More than half of France's CAP handouts go to the biggest 10 per cent of its farmers
This is a constant talking point, which is supposed to utterly condemn France.
It's substantially true (which I regret since I'm in favour of capping).
I have distribution figures for 2001 (it's not easy to get this kind of table, and 2001 was the latest year I could get them for. But 2001 and today are fairly similar).
In direct farm aids, France did indeed distribute about half the funds to the top ten per cent.
But, against that, the EU-15, overall, gave more than half the direct aid budget to about 6% of farmers.
The UK handed out to the top slices of its farmers, constituting just under 8%, no less than 53% of the funds allocated to it.
Er, pot, kettle?
Quentin Peel: Britain must rethink the rebate [The UK proposal] is a classic Treasury fix, whose central element is the reduction of the UK net contribution and the preservation of its rebate rather than serious thinking about the union's spending priorities. After months of preaching about the need for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, this package will be more skewed towards farm spending than it was at the start. But it will at least contain a commitment to review all EU spending, including on the CAP, from 2008. UK governments of both political persuasions have always argued that the existence of the rebate ensured pressure would be maintained for reform of the EU budget and especially for reduction of farm spending. Yet the reality is that an obsession with the UK net contribution reduces pressure on London itself to support that process. The most glaring example is British support for farm spending that is concentrated on the richest farmers. Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, calculates that 1.5 per cent of the largest farms get 27 per cent of all CAP spending and the top 6 per cent get 53 per cent. Yet when the European Commission proposed to set a ceiling on the size of farm eligible for income support in the latest round of CAP reforms, the move was blocked by the UK because it has fewer small farmers than other member states. (...) What is needed is a scheme that ceases to single out the "British problem" as unique. That poisons the entire debate. Mr Blair should propose instead a generalised system that would include all net contributors. Only then can a fair and intelligent budget reform be agreed. It should certainly include a cap on farm support for the wealthy, be they British, French or Dutch. But as long as the UK rebate is maintained in its present form, Mr Blair not only alienates his best friends (such as Mr Ansip), but also undermines the reform process that he says he supports.
[The UK proposal] is a classic Treasury fix, whose central element is the reduction of the UK net contribution and the preservation of its rebate rather than serious thinking about the union's spending priorities. After months of preaching about the need for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, this package will be more skewed towards farm spending than it was at the start. But it will at least contain a commitment to review all EU spending, including on the CAP, from 2008.
UK governments of both political persuasions have always argued that the existence of the rebate ensured pressure would be maintained for reform of the EU budget and especially for reduction of farm spending. Yet the reality is that an obsession with the UK net contribution reduces pressure on London itself to support that process.
The most glaring example is British support for farm spending that is concentrated on the richest farmers. Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, calculates that 1.5 per cent of the largest farms get 27 per cent of all CAP spending and the top 6 per cent get 53 per cent. Yet when the European Commission proposed to set a ceiling on the size of farm eligible for income support in the latest round of CAP reforms, the move was blocked by the UK because it has fewer small farmers than other member states.
(...)
What is needed is a scheme that ceases to single out the "British problem" as unique. That poisons the entire debate. Mr Blair should propose instead a generalised system that would include all net contributors. Only then can a fair and intelligent budget reform be agreed. It should certainly include a cap on farm support for the wealthy, be they British, French or Dutch. But as long as the UK rebate is maintained in its present form, Mr Blair not only alienates his best friends (such as Mr Ansip), but also undermines the reform process that he says he supports.
The largest individual payments made to the UK under the much criticised common agricultural policy are going to multinational food companies and not, as commonly assumed, to farmers. A Guardian investigation into CAP payments has found that millions of pounds are being paid to manufacturers of bulk fats and sugars used to produce processed foods. As Britain clashed with other European countries in Brussels again yesterday over its attempt to link cuts in the UK rebate to reform of the EU's agricultural subsidies, our analysis of figures obtained under Freedom of Information shows where the CAP money has been going. The largest UK recipients of money include companies such as Tate & Lyle, Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft and a host of manufacturers of bulk animal fats, sugars and refined starches. Further FoI requests reveal a similar pattern of the largest individual payments going to multinationals in other European countries. France, which remains set against CAP reform, has refused to release details of its payments. The largest recipient of payments in the UK for 2003-4 was Tate & Lyle and its subsidiaries, which took more than £227m over two years from the CAP. Meadow Foods, a leading manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins for ice cream, spreads, sports drinks, processed meats and confectionery, received nearly £26m in the year 2003-4. Other large dairy manufacturers supplying the processed food industry dominate the list of top recipients of money paid by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which administers CAP payments in this country. Our detailed analysis of the full list of RPA payments has also unearthed a number of anomalies. They include: · Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy. · Premier Foods, the company at the heart of the Sudan 1 contamination crisis, received over £60,000, believed to be in export subsidies. · Eton college received £2,652 last year but admitted to us that what it was for was "a bit of a mystery". Although it tried, it was unable to obtain information for us from the RPA to explain the payment. · Drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Boots, Reckitt, and ACS Dobfar, received substantial payments for using sugar in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.
As Britain clashed with other European countries in Brussels again yesterday over its attempt to link cuts in the UK rebate to reform of the EU's agricultural subsidies, our analysis of figures obtained under Freedom of Information shows where the CAP money has been going. The largest UK recipients of money include companies such as Tate & Lyle, Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft and a host of manufacturers of bulk animal fats, sugars and refined starches. Further FoI requests reveal a similar pattern of the largest individual payments going to multinationals in other European countries. France, which remains set against CAP reform, has refused to release details of its payments.
The largest recipient of payments in the UK for 2003-4 was Tate & Lyle and its subsidiaries, which took more than £227m over two years from the CAP. Meadow Foods, a leading manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins for ice cream, spreads, sports drinks, processed meats and confectionery, received nearly £26m in the year 2003-4. Other large dairy manufacturers supplying the processed food industry dominate the list of top recipients of money paid by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which administers CAP payments in this country.
Our detailed analysis of the full list of RPA payments has also unearthed a number of anomalies. They include: · Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy. · Premier Foods, the company at the heart of the Sudan 1 contamination crisis, received over £60,000, believed to be in export subsidies. · Eton college received £2,652 last year but admitted to us that what it was for was "a bit of a mystery". Although it tried, it was unable to obtain information for us from the RPA to explain the payment. · Drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Boots, Reckitt, and ACS Dobfar, received substantial payments for using sugar in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.
Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy.
But I admit I wouldn't have even guessed at the Gate Gourmet rip-off.
But, in contrast to facts about distribution to big farmers, here's something from a supposedly serious UK newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, explaining the UK rebate:
The rebate aims to address the way that EU spending is dominated by agricultural subsidies largely favouring small farmers. There are millions of smallholders in France, which designed the system, but few in Britain.
For the record, there are about 450,000 farmers in France receiving CAP subsidies, and most of those are by no stretch of the imagination "smallholders".
Shouldn't it read, most of the money goes to those who are by no stretch of the imagination "smallholders"? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But what you say is also true.
There is, however, a lively movement in France in favour of organic and/or high-quality local production by small, sustainable units. Greens/organic people, on the one hand, and among farmers, the Confédération Paysanne, the union José Bové led, are fairly noisy and inspire quite a lot of sympathy.
