Budget structure proposals upset farm lobby

It may seem a very technical matter, but proposed changes to the EU budget structure have upset farm lobby COPA/COGECA.   They have sent an open letter to the Commission president, reminding her of the large scale farm protests in 2024.

They state: 'In an era of geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, and mounting societal challenges, a strong and resilient agricultural sector is not just strategic; it is the keystone that supports the EU’s entire security architecture. Copa-Cogeca and its members representing European farmers and agri-cooperatives are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring food security, sustainability, as well as economic and social stability for 450 million citizens of Europe and beyond.

The pan-European agricultural protests of 2024, though driven by different causes, all revealed the vulnerability of our communities, exposed to the cumulative and conflicting effects of policies in an increasingly complex market environment.

The recent European Commission’s Vision for EU Agriculture and Food rightly acknowledges the sector’s strategic importance. Likewise, the Council’s EU Strategic Agenda and the Commission’s political guidelines for the 2024-2029 mandate recognise the indispensable contribution of farmers and rural communities to Europe’s economic and social fabric.

The farming community is still grappling with numerous challenges, such as geopolitical instability, high energy prices, legal uncertainties, and stricter environmental regulations. While farmers have made significant progress in improving productivity and reducing emissions, they still face rising costs and unfair competition, which is eroding their income and making it harder to remain competitive.

As you, President von der Leyen, rightly emphasised: we are entering a new era of rearmament in which Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own security. In this spirit, we firmly believe that there is no security without food security — and no strategic autonomy without food autonomy.

This is why we are profoundly alarmed by recent discussions on reallocating EU funding into a Single Fund effectively eliminating the EAGF and EAFRD – the pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Such a shift represents a fundamental change to the governance of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and would severely undermine the CAP, which remains the cornerstone of Europe’s competitiveness and food sovereignty.

Dismantling the two-pillar CAP structure based on the EAGF and EAFRD alongside using a single national programming approach per Member State will lead to a further loss of commonality in European policies. Besides further weakening the Single Market, this will have far-reaching consequences for food production and security and the maintenance of vibrant and populated rural areas in the EU. There is a clear added value in European expenditure when it comes to policies such as the CAP and this must be recognised and kept.

We are not the only ones who think so. Alongside 28 other key EU agri-food organisations, we have already conveyed a simple but crucial message to you and EU leadership: a dedicated increased CAP budget is not merely a matter of financial support, but a strategic investment in Europe’s future resilience and security.     [Good luck with that call given the other demands on EU funds and the still disproportionate share of EU finding that goes on the CAP.]

It was also one of the key conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue that were delivered to you last September: the multiple transitions required for European agriculture can and will only be achieved 

EU budget format changes and their implications for the CAP

Proposals for changes to the EU budget format that could affect the CAP are discussed in depth by Professor Alan Matthews: http://capreform.eu/fitting-the-cap-into-the-next-mff-long-term-budget/

Both the Budget and the CAP are very complex and technical issues so considering them alongside each other is almost mind blowing, even for those with some expertise in the area.

However, the take home message from Professor Matthews is: 'there is limited scope to improve the effectiveness of CAP spending by redesigning the MFF, which reinforces the need for a greater focus on the CAP regulations themselves.'

The underlying issues are very familiar and have been around for decades.   Nevertheless, they require fresh consideration.

The CAP after Brexit

The EU will lose about eight per cent of its current income after Brexit and is thinking about how to adjust to this loss. Given that the CAP accounts for 39 per cent of EU expenditure, it is at the forefront of concerns.

The European Commission has published a 'reflections' document on possible ways forward: EU finances

In terms of what it has to say about agriculture, it is an interesting mix of sticking to old orthodoxies and some signs of new thinking.

On the negative side, it sticks to the discredited argument that direct payments offer a form of 'income support that partially fills the gap between agricultural income and comparable income for other economic sectors.' It is a highly inefficient and poorly targeted means of delivering income support. Later down the same page, we are told that 80 per cent of support goes to 20 per cent of farms. (Actually, this is a stylised fact based on the Pareto rule: the actual figure is lower than 80 per cent).

We are also told that 'thanks to the CAP, European citizens have access to safe, affordable and high quality food.' One could argue that this is the result of technological advances and the innovations made by many farmers in response to changing patterns of consumer demand. Do the citizens of New Zealand lack access to food with these qualities despite the absence of subsidies?

The paper does admit that 'There is no consensus on the level of income support necessary when taking into account competitiveness within the sector.' This is because the policy does not have a competitiveness objective and is not designed to promote competitiveness.

Indeed, high tariff barriers allow uncompetitive practices to continue). A graph makes the claim that 'Agricultural trade balance shows a competitive sector', but makes no reference to the way in which tariffs keep out price competitive imports. Indeed, it is admitted that 'In some cases, these [CAP] payments do not contribute to the structural development of the sector but tend to increase land prices that may hinder the entry of young farmers into the market.'

There is a greater recognition of the need to deliver 'climate public goods and services', a serious omission in the current policy. There is also a recognition of the need to encourage farmers to invest in new technologies which is forming part of the UK debate on a new domestic agricultural policy.

The document envisages 'the introduction of a degree of national co-financing for direct payments in order to sustain the overall levels of current support.' This will not go down well in countries such as France which benefit from the current distribution of CAP funds.

There is also reference to reducing direct payments for large farms. It is suggested that there should be a new 'focus on farmers under special constraints, e.g., small farms, mountainous areas and sparsely populated regions.' Again, care will be needed to ensure that the chosen policy instruments do really tackle problems such as rural depopulation. For example, improving rural broadband might be a more effective way of stimulating new economic activity rather than propping up farms that lack viability.

It's not all Balls

The ploy by Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander to call for Dave Cameron to secure real cuts in the EU budget is a way of setting an elephant trap for the prime minister. They know if they were in office they would have great difficulty in securing such cuts given the stance of other member states. But it will give them another chance to score a few political points by portraying the Government as weak and incompetent, as well as increasing disarray on the Conservative benches.

So it's a smart tactical move. But once we get away from the partisan point scoring, they do have something interesting and important to say in their Times article. They point out that for all the fuss about Brussels bureaucrats, administration only takes up 6 per cent of the EU budget. £45 billion is sucked up by the CAP at a net cost to the UK of £1 billion a year (although we do get a budget rebate).

They argue, 'Although the butter mountains of the past are long gone, the need for reform is no less urgent. The CAP is an obstacle to international trade liberalisation, creates too few jobs and introduces distortions so that there is not a level playing field. The EU cannot afford this waste.'

They maintain. 'further reform of the CAP must not just be discussed but implemented.' If only. I think there will be some real cuts, but they will be mainly at expense of Pillar 2 expenditure which helps the environment and the rural economy. The blanket subsidies of Pillar 1 (the Single Farm Payment) will remain largely untouched.

There are a number of net beneficiaries of the CAP who will defend it to the last hedge row. But there is more to it than that. France gets less than it used to from the CAP, but for the French it is more than a question of the financial benefits, important though those are. It is also about a vision of Europe in which agriculture plays a central if often symbolic role. It is about a statist mode of government in which intervention in the market is seen as beneficial in the name of food security. Even though some are questioning whether France can continue to afford to allow 56 per cent of its GDP to be spent by the government, those attitudes are not going to change any time soon.

Interesting that Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, thinks that Britain should contemplate leaving the EU: Stuart . Admittedly, she has been moving in a Eurosceptic direction for eight years or so and is now something of a maverick on the Labour benches. But she was born in Germany and is a particularly thoughtful MP. What she says needs to be taken seriously.

Where her argument is perhaps weakest is in relation to the possibility of a two-tier EU, although I think she is correct in her judgment that a negotiation would not deliver that much in terms of a repatriation of powers (certainly not an exit from the CAP). This is not one of the usual supspects and it may be an early indication of a real shift in the political climate.

Completing CAP reform on time

In this week’s issue of Agra Europe, editorial director Chris Horseman, who is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable observers of the CAP, suggests that the deadline of January 1, 2014 for the new CAP could be missed unless EU leaders can conclude the Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations by the end of this year.

Horseman argues that the crux of the problem is the fact that MEPs have taken the view that they are not in a position to pass judgement on how CAP spending should be allocated in 2014-2020 if they do not know how much overall spending will be available. Therefore, the need for their Council counterparts to agree a financial framework to provide funds for the Single Farm Payment system becomes an imperative.

However keen the European Commission may be to keep the negotiations on the reform of the CAP and on the future MFF technically separate, the two issues are politically inseparable, Horseman says, before exploring the ramifications and potential scenarios instigated by the deadline for CAP reform being missed.

It has been my view for some time that the deadline would be missed and that January 2015 was a more likely date. It has also been my view that the involvement of the European Parliament would slow down the process and make reform more difficult to achieve. The requirements of a democratic process mean that it should be involved, but the effect on outcomes may be less desirable.

The crux of the issue is that when European domestic governments are practising austerity, and are likely to do for some time to come whatever the calls for a growth strategy, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the share of the EU budget devoted to the CAP. There is a high 'opportunity cost' in terms of money that could be spent on infrastructure projects that would help employment and research and development that would enhance Europe's flagging competitiveness.

Even within the farm budget there is a strong case for spending more on applied research which would help European agriculture to meet food security challenges in a sustainable way much more than blanket subsidies.