Apparently, the heavy defeat in the regional elections has convinced the President of the French Republic he must step up the rhetoric on agriculture policy. Whereas in the beginning of the month, in his speech at the “Salon de l’Agriculture” he was ready for a compromise trading less farming budget for more protectionism, he announced yesterday he is prepared to go to war with Europe to defend the CAP.

Trading farm subsidies for ‘community preference’ was quite a bad idea, to declare a farming war on Europe might be an even worse one. Commodity markets – in certain respects like financial ones – tend to be volatile, and, as in many other economic areas, competition in agricultural products tends to be harsh. Agriculture, an activity largely based on family structures, suffers heavily from this situation. If the modern welfare state devised employment benefits and a large set of social mechanisms to address negative market outcomes, policy interventions in farming communities use different instruments, but aim at similar objectives.

To insulate agriculture from international trade is the oldest and still the most common way to face these situations, an instrument whose scope was slowly but substantially diminished since the end of last century.

The present economic crisis led many in the Western World to have second thoughts on the liberalisation they promoted.
Can we really allow financial institutions to act as they wish only for the tax-payer to pay the bill when their decisions prove to have been reckless? Does it really make sense to exclude currency policy from the framework of trade negotiations? Can we consider the Asian economic giants as least developed countries exempted from trade liberalisation in food products and in assuming full environmental and other responsibilities at World level?

Personally, I am far from convinced that our Western leaders gave full attention to these problems or found the best way to address them. In my opinion, we need to consider stricter regulatory frameworks in some cases and more balanced approaches to trade, currency and financial matters in other cases.

However, it does not mean that going backwards is a possible outcome or that it might be conceived as a solution to our problems. When Mr. Sarkozy despises any new deals at the WTO level and demands protectionism in agriculture he comforts Asian agricultural protectionism and refuses to consider changes to the current, flawed system of international trade.

A couple years ago, while in Taiwan, I was amazed at the impressive increase in the demand of dairy products. At the time the existing statistics revealed that the Taiwanese per-capita consumption of dairy products was something like 50 times the figure for mainland China.

Did Mr. Sarkozy ever thought what could this mean for the famous hundreds of different French cheeses to have a real opening into the Chinese market? And what does Mr. Sarkozy expect to keep out of the French territory by his closed borders policy? Brazilian soya beans and Argentinian beef? Shouldn’t it be obvious that the more the French agriculture will be turned to the rest of the World, the more it can take advantage of its quality products with high value added?

Who, more than the French food industry, will be hurt by a closed borders policy? Not by chance, in the same speech where Mr. Sarkozy announced his will to trade a diminishing European budget for a fortress Europe, he announced another handout of 50 million euros to French farmers.

What is quite obvious in Mr. Sarkozy’s intentions is the will to renationalize ever more the European agricultural policy, replacing the European budget – that is increasingly being fully shared with twenty six other EU member states – by the French national budget.

Yesterday, Mr. Sarkozy recalled last year’s dramatic decrease in French farm revenue to conclude that he would wage a war in Europe rather than allow to a dismembering of existing Common Agricultural Policy. The undoing of the oldest and more common European policy would be another blow not only to Europe but also to its agriculture, but does that mean we should leave it unchanged? After all, wasn’t it under the existing CAP that farm incomes tumbled last year in France? Doesn’t it mean we really need to think it over again?

David Cameron, leader of a British Conservative Party that is well ahead in the opinion polls just weeks ahead of a General Election, has already ruffled feathers across La Manche, with reported jibes about the diminutive stature of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is reeling from personal life scandals and a drubbing in regional elections. The remarks provoked a reaction from Paris, which accused the British Opposion leader of lacking respect for the French Head of State.

Such a trifling spat may be just the start of a tricky Anglo-French relationship over the future of EU budget, in particular the €60 billion common agricultural policy and Britain’s special budget rebate. The rebate or “chèque Britannique”, as it is sometimes known, rankles with France, which feels Britain is too often a semi-detatched member of the European club: free riding on the benefits of the common market while resisting ‘ever deeper union’ and refusing to pay its way. The rebate was won in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher who swung her handback and demanded ‘my money back’. It has since entered into Conservative Party political iconography of a by-gone ‘golden age’ when Mrs T. defeated Argentina in a war over the Falklands, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ronald Reagan against the Soviet ‘Evil Empire’, took on striking coal miners and unleashed a wave of privatisation and deregulation that transformed the British economy. It is hard to imagine a Conservative government ever agreeing to give up such a totemic symbol as the EU budget rebate, the effect of which is to ensure Britain gets almost the same from the EU budget as it puts in.

In policy terms, the rebate is only really necessary because the EU budget is dominated by agricultural spending (nearly half of the budget goes on the CAP) and Britain is a relatively wealthy country with a relatively small farm sector. This gives rise to the structural budget imbalance that Mrs Thatcher sought to address with the rebate. If the CAP were scaled back then Britain would not need a rebate. Or so the argument goes. This was the case made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the EU budget negotiations of 2005 and 2006. In the end he was comprehensively outmanoeuvred by President Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, giving up a portion of the rebate in exchange for a ‘budget review’ that has yet to bear any fruit.

There is irony in the fact that that Nicolas Sarkozy, the man who most wants to see the end to the British rebate, has only this week declared himself to be a powerful opponent of downsizing the CAP, the most natural way of achieving that goal. Earlier today, in his first public comments after his UMP party’s defeat in regional elections, President Sarkozy declared:

“I am ready to confront a crisis on a European level, rather than to accept the dismantlement of the Common Agricultural Policy… I will not let our agriculture die.”

Could this put Nicolas Sarkozy, defending the CAP, on collision course with David Cameron, defending the British rebate? Perhaps, but there is an important twist and a possible solution. British farmers and landowners, who get around €4 billion a year from the CAP, largely vote Conservative. At heart they’re anti-EU but when they think with their heads they don’t want to see an end to the EU subsidies that they would be very unlikely to win from the British Treasury. Conservative politicians find it easy to talk tough on the CAP but there would be political hell to pay if they actually succeeded in abolishing subsidies for British agriculture.

Meanwhile, as President Sarkozy talks tough on preserving the CAP, the enlargement of the EU to 27 member states means France is on course to become a net payer into the CAP, rather than a net beneficiary. This will not have gone unnoticed in the French Ministry of Finance which has traditionally formed a strong alliance with the Agriculture Ministry and French farming, regarding the CAP as bringing ‘good German money to rural France’. When he sees the turning of the fiscal tide, and French taxpayers start paying to support Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian farmers, President Sarkozy may revise his view. There is a single solution to both dilemmas: cofinancing of the CAP. Rather than a CAP funded from a common European pot, with all that means for politically difficult budget imbalances, each country will meet a much larger share of its own farm subsidy bill. Of course this will go down very badly with the new member states, who will have to fund their own farm subsidies, but in the face of an Anglo-French alliance, with large net payers Germany and the Netherlands also likely to lend their support, they may have no choice. One man who may find himself in a rather tricky position is Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos, who will find it difficult to sell such a policy to his Romanian countrymen.

It’s been a turbulent few weeks for French President Nicolas Sarkozy and voters expressed their dissatisfaction with his centre-right UMP party in regional elections yesterday. A resurgent Socialist-led opposition alliance took 52% of the vote and the UMP just 35%, squeezed in sevearl contests by the far-right National Front, which scored 9.4% of the national vote but took more than 22% in its two core regions in the north and south. Opposition candidates won in 21 of France’s 22 mainland regions.

Among the losers was French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire (pictured, right), who was rejected by voters of Normandy, where he was standing for election as Regional President. Had he been succesful he would have stepped down as national farms minister. It now means he’s likely to stay on in the post and continue as France’s main man in the negotiations on the reform of the CAP.

Photo credit: Bruno Le Maire / flickr.com / creative commons

President Sarkozy took farmers into his confidence in a recent speech at the Salon d’agriculture where he proposed a new direction in France’s position on CAP reform post 2013. Noting that there were farms in France where the share of subsidies equals the value of production, he declared that this does not make sense if the farmer is a producer. He criticised the policy approach of accepting compensation for reductions in prices because, some day, there is no longer sufficient funds to continue to pay for the subsidies.

Instead, he proposed to the other EU partners a deal whereby France would be flexible on the share of the next financial perspective going to agriculture provided that this was balanced by more rigorous Community preference which, implicitly would lead to a higher market return. His argument is that if third country producers had to respect the high environmental, traceability and animal welfare rules which must be respected by European producers, then European farmers would be able to compete on price alone.

There are two issues with this argument. The first is whether the argument itself holds up. We can observe that controlling imports is only effective as a way of raising the EU price where the EU is a deficit importer; for those products where the EU is a net exporter, the EU price (assuming the absence of export subsidies) is determined on world markets where the EU cannot enforce its own standards.

Even in the case of a product like beef, where the EU is now a deficit importer, it is questionable how significant the price effect of demanding higher standards of imports would be. Only twelve countries are allowed to export beef to the EU at present in any case under existing rules. Of course, some of these, such as Brazil, have major export capacity. Already in Brazil, individual farms are registered and can comply with EU internal standards in order to gain access to the lucrative EU market. While it would be costly to meet the additional EU standards, the additional cost would not be a major disadvantage

The second issue with the Sarkozy approach is that it would fall foul of WTO trade rules. These rules allow the EU to take steps to control imports for health and safety reasons, and the EU makes clear that its existing rules do this more than adequately. Requiring a particular approach to animal welfare, or requiring observance of environmental standards, might improve things in Brazil, but WTO rules do not give one country a right to dictate non-essential standards in another country. This is, of course, also a protection for EU exporters against arbitrary demands from other importing countries.

While France has long sought stricter standards on imports, this is the first time it has indicated that it might be willing to trade off expenditure on agricultural subsidies for such higher standards. Does this represent a sign of some new flexibility in French thinking? What do French farm organisations think of the proposal?