According to the release, the Ministers brought agreement on the issue of the importance of direct payments as well as creation of a new Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. The Ministers further committed to address the issue of unequal levels of payments to EU Member States. The reference to a new Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 creates interesting possibilities if indeed this is what is meant.

Some hints are given elsewhere in the press release which suggest that the  level of ambition of the Ministers for a new policy might be rather  limited. Reform is placed in the context of increasing the efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy and the search for a model of direct payments that would be easy, sufficiently flexible and above all defendable before the public.

The Ministers observed that in the future direct payments should be considered in the context of market instruments and funds allocated to rural development and they should complement these instruments appropriately, which leaves one wondering what exactly that means.

Not everyone was in agreement on the future direction. The press release carefully notes that “a number of delegates” wanted to shift the direction of direct payments to react appropriately to the growing demand of EU citizens for public goods, such as creation and management of the landscape, protection of land and water management.

The Ministers however were in apparent agreement that the issue of the system of direct payments is a very complex one. Searching for opportunities for increasing its efficiency, while taking into consideration the specific needs of several sectors, would represent a significant contribution toward simplification and increased effectiveness of the whole Common Agricultural Policy.

In the end, though, the Ministers faced up to their responsibilities to farmers and the wider public.  “The Ministers confirmed the obligation to examine in great detail the opportunities for development of the system of direct payments and assess the varied levels of direct payments in the EU Member States after 2013, therefore the priority of the Presidency has been accomplished,” concluded Minister Šebesta.

“,

In his letter of invitation, Pekka Pesonen, the mild-mannered Finnish secertary general of COPA-COGECA, cuts to the core contradiction of the capacity of his organization holding a conference about ‘the future’. If truth be told, COPA-COGECA is profoundly backward-looking with policy positions that must inevitably be the lowest common denominator of the positions of all its members. They are so predictable that it is rarely necessary to actually take the time to read them, which helps save time. The message is invariably: resist change, defend what we have, things can only get worse. Or in Mr Pesonen’s own words “the priority is stability”. Uplifting stuff, straight from the Barack Obama book of rousing rhetoric. Even so, Mr Pesonen does show a little leg, revealing that at the congress he will “present for the first time [COPA-COGECA's] ideas for the CAP after 2013; our vision for the future of agricultural policy in Europe.” Imagine, if you will, the Jurassic Cooperative of Dinosaurs’ ten point plan for averting the arrival of the asteroid (in this case the asteroid being the EU budget review which is expected to dramatically scale back public expenditure on farm subsidies after 2013).

The congress will be held at the Espace Léopold complex, seat of the European Parliament in Brussels, which is vacant because the European Parliament will be in Strasbourg that week. It is unclear whether the Parliament has given the space for free, or rented it out on commercial terms. Financial support has been provided by the European Commission, one of COPA-COGECA’s biggest funders, and by EuropaBio, a pro-GMO trade association.

It should be no surprise that the delegates will be addressed by Michel Barnier, France’s farms minister, who is chief ringleader of those who would turn the clock back to the productionist, protectionist, state-planning approach of the common agricultural policy of the 60s, 70s and 80s. FAO chief Jacques Diouf has chosen to stay away and is sending his assistant Hervé Lejeune in his place. Kristen Silverberg, the US Ambassador to the EU, is still considering whether she’ll accept an invitiation to provide a perspective from America. If she does accept, the theme of her address is likely to be fairly straightforward: ethanol tastes sooo good!

On the second day the massed ranks of European farm lobbyists will be addressed by the President and Chief Executive of Dow Agrosciences, a US-based pesticides manufacturer that also boasts a GMO division. European farmers will no doubt hang on every word of the speech to be given by Keith Kenny of McDonald’s Europe. McDonald’s is, of course, renowned for the local distinctiveness and cultural value of its food, the emphasis on seasonality, small-scale production and terroir: the very characteristics that come together in the ‘European model’ of farming and food and are so often invoked by COPA-COGECA’s members as they make the case for greater protection from globalized markets.

A short coffee break will give delegates the chance to savour Mr Kenny’s remarks before an address by Walter Pötter, General Manager of the Lidl Foundation. The precise nature of the Lidl Foundation is a mystery to Berlaymole, though Lidl is of course a well known ‘hard discount’ supermarket with a reputation for union-busting and dubious employment policies as well as having been the target of farmer protests led by the Irish Farmers Association, which just happens to be a paid-up member of COPA-COGECA.

The full agenda, and details of how to apply to be a delegate (a bargain at just €400 per person!) are available here. But do hurry, the registration deadline is 12 September. Berlaymole will not be attending. If the truth be told, your correspondent would sooner gouge out his own liver and eat it, gently sauteed in butter with a few shallots and a sprinkling of fresh thyme. Bon appetit!

1. Does the Council agree that the Commission’s Communication correctly analyses both the principal evolutions since the reforms agreed in 2003/4 and the main challenges to the CAP in the years ahead?
2. In general terms, is the level of ambition and the scope of the adjustments broadly outlined in the Communication an adequate response to these challenges?
3. Does the Council believe that the Communication identifies avenues for action that would at the same time better align the CAP with general societal expectations while preserving the European model of agriculture?

The Slovenian Presidency press release following the Council meeting wraps itself in cotton wool in its final paragraph, suggesting that some member states had difficulty in getting their heads around that third question:

The Member States welcomed the Communication of the Commission and are of the opinion that it correctly assesses the main movements by the implemented reforms adopted in 2003 and 2004, as well as the main challenges for the CAP in the following years. As expected, opinions about the level of ambitiousness and scope of the adjustments defined in the Communication are divided.

Many countries emphasized the need for more specific proposals on measures of risk management and setting up of safety net as response to eventual market crisis. Despite the fact that some countries would prefer more radical and quicker steps towards liberalisation, most Member States… [material missing].

The Council also agrees that the Communication defines the methods of action which would at the same time better coordinate the CAP with the general expectations of society and thereby preserve the European agricultural model.

Somewhat clearer was the UK Guardian report of the meeting which quoted Mrs Fischer Boel as saying, in response to a question about likely problem areas during the debate over her policy changes:

I think the progressive capping of direct payments. And there’s not total unanimity about the necessity of compulsory modulation.

These were also the two areas highlighted by German and French farm leaders at the Berlin Green Week. Although, interestingly, it appears they are quite content to see further decoupling of the single farm payment and the elimination of compulsory setaside.

The Guardian report noted clear philosophy differences between the 15 “older” member countries and those that joined the bloc in 2004 but without specifying further around what issues these differences revolved. Surprisingly, there was no reference to future dairy policy in the discussions, despite the very clear statement by Mrs Fischer Boel of her ideas for dairy policy reform at DG AGRI’s seminar on the dairy sector in the context of the Health Check Review of CAP ten days previously.

There is now a clear timetable for the Health Check in place. The ministers will continue the debate at the Agricultural Council meeting in February. The Presidency intends to draw Council conclusions in March in order to allow the Commission to come back with legislative proposals which will be presented on May 20th with a target for final agreement in November.

One of the key players, France, is due to make up its mind on the Health Check proposals in March. Until then, as one EU official noted, France is “talking in code”. Perhaps it was the country which helped to draft the final paragraph of that Council press release.

For a start, the principal effect of current blanket and untargeted farm subsidies is to increase the price of farm land, by as much as 40 per cent, by some estimates. This makes it up to 40 per cent for young farmers to buy or rent land. High land values are one of the main reasons why European farmers face higher costs than farmers elsewhere in the world. And it’s not just land that is more expensive. Farm equipment companies, agri-chemical companies and other suppliers drive up prices because they know their customers are getting handouts from the government.

Second, young dairy farmers have to buy or rent EU production quota. Unless in possession of sufficient quota, dairy farmers are not permitted to sell their milk. Third, farm subsidies cause over-production of many agricultural products in the European Union, which depresses prices, thus eroding farmer’s profit margins. Fourth, the new world in which farm subsidy entitlements are openly traded among farmers, with some sales to non-farmers (see a previous post on this blog) means it is quite possible that new entrants to farming will end up with ‘naked acres’, the term used to describe land which has been stripped of subsidy entitlements. These young farmers will face all the problems of making a living in the world of over-production, low prices and other distortions, without receiving any subsidies in return. Fifth, young farmers who want to adopt new green farm management techniques that improve biodiversity, landscape and reduce soil erosion and water pollution are more than likely to find that the government schemes which exist to pay for these new and positive land management projects are over-subscribed and chronically underfunded.

Ultimately, what many farmers gain from subsidies, they lose by facing lower prices and higher costs of doing business. This is particularly true for young farmers and new entrants who have to take out giant loans to buy land, and borrow more still if they want to ‘buy in’ to the subsidy game. Is it any wonder that the average age of European farmers far higher than in other sectors of the economy or that only 8 per cent of European farmers are younger than 35?

Will any of these issues be discussed at the Commission’s young farmers’ day? I hope so. You can follow proceedings live via a webcast.