I am a great fan of BirdLife’s work on the CAP, but in their joint position paper with the European Landowners’ Organization (ELO), presented on 27 January 2010, BirdLife has taken a step in the wrong direction. What’s more, it has announced that this is only the beginning of their cooperation with the ELO. [...]

Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has announced she’ll not seek a second term in office. Unlike predecessors Franz Fischler and Ray MacSharry there is no round of CAP reform named after her and perhaps it is to make up for this that the Commission has just published a new leaflet. [...]

Roger Waite, one of the sharpest analysts of EU farm policy writes at farmpolicy.com on the timetable for the next CAP reform. Definitely worth reading.

“Analysis from Brussels”- by Roger Waite- Towards the Next, Truly Big CAP Reform- The Timetable

Today, the US raised its intervention support prices for some dairy products as a way of supporting the US farm price for milk. The support price for skimmed milk powder was increased by 15 percent and for cheddar cheese by 16 per cent for a limited 3-month period. Immediately milk prices on the Chicago Mercentile Exchange increased by 5 per cent, and it is estimated that the measure will add $243 million to US dairy farm incomes in the current year.

From a European perspective, this measure has ambiguous effects and may even be welcomed for its short-run effects. In the short run, the Commodity Credit Corporation will enter the market as an additional buyer, raising the floor price of milk. While only US milk products are eligible for support, as a major dairy exporter this action is going to help to strengthen world market prices, to the benefit also of EU producers.

In the long run, of course, the measure will keep more US dairy farms in production than would otherwise be the case. When dairy markets recover, the disposal of US stocks will dampen the upswing in dairy product prices, and there will be more US competition than would otherwise be the case.

Nonetheless, as a way of mitigating short-run price volatility on world markets, encouraging countries to engage in counter-cyclical stock-holding seems a sensible thing to do, provided of course that the stabilised price is not set above the long-run market equilibrium. The limited duration of the US measure is a positive sign in that regard. The difficulty is that this measure would be caught in the WTO Aggregate Measure of Support as an amber box subsidy, and the ability of countries to pursue amber box subsidies will be severely curtailed under proposed Doha Round disciplines.

Is this a case where ideology has triumphed over sense? Would it make sense to exempt intervention buying from WTO disciplines under appropriate circumstances? The EU experience with intervention gave stock purchases to support market prices a bad name, but this was in the context where markets were also highly protected by tariff barriers and the use of export subsidies. In the absence of trade barriers, intervention buying has positive spillover effects for producers in other countries. Could WTO rules be designed to encourage such good neighbour policies?

Recently, I was looking for an internet source for EU export refunds – not overall expenditure, but the refund rates for individual commodities by month. What I was hoping to find was an Excel worksheet which set out this information, but it seems extraordinarily hard to come by. The nearest I could get was the excellent webpage on export refunds for milk and meat products maintained by OFIVAL, the French marketing agency. However, the data here take the form of pdf files containing the information every time the refund levels are changed, and it would be extremely tedious to transfer this into an Excel file. Another excellent site is Datum, hosted by the UK Dairyco. Here the information on export refunds for dairy products is updated weekly, and it is also possible to download an Excel file with historical data, but of course the data only covers dairy. The Commission’s CIRCA network also seems to have pdf versions of export refunds – you can view the sugar data here – but access to CIRCA more generally and to its interest groups requires one to register so I don’t know if similar information for other CAP commodities is also available here. Again the drawback is that the information is not available in Excel format. Do any readers have other suggestions where this information could be found?

A widely-accepted justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to prevent the emergence of the industrialised, mono-cultural agriculture which is the inevitable result of an efficiency-based, cost-oriented farming model by protecting the diversified, environmentally-friendly small farmer in order to maintain the positive environmental benefits of European agriculture. This is part of the philosophy of agrarianism which underpins much discussion of agricultural policy.

Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that the bulk of existing farm subsidies go to larger farmers rather than smaller ones, so that even if the thesis above is valid, current agricultural policy does not support it. My interest is in the evidence for the thesis itself. Is it the case that small farms are better for the environment? [...]

Just days before the final ag Council meeting under the Czech EU presidency, member states’ positions on the Council Conclusions are still far apart. Things look a lot like last year when France attempted to show the way to long-term CAP reform, while some states resisted any move that could pre-empt the budget review/financial framework negotiations. CAP defenders are again trying to integrate far-reaching & far-fetched arguments on the benefits of the CAP that would point towards maintaining a big CAP budget and a strong first pillar. [...]

Agriculture is special. It therefore deserves an outstanding dose of public subsidies. Or so we are told. But is there anything that is not special? The standard approach of economists (and others who happen to think clearly though writing about agriculture) is analytical: debunking erroneous claims for subsidies. The problem is that rational argument goes only that far. So the idea is to try something else: making up far-fetched cases in favor of subsidizing non-agricultural sectors. Their resemblance to some pro-CAP arguments would show the latter’s absurdity. [...]

There is an excellent piece of analysis from Roger Waite, editor of Agra Facts, on the final health check legal texts and the current situation in commodity markets. Falling prices are worrying farmers and piling the pressure on policy makers to turn the clock back on the CAP, with the ink barely dry on the health check.

Read Roger’s insights over at farmpolicy.com.

Czech agriculture minister Petr Gandalovic made an curious statement at the informal Agriculture Council meeting held earlier this week in the French Alps. Mr Gandalovic, who will assume the chairmanship of the Council under the Czech EU Presidency in the first half of 2009, told his colleagues:

“The more specific you make the policy, the more room you give to bureaucrats who make the decisions. Non-targeted payments give more power to farmers.”

In case it’s not clear, Mr Gandalovic was making the case against targeted payments. In doing so, perhaps inadvertently, he touched on a question that goes to the very heart of the debate about the future of the CAP: the extent to which the CAP’s 54 billion euros of annual public expenditure should be targeted on clearly defined objectives and measurable outcomes. It is a debate raging right now within DG Agriculture, a power struggle that is pitting CAP ‘modernisers’ who seek a greater role for the current rural development pillar against CAP ‘consolidators’ who defend the “Fischler settlement” and the current Commission Health Check agenda. What it boils down to is a debate over the fundamental role of public policy in agriculture. [...]

Full details at the WTO’s website. WTO Director General Pascal Lamy said:

“These revised texts set the stage for a decisive moment in the Doha round. Ministers and other senior officials will soon arrive for intensive negotiations the week of 21 July. They need negotiating documents which are clear and precise as they consider the complex issues of agriculture and industrial goods trade. These texts go a very long way in that direction. These negotiations have been long and tough but the prize awaiting us should we reach agreement is worth the effort. A deal to open trade in agriculture and goods means more growth, better prospects for development and a more stable and predictable trading system. We must not let this opportunity slip through our fingers.”

The main issues currently under negotiation that impact the CAP are in the market access pillar and relate to tariff issues, particularly the scale and handling of ’sensitive products’ that get partial exemption from the across-the-board tariff cuts. In relation to domestic support, the text appears to be close to being finalised. The main decision still to be taken by Ministers is the size of the cut in Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS). The options are a cut of between 75% and 85% for the EU, a cut of 66-73% for the US and Japan, and a cut of 50-60% for other countries. Even an 85% cut for the EU would not have any impact on current domestic support payments, which are notified as ‘non- or minimally trade distorting’ and therefore exempt from constraints.

Over at farmsubsidy.org you can see the first fruits of a mapping project which aims to place every EU farm subsidy payment on a fully interactive web-based map, powered by the excellent Google Maps. The first country to get the mapping treatment is Sweden, chosen because its government has been by far the most transparent in terms of farm subsidy payments. The map displays some € 7 billion in CAP expenditure in 2 million payments to 114,700 recipients since 2000. We think the map-based interface is a fascinating new platform for bringing the CAP closer to the citizens that pay for it. Now that Sweden is done, other countries will follow.

[...]

The think tank “Notre Europe” just released a document on the future of the CAP. Notre Europe’s point of view is that because the health check (HC) is likely to lead mostly to short term adjustments, the “real” debate on the CAP is likely to take place before the next financial perspectives. The outcome could be very contingent to the situation that will prevail in 2013 (e.g. market situations). Notre Europe launched a reflexion that intends to look to more structural changes, with a longer term horizon than the HC.

All the members of the (large) task force did not share a common position on this issue and instead of producing a UN-type consensual document, two of the members, L.P. Mahé and I drafted our own conclusions, not necessarily shared by the others. I believe that many of the readers of this website will find the proposals a bit too “French” (even though the authors are considered as dangerous free marketers in their own country). But hopefully, this will trigger more thinking from other institutions.

The link to the English version of the document is here.

Roger Waite, editor of Agra Facts and long-time Brussels CAP watcher, has written a superb ‘health check explainer’ for farmpolicy.com, the US-based farm policy news source. The briefing covers what the health check is in terms of policy, process and politics. Highly recommended reading and reproduced in full below, with permission. [...]

The WTO negotiations have become a live issue in Irish politics because Ireland is the only EU country which will hold a referendum to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, and the campaign provides an opportunity for interest groups to maximise their bargaining strength. For example, farm groups who are traditionally pro-EU in referendum votes have threatened to campaign against the Lisbon Treaty not because of the content of the Treaty but because of their dissatisfaction with the way they see Peter Mandelson as EU Trade Commissioner handling the WTO negotiations.

Padraig Walshe, President of the Irish Farmers’ Association, the largest of the Irish farm groups, gave a not-so-veiled warning recently when he noted that “it would be unrealistic to expect the farming community and rural people to vote for the Lisbon Treaty while Mandelson is planning the destruction of the Irish and European family farm structure.” [...]