“Waste at home and damage abroad”. That is how one Member of the European Parliament described the common agricultural policy. Gabrielle Zimmer, a German MEP who sits on the parliament’s development committee, was speaking at a conference convened last month by the United Nations Millenium Campaign to look at the impact of Europe’s farm tariffs and subsidies on developing countries.

According to Eckhard Deutscher, Chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and another participant in the same meeting,

“The biggest challenge the EU’s development aspirations are facing is the lack of policy coherence. The trade, development, agriculture and environmental policies are simply out of sync with regard to developing countries.”

Eveline Herfkens, Founder of the UN Millennium Campaign, pulled no punches,

“An unreformed European agriculture policy will continue to hamper the EU’s and other donors’ efforts to eradicate poverty and will perpetuate human suffering.”

European countries lead the world as donors of development aid, but for decades the EU has pursued agriculture policies which have had the reverse effect – whether it’s trade barriers that make it harder for developing countries to export farm produce to Europe or subsidies that encourage European farmers to overproduce, driving prices down and undercutting unsubsidised farmers in poorer countries.

In the first few years of the last decade, the Make Trade Fair campaign made the weather in the debate over reform of the CAP, perhaps supplanting the environmental critique as the most politically salient attack on the policy. The decoupling of support in the Fischler reforms theoretically broke the link between farm subsidies and over-production although there are those who say that any farm subsidy has an impact on production. At the Hong Kong WTO ministerial in December 2005 the EU offered to end all export subsidies by 2013 if other countries reduced their supports to exporters.

It’s possible that United Nations Development Programme’s annual report for 2005  represents the high-water mark of the influence of the development advocates on thinking about agriculture policy:

“When it comes to world agricultural trade, market success is determined not by comparative advantage, but by comparative access to subsidies—an area in which producers in poor countries are unable to compete. High levels of agricultural support translate into higher output, fewer imports and more exports than would otherwise be the case. That support helps to explain why industrial countries continue to dominate world agricultural trade.”

The global food price spike of 2007-08 presented a problem for the development critique of farm subsidies. Suddenly, the problem for developing countries was not low commodity prices but high commodity prices. Backers of a production-boosting farm policies in rich countries were quick to jump on this turnaround, arguing that European and American farmers had a moral duty to ‘feed the world’ and that the CAP should underpin this aim.

A more subtle analysis would argue that developing country farmers have suffered as a consequence of the CAP for decades, and that it is precisely because of the chronically retarded state of agricultural development in many developing countries that food prices spiked and the effects were so damaging. A rapid supply response was just not possible because developing countries lack capital for agricultural investment, skills, market structures and so on. These are not things that can be built overnight. It could be added that biofuel subsidies and mandates contributed to the food price spikes by increasing demand for food crops like corn and oilseeds that are used to make biofuels.

The extent to which the CAP continues to cause harm to developing countries is the subject of an ongoing research by Alan Matthews, a contributor to this blog, and I’m told his findings will be published in a book in September 2010. As for the future of the CAP, there seems to be no guarantee that we are safe from a return to the production-boosting paradigm of the past. Momagri, a shadowy French farm lobbying organisation, is just one influential voice pushing for just such a change of direction. The United Nations Millenium Campaign has stepped into the debate on the future of the CAP at a critical time. It remains to be seen whether other development advocates and influential NGOs like Oxfam will rejoin the fray.

Photo credit: Quarsan – Flickr Creative Commons

When the negotiators in the Uruguay Round of the GATT introduced the concept of the ‘green box’ – farm support measures that are minimally or non-trade distorting and therefore exempt from any limits – few would have foreseen that within 15 years, the bulk of farm support in the developed world would be in the green box. A new book “Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals”, published by Cambridge University Press, shows the extent to which farm support has been shifted out of more traditional, trade distorting measures and into the green box. It addresses the vexed question of whether green box supports are really as trade-neutral and environmentally beneficial as they are claimed to be. [...]

Jorge Nùñez Ferrer of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels has an interesting comment on the possible implications of current high food prices for future CAP reform in the debate on the post-2013 EU budget, in which he rather despairingly projects that “the French Presidency will seek to strike a deal in the name of world food security to maintain (if not increase) the present budgetary allocation for the CAP for the next Financial Perspectives, similar to the agreement struck between Chirac and Schroeder in 2002.” Certainly, the way the CAP should be reshaped in an era of higher world food prices is a new element in the debate on CAP reform which it is obviously hugely important to address. But Nùñez Ferrer is right to raise a question mark over some of the proposed ’solutions’ which have gained currency in recent months. [...]

The European Commission has published its plans to divert up to a billion euros from CAP underspends to a new fund to help farmers in the developing world to increase productivity in the face of the world food crisis. Higher food prices have meant lower CAP expenditure on market measures such as intervention, storage and export refunds and the Commission has suggested redirecting parts of these savings to agricultural production in the third world. Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Development Commissioner Louis Michel and Farms Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel have all spoken enthusiastically about the idea, but there are growing rumblings of opposition, from both the Council and the Parliament, both of which will have to approve the plan if it is to become a reality. [...]

The description of a Fortress Europe has often been applied to the CAP. But just as the CAP has undergone significant internal reform since the first faltering steps under Commissioner MacSharry in 1992, there have also been substantial changes to the CAP’s external trade regime. The EU still maintains high tariffs on specific agricultural imports, but in fact the majority of the EU’s agricultural imports (including here fish as well as highly processed products like beverages and tobacco products) enter the EU duty-free, either because the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff is zero, or because the EU has granted duty-free preferential access. [...]

Surging prices for agricultural commodities means that the EU spends much less on the traditional ‘market measures’ of the CAP such as intervention buying when prices fall below a target price, export subsidies and private storage aid for unsold surpluses. Last year the EU decided to allocate some of this underspend to the Galileo space programme. This year, the proposal is to channel the money to farmers in developing countries who currently suffer from very low productivity. [...]

World Bank President Robert Zoellick has warned that high food prices are threatening to undo seven years of progress in global poverty reduction. Zoellick has encouraged donor countries to take immediate action to increase funding to the UN World Food Programme and coordinate a ‘New Deal on World Food Policy’. The World Bank has released a new analysis which points the finger squarely at biofuels as the prime cause of the recent surge in global commodity prices. [...]

Small farmers in poor countries are still waiting for a reform of the European agricultural policy that puts an end to dumping. In EU-25, 19% of the beneficiaries received in 2005 around 85% of direct payments. This highly unfair distribution of direct payments is threatening the livelihoods of small farmers in Europe and in poor countries. [...]