by Jerome a Paris
Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 11:54:38 AM EST
Dominique Bussereau, the French Minister for Agriculture, publishes a tribune in the Financial Times this morning to defend the concept of CAP. This is a smart course for him to take, as it avoids the discussion of some of the specifics, which can be a lot harder to defend, and it does answer to some of the more specious arguments that have been brought forward against CAP in recent weeks.
His text below, with additional comments by me. For further background on my own position on CAP, see this earlier post (President Chirac, I beg you), as well as this one (Some CAP facts and figures) .
CAP is an inexpensive way to safeguard our future
What a bitter taste was left in the mouths of all committed and responsible Europeans at the end of the latest discussions on the European Union budget. Our continent was divided just as it faces decisions crucial to its future: for example, on trade at the World Trade Organisation and on security, particularly in the battle against terrorism. Looking inwards, Europe has to address social cohesion and regional development.
The division is all the more serious because it concerns the only integrated European policy – the Common Agricultural Policy. This has been turned into a scapegoat for wider problems. The CAP is one of the symbols of Europe’s many achievements: it has allowed the continent to regain food self-sufficiency and guarantee secure farm prices and genuine food trace ability and safety for consumers. The 2003 reform of the CAP demonstrated the EU’s ability to adapt to a changing economic environment and was hailed as a significant step forward by all member states, including the UK.
That's one of the facts conveniently forgotten these days by Blair and the other British commentators on this topic: the agricultural budget limits for 2007-2013 were agreed
unanimously by the EU members in 2003, i.e. less than two years ago. So asking to start renegotiating this is akin to reneging on your commitments. That has been one of the big arguments of the Germans ("we usually keep our word") in this debate.
Conversely, the UK rebate beyond 2006 has not been discussed and can thus be seen as fair game. Of course, things change and it is not illegitimate to propose a global deal that would include the CAP and the rebate - it is even certainly politically necessary - but it is really specious in my view to argue that the CAP budget should be reformed first. It was, less than 2 years ago.
France stands ready for further reform of those aspects of the CAP that need to be changed. But prejudice must be set aside if we are to engage in a serious debate. And the first thing to do is to set out the facts. In my view, the current attacks on the CAP rely on three main errors.
One: the CAP is said to be very expensive and wasteful. The reality is very different. It is the only European policy totally funded by the EU and not by individual member states. To compare the budget for agriculture with those for other sectors, you need to consolidate expenditure at EU and national levels. Taken together, Europe and the member states spend less than 1 per cent of their collective budget on agriculture, compared with 2 per cent on research. If the Lisbon objective of allocating 3 per cent of EU money to research were met, the EU and its member states together would spend about €785bn on research compared with the €305bn for agriculture under the Luxembourg presidency’s proposals. We spend far less on agriculture than on research.
This is also a very valid argument. If we want Europe to spend more on research or other things than on agriculture, then we need to give powers to Europe to do that - and the corresponding budget. It's silly to refuse to give Europe powers and then to complain that Europe does not do enough. That only leads to the unraveling of Europe, which is why most continental Europeans are suspicious of British proposals that seem to only go towards less Europe, never towards more. The CAP was built as a really European policy, and it has the corresponding budget. R&D is not a European policy, and does not have the corresponding budget.
Furthermore, Europe is able to provide its citizens with products of proven quality. The independence of our food supplies allows us to establish our own health standards. The two most recent big health crises (mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth) started in the UK and cost the EU between €5bn and €10bn. They are a reminder of the importance of traceability.
An easy dig at the UK there, but the point is that the CAP is slowly (oh so slowly!) been reformed to take more into account health and environmental criteria, which is a good thing, and certainly a trend which we should encourage - against industrial agriculture.
Food self-sufficiency does not mean abandoning openness, strategic trade partnerships or solidarity with the rest of the world. Europe is not a fortress using the weapons of protectionism and unfair competition against developing nations. Europe’s efforts in favour of development are genuine. We have a great track record going back to the first Lomé agreements in 1973. The EU is now the developing countries’ number one customer and the first to defend them in WTO negotiations. The EU alone imports more from the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific regions and from the least-developed countries than all the other developed countries put together.
Again, a little known fact: the CAP is not discriminatory against the poorest countries, most of which have some form of open access to the European agricultural market, but against the intermediate countries, especially those of the Cairns group - Australia, Argentina, Brasil and the like, which have been arguingtheir case loudly in recent years, with some success. One of the ironies of the CAP is that, were Europe to end its current semi-protectionist regime, the losers would mostly be the farmers of the poorest countries which would not be able to compete against the efficient industrial agriculture of Brasil and Australia. (Of course, if you go into the details, there are lots of exceptions and special regimes, and many CAP rules are certainly detrimental to the poorest farmers in some sectors. But the overall point stands).
Three: it is claimed that agriculture is a thing of the past. It is not. It is an investment for our children. In our mostly urban societies, agriculture is essential as the leading steward of the environment. It has a huge role to play in curbing the greenhouse effect and great potential, particularly with the advent of “green chemistry” and bio-fuels, for developing environmentally-friendly products and reducing the use of fossil fuels. With the foreseeable exhaustion of these sources of energy, agriculture is bound to play an even more important role in the responsible management of the environment.
Biofuels are discussed currently in another thread started by DeAnander (
Limits to Substituability - BioFuels) where the conclusion seems to be that this is really not a good idea, and I am personally very skeptical of such proposals.
As to farmers as "stewards of the environment", I think it's a really good idea, but it is not really happening yet, and the CAP is certainly making only a weak effort in that respect. But this is certainly something that needs to be pushed.
It is true that the CAP now accounts for 0.4 per cent of European gross national product. But it benefits 100 per cent of the EU population. It is a forward-looking policy, constantly adapting to changes, as shown by the many reforms it has already undergone.
This is why, in France, Dominique de Villepin’s government is convinced that agriculture and the CAP remain a tremendous asset for today’s Europe and an essential investment for the future.
I'll conclude with the points I made in the previous CAP diary:
The reasons that I am personally favorable to a big reform of the CAP are:
- the impunity that farmers have in France. They can flaunt rules (especially environmental ones), they can riot and break public buildings and do various illegal acts and are never punished for it, and this is simply not tolerable; this is especially important as it becomes ever more important to enforce environmental and sanitary rules;
- France wastes a lot of its political capital in Europe on defending the CAP blindly, when a little more public and private flexibility would go a long way to reestablishing its - much needed from my perspective - leadership on other topics;
- the policy of favouring agrobusiness over small farmers needs to be changed, and this is not especially a French problem;
- similarly, all policies that distort international trade to the detriment of the agricultures of developing countries needs to be scrapped as much as possible.
