achieving a new common agricultural policy

8/8/2019 Achieving a New Common Agricultural Policy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/achieving-a-new-common-agricultural-policy 1/30

AchievingA new common

AgriculturAlPolicy

Nvb 2010

Bn Bachelier



.dap.



t Fda p ’a pqs a ba, pss ad epa tk ak

Psd: nas Baz

v-psd: cas Bbd

c ex o: Dq ré

dq.@dap.



Achieving A newcommoN agricultural

Policy

Bad BAchelier



t Fda p ’a pqs a ba, pss ad epa da

Psd: nas Baz

v-psd: cas Bbd

c ex o: Dq ré

dq.@dap.



5

Discussions aimed at dening the post-2013 Common Agricultural

Policy will be opening this November. The CAP – the leading, oldest

and most integrated o existing Community agricultural policies – is

a symbol o European construction. The issue o market regulation in

a liberalised world is one o the topics on the agenda. Yet the CAP isalso acing a turning point in which the sustainability and adaptation

o its practices will need to meet the environmental and health-related

expectations o society.

For the Common Agricultural Policy, the 2013 deadline will trigger a

return to balances o power. Indeed, the European Union, whose CAP is

the leading Community policy, needs to ormulate its policy or the 2014-

2020 period. This does not mean a mere adjustment, but rather a rede-nition o its economic, social, environmental and international vision,

the positioning o the agricultural sector in society, management tools

and the budget, namely the resources which taxpayers agree to devote

to it. The negotiation process will actually begin with the November

2010 publication o a European Union communication, which is really

a proposal outlining the discussion ramework.

The CAP is in the line o re o several potential challenges: in France,

these are businesses, budgetary issues, ecologists and the developmentsector, and internationally they are exporting countries and poor

countries, rom the liberals’ viewpoint and – or dierent reasons – part

o the Let and the Greens. This said, none o these groups are unani-

mously hostile to the CAP. “Friends o the CAP” are everywhere.

Achieving A newcommoN agricultural Policy

Bn BachelierD Fda wd A ad ra l (FArm)



o n d a p o l

|

p o l i t i c a l i n n o v a t i o n

6

The biggest criticism comes rom citizens voicing new expectations

with regard to armers and agriculture. These health-related and envi-

ronmental expectations counter certain production practices or which

the CAP is said to be, rightully or wrongully, responsible. The challenge

or the agricultural sector is to regain, along with society at large, a

contract which the armers are in a position to ull to their ellow citi-

zens’ satisaction, yet with a sense o having done their duty.

Following are a ew reerence points which should help to shed light

on the debates to take place over the next ew months and what will be

at stake in the uture.

the caP has ulilled its PurPose

The CAP was created by the Treaty o Rome signed on 25 March 1957

by the ounding countries o the European Economic Community (EEC).

Under the Treaty o Rome, the purpose o the Common Agricultural

Policy is:

- to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress(…);

- to ensure a air standard o living or the agricultural community;

- to stabilise markets;

- to assure the availability o supplies;

- to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. (Article

39 o the Treaty o Rome).

The French still have a vivid memory o the shortages which they

endured during the last war. Technical progress must ensure ood secu-

rity. Moreover, the CAP was created to meet a cohesion objective or

what remained a substantially agricultural Europe. In 1955, France had

2.3 million arms. The active agricultural population totalled 6.2 million

people, or one-third o the total active population. Agriculture’s addedvalue accounted or 10% o the gross domestic product. Food expendi-

tures represented 20% o household consumption, most o which were

in the orm o unprocessed products (Source: Agreste, the bureau or

statistics o the French Ministry o Agriculture and Fisheries).



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g

l o b a l c h a l l e n g e

7

Agricultural policy must also guarantee the parity between agriculture and

other economic sectors

The Agricultural Orientation Act enacted in 1960 and 1962 by the

French Parliament at the initiative o Michel Debré and Edgar Pisanisets out in its Article 1: “The French Agriculture Orientation Act aims,

within the economic and social policy ramework, to create parity

between agriculture and the other economic sectors.” Paragraph 7 o

Article 2 stipulates that the agricultural policy’s objective is “to promote

and avour a amily-type arming structure likely to make optimal use

o modern production techniques and to permit optimal use o labour

and working capital.”

The entire French sector was restructured in the 1960s to include:

- priority given to amily arms;

- technical progress and modernisation goals;

- co-management with proessional agricultural organisations.

One outcome desired by the government and by all decision-makers at

the time was to realise an increase o the average arm size and a reduc-

tion o their number, thereby reeing up labour orces to benet other

agricultural sectors.

Missions entrusted to the CAP justiy public unding

The CAP ullled its purpose. It attained and exceeded its objectives:

French people have an abundant, diversied, healthy and inexpensive

ood supply – so much so that the issue o national ood security is no

longer o concern to consumers. We will examine the criticisms regar-

ding quality, but it should be pointed out that, in all o human history,

ood has never been healthier.

France has become one o the planet’s leading agricultural export

countries. A rst-class ood industry sector has developed. French agri-

culture’s demographic transition evolved successully without any majorsocial upheavals. Any opinion on the CAP should always take into

account these two signicant achievements: a healthy and inexpensive

ood supply and the participation o armers in the country’s economic

and social growth.



o n d a p o l

|


8

Nonetheless, the economic equation o the consumers-producers-tax-

payers triangle is clear: ood prices continuously accessible to all and

preserved arm income. It is up to the taxpayer to complete the “business

model.

tb 1 : K epn unn’

s : epa css – esa, 2010

l ll al’ al’ f g a Vl plyn xpn

1000 ha % total aa million € % total 1000 jobs % total % total

eu-27eopan union

- 201376 1,8 12737 5,6 12,9(27 contis)

eu-25eopan union

- 189976 1,7 9211 4,3 12,7(25 contis)

eu-15eopan union

- 165560 1,6 6096 3,4 12,3(15 contis)Fr Fanc 29385 53,5 35738 2,0 824 3,2 13,6

rom 1960 to 2010:

the caP moVes rom guaraNteed Prices to direct aid.

The Common Agricultural Policy has been evolving in several stagessince 1960 in terms o instruments as well as its goals. The reorms were

dictated by three major requirements:

- to eliminate surpluses;

- to make European systems compatible with World Trade Organization

rules;

- to introduce environmental requirements.

The original CAP provided mainly or price regulation. The primary

instruments were the common market organisations created per product

and structured by a regulation which stipulated its action mechanisms.

Preventive measures allowed surpluses to be purchased and physical

stocks to be constituted when prices dropped and to be stored when

prices rose.Community preerence tends to avour the taxation o imports, the-

reby ensuring stable internal prices. Moreover, when export sales prices

are lower than European prices, producers receive compensatory sub-

sidies. These restitutions have been known to be the ocus o CAP cri-



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


9

tics or their impact on developing countries’ agriculture. Every year

during marathon negotiations, the Council denes reerence prices or

the internal market (target price), the import tax rates (threshold price)

and stock purchases (intervention price).

To eliminate surpluses, the CAP can resort to two options: it can

directly control production by setting quotas and setting aside land, or

reduce reerence prices.

From 1984 on, production regulation was achieved through milk quotas

and the agriculture set-aside scheme.

In 1983, the European Union was collapsing under the weight o 600,000

tonnes o milk powder and 1.1 million tonnes o butter. Starting in 1984,

the European Council decided to set milk production quotas. Ater some

teen years, milk product stocks were reduced to an acceptable level.

Yet quotas do not just control overall production volumes, they also

distribute them among countries. They thus serve a territorial policy and

limit intra-Community competition. Nonetheless, the decision was made

to eliminate them by 2015 in annual increments o 1%.

In the early 1990s, grain stocks exceeded 30 million tonnes. In 1992,the Council decided to allow rom 5 to 15% o cultivated land by

introducing a mandatory allow system. The elimination in 2009 o the

allow land obligation, decided in the atermath o the ood crisis and

development o biouels, raised protests rom ecological organisations

because allow land had become biodiversity reuges. Lastly, in 1999,

several provisions were adopted to control bee production by setting

caps on the number o animals raised per hectare.The 1992 reorm did not merely set aside land. As underscored by

Henri Nallet1, it caused a major shit in the CAP by requiring that direct

subsidies be attributed on a per-hectare basis. These were compensatory

payments justied by the decline in institutional prices. It was the begin-

ning o direct aid payments which concerned grain, oilseed crops and

bovine cattle and which rapidly became a signicant part o armers’

income. In 1999, the Berlin Agreement strengthened the role o direct

aid, especially or bovine cattle.. Direct aid payments soon represented50% o arm revenue, an amount equivalent to the results obtained by

production activities.

1. h na “l’ep ada-- ss pasas ? u s psp d a é d a cAP” – Pas- Fda Ja Jaès - Fda epé d’Éds Psps – 2010.



o n d a p o l

|


10

Decoupling breaks the link between aid and production.

This change also met trade rule requirements. The Uruguay Round, in the

ramework o the General Agreement on Taris and Trade (GATT), was

completed in 1994. On 1 January 1995, the World Trade Organizationwas created, making the GATT Treaty a permanent organisation. In

the agricultural sector, the two major concerns were access to markets

and subsidies. The Agriculture Agreement signatory countries agreed to

open their markets by reducing customs taris and by lowering, or even

eliminating, subsidies which distorted trade. The targeted orms o aid

deemed to have a distorting eect on the markets were those associated

with production and export subsidies.

In November 2001, the WTO Ministerial Conerence which metin Doha, Qatar, decided to launch new negotiations called the “Doha

Round” or “Doha Development Agenda.” What caused this Round’s

negotiations to constantly stall was mainly a lack o consensus on agri-

culture.

In the early 2000s, however, the prevailing trend was to liberalise eco-

nomies and markets. The European Union ound itsel in the crossre

o major exporting countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Argentinaand Brazil, which had ormed the Cairns Group, and poor countries

which believed that the CAP was ruining their agriculture.

It was in this context that the Union decided to anticipate the WTO’s

requirements. The Luxembourg Agreement o June 2003 established the

principle o “decoupling” direct aid which consisted o eliminating the

link between subsidies paid to armers and production, whether this

involved the choice o production or the quantities produced.

France set up the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2006, calculated onthe basis o suraces held during the 2000-2002 reerence period. The

Member States had some fexibility in applying the decoupling accor-

ding to type o production. They could resort to a partial decoupling

and retain the link with production or a portion o the subsidies. France

used this option with regard to certain crop sectors and livestock pro-

duction.

Decoupling was implemented over the last decade. It is the ocus o the most recent CAP reorm adopted on 20 November 2008 under the

European Union’s French presidency. This reorm is reerred to as a



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


11

“Health Check,” because it corresponds to a rendez-vous clause decided

in June 2003. As or decoupling, the 2008 decisions provide or a man-

datory total decoupling by 2012, except or premiums or maintaining

suckler cow herds and the ewe and goat premium.

Decoupling is not a perect solution, but it is long-term measure.

In view o the European Union’s inertia orce, it would be surprising i

the move towards total decoupling were to be challenged. It now seems

to be one o the ways CAP is modernising its instruments. It is, however,

worth examining systemic risks.

The disconnection between direct aid and production breaks the link

between taxpayer support and agricultural activity. It ultimately raisesthe question o how legitimate the public considers such aid. It induces

armers to wonder about their unction in society. Why are taxpayers

paying “pensions” to armers and what is society expecting in return?

There is no guarantee that decoupling aid will have no distorting

eect on international markets. Direct aid generates security as well

as equity capital which acilitate risk-taking and investments. From an

international vantage point, the system symbolises the injustice afictingarmers in poor countries. The latter cannot count on any saety net,

yet they are exposed to the greatest environmental constraints and their

markets are open to imports.

Furthermore, the uniormisation called or by the 2009 Health

Check – even i it is let to State initiative – will weaken the scope o

direct aid as a public policy instrument. Obviously, it will be very di-

cult to challenge the Single Payment Scheme, which has become an

“acquired benet.” Reactions to decisions announced on 23 February2009 by Michel Barnier, then-French Minister o Agriculture, conrmed

it. Michel Barnier decided to redeploy 1.4 billion euros o direct aid

earmarked or crop production to animal productions and to create a

hedging mechanism. These measures stemmed rom a demand or justice

and was aimed at preventing criticisms o the French mechanism’s exces-

sive disparity. This air and rational decision met with opposition rom

grain producers and nearly caused the collapse o the French National

Federation o Farmers’ Unions (FNSEA).



o n d a p o l

|


12

the Key challeNge is to coNtiNue to adaPt

agricultural st ructures iN aN oPeN mar Ket

Since 1992, reorms have been inevitably reducing market mechanisms.

Intervention prices were pegged to world prices. In doing so, reorms

liberalised the European market and exposed armers to world prices.

This opening o the markets will not be questioned within the rameworko uture CAP negotiations.

All prospective scenarios on the world ood balance show that trade

is likely to increase because consumers are not necessarily located near

major agricultural production regions. Trade will increase because it

gp 1 : oasa cAP

cnl mn al

ncnl epn

h s

Plnpén

sy pnppl

s n(b, lln,

nn)

a l

nn

eln

Vat, x

inn

a pyn

all p

o lnk l vlpn

rl pyns

epn B

al nl vlpn

mny f,al n

f

Pyn ny

f

czn/xpy

o l

fnnl vlpnn bn

mny fnn

epn cn

fn gvnn

o epnn

caP sn( n ,

p, nvnnlpn , .)



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


13

balances structural or conjunctural decits. Lastly, in a predominantly

agricultural economy, agricultural exports constitute an essential share

o the revenue o the States and armers.

Managing the impact o the market opening does not mean returning

to protectionist measures or juxtaposing regional groupings. While some

regions such as West Arica would benet rom improved economic inte-

gration, global agricultural trade cannot be controlled by carving the

planet into homogenous economic zones that do not exist.

However, the adaptation o European policy and agricultural struc-

tures to the market must be pursued and completed by ocusing on

market organisation mechanisms and the modernisation o structures

and agricultural holdings.

- Community rules and tools aimed at ensuring transparency and pro-

moting an equitable operation should be strengthened. These tools

should give rise to two primary mechanisms: a market inormation

system and the regulation o commodities utures markets.

- Proessional organisations need to be modernised in order to secure

their edge in trading activities and to help them manage risks. Thisinvolves:

- Insurance policies which are necessary to cover risks inherent in

agricultural activities, crop insurance covering vagaries o produc-

tion, and income insurance protecting against economic shortalls.

These orms o insurance call or private management capabilities

and public support. They are decided upon by economic actors,

individuals or mutualists.

- Structuring sectors by constituting powerul economic actors with

cooperative or private statutes who assume risk management and

contractualisation unctions.

Public authorities may contribute to these changes by providing a

legislative and regulatory incentive nancing support ramework,

notably or insurances.

- Modernisation o agricultural holdings

French arms will need to enter a new modernisation stage because o

increased land suraces, the need to adapt their equipment, and access

to technological innovations. This is required not only because o the



o n d a p o l

|


14

opening o the European market, but it was made indispensable by the

European Union’s enlargement and ensuing intra-Community competi-

tion.

The increase in land suraces stems rom generational changes.

However, it is the public authorities’ responsibility to support transi-

tions involving the loss o agricultural holdings which are not econo-

mically viable. The French model is predicated on a abric o average-

sized arms spread throughout the country. Yet the number o arm

holdings has been constantly declining. In 2007, France had 326,000

commercial arms, as opposed to 2.3 million in 1955. Including co-op

armers, there are 436,000 arm managers, o whom 18% are older

than 552. The notion o “average size” and the concept o amily havechanged a great deal in the last 50 years. They will continue to adapt

to the agricultural context while upholding France’s primacy o this

principle. However, broaching this issue eectively would require rid-

ding it o all taboos.

agriculture’s eNViroNmeNtal coNVersioN is a re ality which

calls or a loNg-term Policy aNd suPPort.

The Common Agricultural Policy has incorporated society’s expecta-

tions in matters concerning environmental protection and healthy ood

quality. This concerns landscapes, water quality, soil pollution, biodiver-

sity, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welare, ood risks, ood quality

and nutrition.

It is evident that these issues are all the more numerous and complexgiven that the relationship between citizens’ concerns and agricultural

practices ollow multiple paths. The rst diculty is thus that o legi-

bility.

The CAP meets these challenges via two principal methods.

- Conditions under which direct aid may be paid: Direct aid orms the

CAP’s rst pillar, however, such payments are conditional upon respec-ting three categories o requirements:

- Regulatory requirements as set out in 19 directives or European regu-

lations.

2. BimAgri « ls fs d ’a d a pê » msè d ’a d a pê - 2009.



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


15

- Good agricultural and environmental conditions, the denition o

which is a matter determined by each Member State through applica-

tion o the subsidiarity principle.

- The maintaining o suraces as permanent pasture.

- The agro-environmental measures covered by the second pillar which

resulted rom the 1992 reorm. The second pillar deals with measures

which do not concern agricultural production, notably activity diversi-

cation, environmental protection, standard compliance by arm hol-

dings and training. The second pillar is co-unded by the Community

budget and the Member States. I the greatest diculty is that o legibi-

lity, the second is the assessment o these policies’ outcomes, a questionwhich calls or a review o ve key points.

First, the reorientation o European subsidies rom armers to environ-

mental and health-related aims is a reality. Instrument complexity is a

technocratic jungle whose mechanism lacks transparency. There are no

indicators with a long-term monitoring indicators. These faws are real,

and the conditions can and must be improved. Yet the tone has beenset, as the Common Agricultural Policy has begun advancing towards a

sustainable management o natural resources.

Second, armers have read the signals set o by the European policy

and they are sensitive to the citizen pressure exerted by both associa-

tions and consumer behaviours as relayed by industrial and distribu-

tion channels. The use o chemical products has lessened considerably.

Sustainable agro-ecology and sustainable agricultural practices are mul-

tiplying. Farmers are giving the impression that they are being orced to

adopt these changes, but the great majority o them are now practicing

sustainable arming.

Third, the outcomes do not ully conorm to citizens’ aspirations. Several

reasons may explain their impatience. The target may not be exactly the

same. France will become neither a biological garden nor a bocage. Clean

agriculture will be a precision agriculture. Next, today’s available tech-

nologies will not make it possible to attain all o the objectives assignedto agriculture: inexpensive products in sufcient quantity, which is the

reason why the issue o unding and ecological conversion is essential. I

the consumer is not able to pay the additional costs, it is up to taxpayers

to fnance what must be considered to be a long-term investment.



o n d a p o l

|


16

Fourth, the importance o the landscape issue is underestimated.

Landscapes are common assets by which citizens understand their rela-

tionship to the natural environment. There are growing local conficts

between armers and rural non-agricultural residents. Farmers are not

solely responsible or the repeated damage caused to landscapes as a

result o expanding urban and industrial areas and the dispersion o the

habitat and eolian installations. Yet as legitimate space managers, they

ought to take better care o the agricultural landscape or which they are

primarily responsible.

Fith, research and innovation are impacting the market’s move

towards new sustainable and economically viable agricultural practices.

Innovations will come rom private as well as public research acknowle-

dged as undamental. All programmes are being reoriented towards the

development o resource-conserving solutions, but research is a long-

term project.

Nonetheless, research in France is suering rom obsessive public

reject o GEOs. The French National Institute or Agricultural Research

(INRA) claims to devote less than 2% o its budget to GEOs (source:

an interview o INRA’s President proled in Échos no. 272 o October2010). Seed companies are no longer conducting trials in France and

their research ndings are primarily intended or American armers.

However, GEO rejection has a negative impact on all research on plant

breeding. Future discoveries will initially come rom the assessment o

genetic resources and rom the identication o genes contributing useul

characteristics, thanks to cutting-edge laboratory equipment.

A global restriction-ree approach will make it possible to oer ar-mers new varieties derived rom traditional selection or transgenesis.

Administrative ocers or political leaders seem to be trapped by, or a

party to, the French stalemate. European agriculture may suer serious

consequences which would aect its Arican country partners who are

entitled to expect French research to be uture-oriented. Inasmuch as the

biological potential o plants contributes as much as ecological systems

to an ecologically intensive agriculture, the latter cannot do without che-mical inputs and biotechnologies. In addition, the initial concept o the

“doubly green revolution” relied as much on ecological, as it does on

biological, advances.



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


17

stages iN th e deVeloPmeNt

o caP e NViroNmeNtal awareNess

1968: Statement by the EU Agricultural Commissioner on the need

to apply an integrated approach to rural space in view o increasing

yields,

1972: Presentation o the Committee on the Environment’s frst

communication.

1985: Publication o the green book o the European Commission

on the uture o the CAP. This book provides an uncompromising

assessment o the CAP while proposing new directions or adapting

it to a new international situation, particularly with regard to nego-

tiations taking place within the GATT, the WTO’s precursor. It of-

cially assigns, or the frst time, a place to the environment with the

CAP itsel. It notably acknowledges the damage which agricultural

activity has done to the environment and will be the origin o the

frst real agro-environmental measure (Art. 19 o R (EEC) 797/85,

and Art. 21 o R (CEE) 2078/92).

1987: The environment made its ofcial entrance in the Treaty o

Rome, which until then had not taken into account.

1999: The Berlin Summit modifed Common Market Organisations

(CMOs) in order to limit production and intensifcation and ini-

tiate rural development. The Agenda 2000 adopted by the Member

States recognises agriculture’s multi-unctionality and introduces the

concept o aid cross-compliance.

2003: The Luxembourg Agreement defnitively confrmed that the

environment is to be acknowledged by limiting production incen-

tives through aid decoupling and by generalising the concept o aid

conditionality.

The new Member States’ agricultural potential will need to be increasingly

relied upon

Ten new Member States rom Central and Eastern Europe have joined

the European Union: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,



o n d a p o l

|


18

Slovenia, and the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in

2004, ollowed by Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. By adding Cyprus

and Malta, which both joined in 2004, the number o EU Member States

rose rom 15 to 27.

The Union’s agricultural structure was extensively changed by due to

a 64% increase in the number o arms, which soared rom 5,600,000 in

the EU-15 to 9,300,000 in the EU-25. Romania joined the Union with

3,900,000 holdings and Poland with 2,400,000. This situation exacer-

bated the Union’s agricultural disparity at a time when a new balance

had been established in the wake o the preceding enlargements, notably

when Spain and Portugal joined the Union in 1986.

The agricultural area increased by 26%, rom 127 million hectaresto 160 million hectares, whereas production only rose by 19%. The

average holding size decreased rom 22 hectares to 17 hectares, ran-

ging rom 3.5 hectares in Romania to 89 hectares in the Czech Republic

(Source: European Commission statistics).

The act that two new Member States occupy the range’s extremities

speaks to the duality o their agriculture and o the legacy o popular

democracies’ agriculture policies. This duality3 is based on the existence

o two types o holdings: pure or partial subsistence amilial arms,which prevail in Romania and Poland, and very large commercial arms

which result rom the privatisation o State arms.

These countries are conronting several orces whose convergence

will take time. The modernisation and enlargement o small amily

holdings point to an employment issue. The impetus towards the com-

mercialisation and intensication o large holdings gives them a solid

export potential. New Member States have thus produced grain andsugar surpluses.

Joining the European Union has allowed these countries to benet

rom agricultural subsidies and rom structural unds accompanying

modernisation. The impact o this unding was all the more important

or the armers’ income because the national currency exchange rates

outside the euro zone were avourable or them.

To date, these new Member States have managed their membership

and their domestic economic reorms. The EC agricultural economyhas not yet experienced the ull eects o their entry into the European

Union. Intra-Community competition is expected to increase, thereby

3. Aa P « Pas d ’es iéa das ’u pé : d a ps a à a s » –É saé as – Déé 2011.



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


19

placing additional pressure on structure modernisation. These countries

are also bound to become more vocal within the Community’s deci-

sion-making processes. It will be in their interest to maintain a strong

Common Agricultural Policy as long as its application is avourable to

them.

gp 2 : Aa hds (2007)

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 B e

B g

c Z

d K

d e

e e i e

e l

e s

f r i t

c y

l V

l t

l u

h u

m t

N l

a t

P l

P t

r o s

i

s K f

i s e

u K

Nb ll ln (p 1000 p)

the Pos t-2013 c aP Budget will Be the ocus o deBate.

The CAP’s total budget is 57 billion euros, or slightly more than 40%

o the 141.4 billion euro EU Budget 2010. The European Union’s nan-cial prospects were determined in 2005 by the Heads o State and o

Government or the budgetary period 2007-2013. The CAP is a single

integrated policy. It represents 0.4% o the European gross domestic

product. Moreover, until 2009, France was a net beneciary o agricul-

tural nancing. France unds 18% o the EU budget. The return rates

were 19.4% or the rst pillar and 7.2% or the second pillar. Jacques

Chirac and Gerhard Schröder reached an agreement in 2002 to uphold

the CAP budget until 2013.



o n d a p o l

|


20

gp 3 : cAP Bd

s : epa css

caP xpn n ( nn p 2007)

mlln %gNP

70 0,7%

60 0,6%

50 0,5%

40 0,4%

30 0,3%

20 0,2%

10 0,1%

0 0%

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 1

1 9 8 2

1 9 8 3

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

eu-10 eu-12 eu-15 eu-25 eu-27

exp n dpl pyn cpl pyno k rl vlpn % eu’ gNP

For the post-2013 CAP, all options are open. The European

Commission is expected to announce its proposals or the Union’s multi-annual nancial ramework at the end o the rst semester o 2011.

Discussions will probably range rom a reduction o 15%, as contem-

plated by the President o the European Commission, to a renewal at a

level equivalent to the existing one. However, the progress realised by

the new Member States will automatically bring about a redistribution

which will reduce the share payable to French armers.

Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty strengthened the EuropeanParliament’s powers and extended the scope o co-decision. The CAP

is subject to co-decision, which provides that it be approved by the

Parliament. The multi-annual nancial ramework will need to obtain

the Parliament’s approval and the European Council’s unanimous vote.

Nicolas Sarkozy also broached the issue o the European Council’s

adoption o the CAP in order to ensure unanimity.

It is dicult to anticipate what the power relationship will be in

Parliament as a whole. On the other hand, the Agricultural and RuralDevelopment Commission expressed its preerence or a “airer, greener

and more sustainable” CAP. In all probability, Parliament will lean in

avour o environmental objectives and redistribution o aid. The alloca-

tion between the rst and second pillars, as well as the Member States’



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


21

use o co-nancing, may have an impact on subsidies received by the

various armer categories. French agriculture will likely need to enter

a new stage o adaptation with reduced budgetary support. Although

nancial discussions may prove dicult, the reduction should not be

signicant, but could involve a redistribution

The agricultural sector is seeking a new pact with society

Farmers are striving to make a new pact which would reconcile the agri-

cultural sector and society. This idea o a pact – mentioned oten in CAP

reorm proposals4 – stems rom several o the armers’ expectations,

which are to renew their ellow citizens’ trust in them, clariy the mis-

sions entrusted to them, to reinstate the legitimacy o their role in societyand to secure public nancial support. It is also their wish to restore the

coherence between the various unctions, notably the two main ones:

agricultural production and environmental services.

This coherence can be achieved by acknowledging the nature o ood

security’s public goods as natural resources. Coherence also comes rom

the conviction that acts o production themselves contribute to themanagement o natural resources, that there is not, on one side, pro-

duction which would only concern the economy and market and, on

the other, environmental activities needing to be remunerated by public

authorities. Consequently, public transers are not merely justied by

paying or environmental services, but also by the specic nature o ood

productions..

Moreover, it is likely that a debate with French society would reveal

a much greater consensus than the armers anticipate, provided that allparties integrate the notion o time and long-term commitments. It is in

this spirit that the pact would range rom multi-annual individual, to

collective, contracts.

These concepts may well be included in the next European agricul-

tural policy because they are realistic and refect everyone’s interests, even

i they are the outcome o a long and tense negotiation process. These

debates will constitute a new stage in European construction becauseovercoming the disparities between the 27 Member States is more crucial

than the lack o consensus in France. That is why what is at stake is the

Union’s ability to dene an ambitious political vision. Pact and contract

4. A Pa ep - cAP 2014-2020 - Séé ds As d Fa



o n d a p o l

|


22

notions are good reerence points, especially in a French context, but

they cannot take the place o a political ramework. Trust is not the out-

come o the contract, but its prerequisite, the creation o a shared vision.

coNclusioN: the uture caP will Be a liBeral,

suBsidised aNd greeN Policy…

Two major challenges lie ahead. The rst is to adapt Europe’s agricul-

ture to an open market economy. Market operations will need to be

improved and support provided or modernising agricultural structures

so that they can take advantage o the markets. French agriculture must

have support to achieve this, inasmuch as it will have to conront new

intra-Community competition, and proessional agricultural organisa-

tions will need to play a decisive role. The second challenge concerns

sustainability. Environmental rules will be toughened in response to

pressure exerted by public opinion and many Member States. Care must

be taken to ensure that the rules’ pace o implementation remains com-

patible with innovation.

…But it must also Promote solidarity.

In concluding, we will make a ew suggestions or strengthening agricul-

tural solidarity between Europe and developing countries. All armers

on the planet have to meet common challenges such as ood security,

sustainable production and the management o natural resources. These

challenges are humanity’s public goods. Their value surpasses individualinterests and must promote international solidarity with developing

countries. Europe has the legitimacy, know-how, competence and means

to play a key role in the agricultural area. It can regain the spearheading

power that it lost. A ew suggestions ollow:

- to assert solidarity with poor countries’ agricultural policies in the new

Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP should assert its determination

not to decide upon any measure which could have a negative impacton poor countries and to consider its instruments’ potential validity

in other contexts. It would be worthwhile to share market regulation,

sector contractualisation or sector-structuring concepts. The point is

not to transer or impose, but to build together.



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


23

- to commit to nalising Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)

which include protective and investment rules which allow the deve-

lopment o ood sectors. The EU should be committed to promote

a successul conclusion to Doha Round negotiations within the ra-

mework o the World Trade Organization in order to establish more

equitable market rules or poor countries. From this vantage point, the

European Union must conrm that reunds will be eliminated, namely

export subsidies. That principle is included among the European

Union’s proposals in negotiations with the WTO and is accepted by

agricultural proessions. Moreover, the decline in institutional prices

has made such reunds moot Their denitive elimination would spare

Europe rom conusion involving cut-price imports entering Aricarom Asia or Latin America.

- to reconcile agricultural policies and EC development policies. The

pursuit o these two policies by separate directorates-general has long

spared Southern countries rom being impacted by an overly restrictive

deence o European agricultural interests. Today, that separation is

having a crippling eect. European development policy has dismissed

agriculture. It merely has a social perception o it and does not dealwith it as an economic activity which requires public investments. Yet

opening markets creates common interests. The moment has come to

endow the European Union with a genuine agricultural development

strategy which will ensure ood security.

- to dene and und an ambitious programme promoting the economic

structuring o sectors which would mobilise European competences

in all areas contributing to agriculture’s economic environment:

credit, insurance, proessional organisations, supply, processing and

marketing, training and technical support and access to technologies.

European agricultural proessions have nothing to ear rom the Least

Developed Countries (LDCs), nor rom those which have partnership

agreements with the European Union. They share a common concep-

tion o agriculture with these agricultural communities. The provision

“Everything But Arms” opens the European market to duty and quota-ree imports originating rom the Least Developed Countries. Similarly,

the priority is not to maintain a ew export volumes or Europe, but to

acilitate the emergence o a high-perormance agricultural sector and

thereby promote local economic growth.



o n d a p o l

|


24

- to promote European participation in the ormulation and nancing o

new agricultural policies and corresponding unds, such as the Global

Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP).

- to acknowledge the diversity o agricultural development situations,which implies the priority which Arican countries need to give to

intensication. Europe must make certain that it does not prevent their

having access to development aid by imposing environmental condi-

tions which are not priorities or them.

This study highlighted what is necessary in order to move towards

open and modernised agricultural economies and sustainable resourceproduction and management practices. The gap separating the baselines

is immense and must be conducive to maintaining the ocus on diver-

sity. We must never orget the contexts in which the 2.6 billion armers

inhabiting the planet are living. At any rate, the challenge is to invent

new public policies – liberal ones which ensure public investment and

promote the empowerment o proessional and private actors.



f o o d s

e c u r i t y : a g


25

The Fondation pour l’innovation politique publishes this note in

partnership with the Foundation or World Agriculture and Rural Lie

(FARM). Granted charitable status, FARM was ounded by fve French

frms: Crédit Agricole SA, GDF Suez, Casino group, Limagrain Vilmorin,

Air France and the French Development Agency, with the support o theFrench State.

FARM aims to promote efcient agricultural systems and agri-ood

chains respectul towards armers. FARM osters the development o an

economic approach towards agricultural value chains and the adoption

o business management practices in agricultural activities. FARM

coordinates studies, organizes conerences, develops pilot projects and

trains arm leaders.

The fnancial contributors o the Foundation are the fve ounders

companies, together with individual donors, several sponsor companies

and French public authorities.

More inormation and FARM’s publications are available on the website

www.ondation-arm.org

FARM

59 rue Pernety Paris 14

Adresse postale : 91-93 Bd Pasteur 75710 Paris Cedex 15

tel : 33 (0)1 57 72 07 19



26

receNt PuBlicatioNs

The State o the Right: Spain,

Joan Marcet, October 2010

The State o the Right: Sweden and Dennmark

Jacob Christensen, July 2010

The State o the Right: Italy

Soa Ventura, July 2010

Banking regulation or sustainable growth

Nathalie Janson, June 2010

The Netherlands: the populist temptation

Christophe de Voogd, May 2010

The State o the Right: Great Britain

David Hanley, April 2010

#iranelection#gr88 #neda Please RT: just what has Twitter done in Iran?

Laurence Allard and Olivier Blondeau, February 2010

In the eyes o the world: mobiles, Iran and video

Laurence Allard and Olivier Blondeau, February 2010

E-Democracy vs. Open Democracy. The cathedral and the bazaar…1 redux

Laurence Allard and Olivier Blondeau, December 2009

Iran: civil revolution?

Nader Vahabi, November 2009

nosdeputes.r: “Mr Hacker goes to Parliament” Laurence Allard and Olivier Blondeau, October 2009

The 2009 European Elections Conrmed the Supremacy o the Right in the EU

Corinne Deloy and Dominique Reynié, September 2009

Iran or proxy warare: towards a public culture o IT security?

Laurence Allard and Olivier Blondeau, August 2009

European Development Policy: A Response to the Crisis Afecting Globalisation

Jean-Michel Debrat, June 2009From 29 January to 19 March: Civil Service vs. Civil Society?

Dominique Reynié, March 2009

Four Proposals to Stem the Tide o Protectionism in Europe

Nicolas Bouzou, March 2009



To reinorce its independence and carry out its mission, the Fondation

pour l’innovation politique, an independent organisation, needs the

support o private companies and individuals. Donors are invited

to attend the annual general meeting that denes the Fondation’s

orientations. The Fondation also invites them regularly to meet its sta and advisors, to talk about its publication beore they are released, and

to attend events it organises.

As a government-approved organisation, in accordance with the

decree published on 14 April 2004, the Fondation pour l’innovation

politique can accept donations and legacies rom individuals and private

companies.

cn : ann b +33 (0)1 47 53 67 09 nn.fb@np.

suPPort oNdaPol



A liberal, progressive and European Think tank

t nn p ’nnvn pq bs pas ad a

pb dba. i appas s k a ba, pss ad epa psp.

As a pa xps, ad dba, Fda ss dsb addp F ad epa s as s.

t .np. bs as a Fda’s k, as a ss

dd fs da pa pa (Pq 2.0).

t nn p ’nnvn pq s a dpd asa, sbsdsd

b a pa pa. Spp pa pas ad ddas s ssa

xpas s as.

np11, d g75007 Pas – Fa

np | .dap.

achieving a new common agricultural policy

Documents