Launched in September 2007 by Michel Barnier, the Assises de l’Agriculture aim to set up the French position during the CAP health and prepare a “new” policy beyond 2013. It involves all stakeholders from French administration, farm and agribusiness sector, environmental, consumers and land owners organizations.
On November 14, 2007, an orientation document, agreeing on rehabilitated objectives for an appropriate farm policy, has been adopted. The challenges that this primarily economic policy have to face are described as demographic, environmental, energetic and territorial. Objectives in this context are to ensure independence and food security of the EU, to contribute to world food equilibrium, to preserve rural territorial harmony and to consider climate change as environmental issues. Any CAP must respect at least the following principles: European preference, markets stabilization, ambitious budget and targeted measures for sustainable agriculture. Having set up these broad (and apparently non-negotiable) concepts, a debate on concrete instruments and methods of funding has been opened in Paris.
From January 30 to February 11, 2008, a broad consultation in each French département has been initiated before establishing the official position of France on the health check and on the CAP beyond 2013 (whose European debate will start with an Informal Council in Annecy later in September 2008). Decentralized (private and public) actors have been requested to give their comments on the French strategy. The ministerial basis document gives an apparent idea of the coming key offensive positions of France: a consolidation of the first pillar.
New risk management programmes may be part of the first pillar and no diffused in the second pillar. They would reflect a modern management of agricultural markets and may partially compensate the adjustments of Common Market Organizations instruments. Revising article 69 would allow the funding of such programmes. It would also finance milk production in mountain areas, sheep and organic production. However the use of such an article is presently unlikely because decoupling schemes are already implemented, because the 10% of national ceiling criteria and the compulsory re-affectation to sectors affected by the retention are excessively restrictive and limit the proficiency of this article. Article 69 has no direct impacts on the overall European budget. Member State maintain the totality of the payment reduction (a difference with the modulation mechanism and an obvious incentive for historical largest recipient of CAP funding) and give flexibility in programmes management and monitoring to Members States.
Last but not least, as France would be marginally impacted by ‘upper limits in direct payments’, the amount saved by this equity tool (and retained by Member State) could also finance these new first pillar features. The basis document considers also the opportunity, by sector and/or geographical area, to increase the decoupling level of direct payments, to harmonize the value of decoupled entitlements, to grant subsidies to all kinds of farmland. The simplification of cross-compliance and higher complementarities between the first and the second pillar are also put forward. Indeed, the emphasis of this document on reinforcing the core of the first pillar jeopardizes the evolution and maturation of the second pillar. The French refusal of a higher rate of modulation is therefore not surprising. This French basis document focuses on a renewed first pillar which would remain the defining spirit of the CAP. As such, it sets down a fundamental distinction with Commissioner Fischer Boel who has always insisted on the need for a stronger second pillar…
If Mariann Fischer-Boel would defend the need for a stronger pillar two, why she has not propose a higher level of compulsory modulation until 20% or more ?
With a maximum of 13% of compulsory modulation in 2013, I can not believe the Mariann Fischer Boel intention to reinforce the pillar two. With 5
or 13%, the rural development policy is not yet a second pillar, but stay the Cap crutch.
A pragmatic and a grassroots analysis conduct us to re-interpret the second pillar ability to meet successfully the new challenges like agrienvironment, climate change, biodiversity… With 40 billions euros, the first pillar remains powerfully the orientation axis, and for this reason, we should focus on how greening and becoming equal inside the first pillar.
So the questions are :
- Is the status quo it acceptable ? I don’t think so, there are so many inequalities in the subsidies targeting inside the first pillar
- Is the second pillar capable to reply and manage the environmental concerns ? No, the second pillar is too heterogeneous and so complex, and have not so many budgets
- Will the rural dimension of CAP stay in the CAP framework, or will move towards the cohesion policy beyond 2013 ?
Regards
The November 2007 health check Communication from the Commission would increase by two the compulsory modulated amount during the 2010-2013 period. In my opinion, that is a huge transfer from the first towards the second pillar. Nevertheless, before providing budgetary allocations, concrete budgetary needs are required… Considering the previous rural development programming period (2000-2006), roughly three forth of funds allocated to EU15 was effectively spent (with vast national differences). Co-financing criteria and restrictions regarding eligible programmes and areas in the one hand, minimum spending criteria in the other hand, jeopardize finest application of rural development measures (however such restrictive conditions, efficiently managed and monitored, allow an obvious co-responsibility at EU and national/regional levels and guarantee that European funds act for European objectives). In addition, funds released by extra-modulation may interfere already established rural development’s national strategy plans for this period. And we may consider that increasing European funds for rural development would conduct to an increase in national expenditures…
Reinforcing European rural development programmes would induce deep amendments to the Council Regulation 1698/2005, a redefinition of each pillar’s core (instruments and funding) and would obviously raise budgetary systemic issues. This is a challenge for the CAP beyond 2013. It has to be linked to a more general agreement on the European budget. This is not the purpose of the health check which shall lead to short-term adjustments (and prepare/open the discussions on the CAP post-2013). The same remark is true regarding direct payments targeting. Finally, considering present redistributive tools, if modulation (and compulsory financial reorientation for cotton and tobacco direct payments) allows inter-pillar redistribution, a revised article 69 may care about intra-first pillar redistribution.