain to agriculture:
      1. Rural development
      2. Innovation and technologies
      3. Agricultural education

    1. The other 60% would be held at the supranational level and allocated towards rural development in areas that require the support the most. At least 20% of this 60% will be dedicated towards the 12 New Member states integrated since 2004.
      1. Building a general agricultural/rural infrastructure structure in places that are severely lacking such;
        1. i.e. building roads, and replacing outdated/non-functional machinery
      2. Modernizing the farming techniques, tools, machinery, and practices that would allow them to compete fairly at the international level
      3. Incentivizing younger generations to enter the agricultural work sector
        i.e. provide scholarships and payments to programs that offer agricultural schooling, such as agricultural economics and business
        i.e. incentivizing business to invest in rural areas

  1. To reward exceptional efforts, agricultural holdings will be exempt from a cap on the CAP if they are able to meet 3 of the 5 greening measures, over a period of four years where;
    1. Zero greening measures need be met in the first year;
    2. One greening measure must be met in the second year;
    3. Two greening measures met in the third year;
    4. Three greening measures met in the fourth and final year.



Pac-12 Model EU; The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; CAP Reform Position Paper

Image<– The Grand Duchy (of Luxembourg)

Bring it, Model EU.

Position Paper

Importance of the CAP

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg acknowledges the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as the main instrument for stabilizing effective, sustainable and competitive European Union (EU) agriculture. Confronting new challenges such as climate change, supply and security of food, energy, environment and biodiversity, the EU must use the CAP to achieve subjective and pragmatic protection of EU agriculture. Thus, negotiations for the future CAP are crucial and should bring a result, which provides advantages for our farmers, consumers and the economy.

Luxembourg recognizes the need to be proactive in CAP reform, for both agricultural and economic demands on the EU have become increasingly larger. Changes in both 1992 and 2003 represented the progressive pragmatism of CAP reform. Such pragmatism should continue, as the CAP represents 40% of the European Union’s funding allocation. Reformation of the CAP must be targeted at a deepening of the funding model, in order to establish a more perfect unification of EU agricultural markets, in order to achieve subjective goals laid out by Agenda 2020.

Agriculture of Luxembourg in relation to Europe

As a formative member of the European Union, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg maintains a favourable relationship with its neighbouring countries in regards to agricultural support Devoting over 50% of the land to agricultural endeavours, with average farm size around 2 hetacres, Luxembourg emulates the type of farming that suffers from the current CAP subsidy model, and yet has the potentiality to represent an ecologically and economically sound agricultural market as a result of CAP reformation; inasmuch as the smaller farming method encourages decentralized farming and agricultural cooperation between farmers (Co-op farming).

Co-op farming represents over 83% of Luxembourgish farms, prompted by farming crises of 1988. These crises were the emergence of an ongoing trend, wherein local farmers were unable to operate independently due to poor yields and market decline. Co-op farming has since gained in popularity, as farmers seek assistance beyond the small CAP subsidies they are provided, due to small farm size. CAP payments do not adequately assist smaller farms, necessitating greater trade expenditure for local markets, resulting in higher priced goods, and decline of agricultural employment. Agriculture represents over 27% of Luxembourg’s employment, making agricultural well being central to economic and social stability. With involvement of over 80% of national revenue in banking, Luxembourg was hit hard by the Euro Zone crisis and seeks to sustain employment and other internal affairs.

Small and local farming in Luxembourg has attracted the attention of several ecologically-minded cooperatives, namely Bio-G, who are interested in promoting “greener” farming among associated farmers. Luxembourgish farming co-ops portray alternative farming and marketing methods that are environmentally and economically sustainable. CAP reform should bolster farming co-op initiatives, in the interest of increasing financial stability for small farmers, and realize local farming advantages, to increase ecological farming methods and European consumer-focused marketing strategies.


Underlining the environmental and economic initiatives of Denmark’s proposed CAP reform, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg respects the consideration for social well being in respect to financing public goods. The alleviation of public goods-related costs to farmers and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, through subsidies, gives Luxembourg the opportunity to further focus resources to the agricultural market itself.

Luxembourg also agrees with a 30% expenditure of the CAP towards ecologically motivated Pillar 1 subsidy payments. Luxembourg emphasizes a 5% CAP Pillar 1 expenditure towards development, in the interest of making use of the rising number of ecologically-minded research in Europe. Research and development is a long-term investment, with guaranteed returns. As the number of educated Europeans grows, allocation of CAP funds towards research supports agriculture, the environment, the economy and most importantly, the opportunity for European innovation and success.

Promotion of another 5% of Pillar 1 CAP funding towards local farming initiatives is encouraged, to create reliably ecological methods in local communities, whereby creating a low-priced and healthier standard for European agriculture. Local farming decreases transportation-related problems, such as gas and energy cost, which increases cost of food for the consumer, and emissions from transportation vehicles. Locally grown food also provides health benefits due to shorter transportation and environmental factors.

Luxembourg strongly disagrees with the €300,000 cap on direct income support subsidies. Such a cap limits the ability for larger farms to operate at full capacity, and negates the possible incentives to farm under the new ecological CAP initiatives. Luxembourg supports a targeted “menu” approach to subsidy payments, with a sliding scale dependent on specific ecological methods used, farm size and production amount. Luxemboug supports the supranational initiative of direct income support payments being distributed directly from the EU, in order to minimize the burden of allocation for individual states. Through direct payments from the EU, the EU can better analyze the state of the agricultural market as a whole.

Denmark’s presidency of the EU shows a dedication to Agenda 2020, represented by a comprehensive Agenda concerning the security of the CAP. In high opinion of the current Agenda initiatives, Luxembourg proposes to open the Agenda for the inclusion of discussion about a farming Co-op subsidy model. Luxembourg maintains this position, due to the large number of suffering small farmers across Europe, and the potential they have for success through cooperative farming. Luxembourg encourages each European country to consider the advantages of local farming, and consider the opportunities for agricultural stability through cooperation, similar to the strength of the European Union.

Pac-12 Model EU; Luxembourg; Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform; Draft Resolution


1. Realizes the necessity of greening EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), underlining the financial incentives for delivering public goods as dependent upon;

a. Enforcing ecologically sensible transportation methods, wherein;

i. Regulation of emissions standards by (POLICY) (COMMUNICATION#) is upheld for all transport vehicles.
ii. Incentives towards greener production and transportation methods are subsidized in Pillar 1.


2. Welcomes the restructuring of Pillar 1, conditionally agreeing to 30% of CAP payments towards “‘greening’ measures”, whereby;

a. Technological innovation holds 10% of Pillar 1 subsidy payments, structured accordingly:

i. With funds allocated towards ecologically-minded technological development.
ii. With incentives towards use of “greening” agricultural technology by farmers, through additional subsidy payments.
iii. Whereas, technological development will enhance long-term productivity in ways that reduce environmental impact and help adapt to climate change.

b. Local production and transportation of goods is encouraged through additional subsidy payments, representing 5% of the CAP Pillar 1 budget, in efforts to reduce vehicle emissions and increase local production of goods.

c. Direct Income Support (DIS) remains independent from a E300,000 ceiling, dependent upon:

i. The use of a targeted “menu” approach to subsidy payments, whereby liberalizing DIS away from farm size and crop yield, in order to form a more responsible method of subsidy distribution to smaller farms and movement towards cohesion in environmental efforts across the EU.
ii. Pillar 1-targeted DIS payments remain allocated to farmers by the state, to ensure a more comprehensive system of necessity-based funding allocation.


3. Strongly urges the establishment of a subsidy model under the CAP Pillar 2 to maintain higher multi-annual, contractual subsidy payments to agricultural cooperatives.

a. Whereby, to encourage the growing number of cooperative agricultural efforts within the EU.

i. Insofar as agricultural cooperatives support the “greening” initiative, and the economic stability of Europe’s farmers.

b. Wherein, a sliding scale of subsidy payments is determinate upon:

i. Amount of land owned by cooperative members.
ii. Collective production of all members

c. Under the circumstance that recipients of agricultural cooperative funding are regulated by standards organizations, which are supported by the state Department of Agriculture. (i.e. Demeter and BioLabel)

d. Henceforth to be referred to as the “Co-opportunity model”.