'Crisis' is an overworked word in relation to trade talks, but the Doha Round now appears to be in serious trouble after a failure to make any progress on agriculture in Geneva at the end of last week. The talks petered out on Saturday, having reached no conclusion on modalities,the next step towards an actual agreement.
The Group of Six (the US, EU, Japan, Brazil and Australia) have asked WTO director-general Pascal Lamy if he can mediate between them and he will report back in two weeks, but is unlikely to produce his own text which would serve as the equivalent of the Dunkel draft in the Uruguay Round.
The EU was prepared to give some ground on tariffs, moving its position closer to that of the G-20 group of emerging countries. They were privately indicating that they would prepared to cut tariffs by an average 51 per cent compared with their original offer of 39 per cent. This is very close to the 54 per cent cut asked for by G-20 which the EU calculates as actually nearer 52 per cent.
Much of their G-20's fire is now concentrated on what they see as the intransigence of the United States with a new rift appearing between Brazil and the States. For the United States, new trade supremo Susan Schwab said that the problem was the three S's, not the two in her name, but the 'sensitive' and 'special' products which would enjoy lower tariff cuts and the 'special safeguard mechanism' that allows poor countries to block sudden surges in imports.
The fact is that ministers or other representatives, whether they are from India or the United States, get few domestic points for pushing for trade liberalisation which can disadvantage politically influential groups in their societies. India's trade minister Kamal Nath turned up late for a green room discussion on Friday evening. His excuse was the Argentina v. Germany match in the World Cup which had not delayed the Argentine delegation. Nath's problem is that he and his prime minister are under pressure from Sonia Gandhi to protect poor farmers. The agri-business interests, principally based in the US, that pushed for liberalisation in the 1990s are more divided or less effective a decade later.
It might be possible for the G-8 and national political leaders to intervene, but these 'deus ex machina' interventions have had little lasting impact in the past. Moreover, leaders from most G-8 countries at the moment are either coming towards the end of their tenures (France, Japan, the UK and the US) or lead governments that are coalitions or have fragile political majorities (Canada, Italy, Germany), while Russia can hardly sort out the problems even if it was that much interested in them.
Does it matter? For two reasons it does. First, an agreement in the Round would bring some advances for developing countries, although far short of what they could hope for. Second, a failure of the Round would remove the key exogenous pressure that has led the EU in particular to at least start down the road of dismantling the CAP in its present form.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Farm subsidies remain at high level in OECD
The latest figures from the OECD show that the amount its thirty members spent on domestic agriculture in 2005 was almost unchanged from 2004 at $279.8bn (€221bn, £152bn). Subsidies accounted for almost one-third of farm incomes across the rich world.
EU aid to its farmers fell marginally from $136.1bn to $133.8bn while Japanese and Swiss farmers remained among the most protected. The producer subsidy equivalent, which measures the cost to taxpayers of subsidies and consumers of tariff barriers, was 32 per cent in the EU, 56 per cent in Japan and 68 per cent in Switzerland. The $42.7bn US support represented 16 per cent of receipts.
In very simple terms, a concentrated interest deriving benefits from intervention prevails over the diffuse interests of consumers and taxpayers.
EU aid to its farmers fell marginally from $136.1bn to $133.8bn while Japanese and Swiss farmers remained among the most protected. The producer subsidy equivalent, which measures the cost to taxpayers of subsidies and consumers of tariff barriers, was 32 per cent in the EU, 56 per cent in Japan and 68 per cent in Switzerland. The $42.7bn US support represented 16 per cent of receipts.
In very simple terms, a concentrated interest deriving benefits from intervention prevails over the diffuse interests of consumers and taxpayers.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
In the land of the square bracket
Just how far apart the leading participants in the Doha Round are on farm trade issues is revealed in a draft paper on modalities published by the chair of the agricultural negotiations, Kiwi Crawford Falconer.
Falconer was obliged to admit that his document is 'inelegant' and it contains no less than 760 pairs of square brackets, indicating a lack of agreement, in a document of 74 pages. This beats the current world record of 402 square brackets in the Seattle draft in 1999.
It is difficult to see any progress on the key issues. For example, there is no narrowing of positions on sensitive products with the text stating that 'each member shall have the right to designate up to [1-15] per cent of dutiable tariff lines as "sensitive products"'.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the ministerial meeting in Geneva expected for June 28 - July 3 will fail to make the badly needed significant progress. There is, however, an increasing realisation that the whole Doha Round is in jeopardy given the need for a timetable that will allow for American approval under fast track negotiations.
High level political leaders need to intervene effectively to ensure a renewed focus on the broad picture rather than the ad valorem tariff for butter. That is not an easy task, however, given that many (from American politicians to NGOs, not to mention the French) are arguing that no agreement is better than a bad agreement. What is increasingly likely is that this will be the last omnibus trade round as they hinder as much as help progress towards fairer world trade.
Falconer was obliged to admit that his document is 'inelegant' and it contains no less than 760 pairs of square brackets, indicating a lack of agreement, in a document of 74 pages. This beats the current world record of 402 square brackets in the Seattle draft in 1999.
It is difficult to see any progress on the key issues. For example, there is no narrowing of positions on sensitive products with the text stating that 'each member shall have the right to designate up to [1-15] per cent of dutiable tariff lines as "sensitive products"'.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the ministerial meeting in Geneva expected for June 28 - July 3 will fail to make the badly needed significant progress. There is, however, an increasing realisation that the whole Doha Round is in jeopardy given the need for a timetable that will allow for American approval under fast track negotiations.
High level political leaders need to intervene effectively to ensure a renewed focus on the broad picture rather than the ad valorem tariff for butter. That is not an easy task, however, given that many (from American politicians to NGOs, not to mention the French) are arguing that no agreement is better than a bad agreement. What is increasingly likely is that this will be the last omnibus trade round as they hinder as much as help progress towards fairer world trade.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Dubya is cone sharing fave
President George W. Bush may have had bad poll figures recently, but they are starting to recover, and now Americans have chosen him as the No.1 VIP they would like to share an ice cream cone with.
In a survey by Ben and Jerry's, Bush received 21 per cent of the vote, followed by Bill Clinton with 20 per cent, Angelina Jolie with 19 per cent, Jennifer Aniston with 19 per cent and Kelly Rippa with nine per cent. The survey was conducted to mark the launch of the first packaged super-premium ice cream cone which is available in Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough and Cherry Garcia flavours.
Now back to the Doha Round.
In a survey by Ben and Jerry's, Bush received 21 per cent of the vote, followed by Bill Clinton with 20 per cent, Angelina Jolie with 19 per cent, Jennifer Aniston with 19 per cent and Kelly Rippa with nine per cent. The survey was conducted to mark the launch of the first packaged super-premium ice cream cone which is available in Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough and Cherry Garcia flavours.
Now back to the Doha Round.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
New bid to drain wine lake
Wine is the next sector to be targeted for reform in the CAP with proposals to be unveiled in the next couple of days. Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel seems to be hoping that a successful wine reform will reinforce her credibility as someone who can bring about meaningful change. But she is well aware of the challenge ahead. She told the informal meeting of farm ministers at the end of May, 'There are so many cultural feelings on wine, I would consider [the reform] is going to be even more difficult than the sugar discussions.'
Whatever shape the reform takes the EU is still going to spend €1.2 billion a year on wine subsidies, but the aim is to spend less of the money on the wine that no one is going to drink and is distilled into industrial alcohol or bioethanol. As wine drinkers, especially those looking for a reasonably priced but drinkable wine, turn to 'new world' wines such as those from Australia and Chile, European wines need to become more competitive. My own consumption pattern is probably not unusual in the UK - Australian or Chilean wines for everyday drinking, and more expensive German, Alsatian or Italian wines for more special occasions.
The EU has been considering four broad options: keeping the status quo, carrying out a fundamental reform, implementing the 2003 CAP changes in the sector, or endorsing a complete deregulation of the market. Because this is the CAP we are talking about, the two more radical options are not really on the table.
The most likely mix is temporarily encouraging wine producers to 'grub up' their vines in return for funding, although such policies have not always been cost effective in the past, and extending the current restrictions on planting rights until 2013. Many of the existing cash subsidies would be cut back and overall EU production would be reduced. This would not be welcome news for traditional wine producing nations like France, Italy and Spain.
Incidentally, England does not yet produce enough wine to come within the EU regime but could do in the future if the area occupied by vineyards continues to grow, encouraged by the prospect of global warming. Many of the existing vineyards are boutique wineries, often appealing to a tourist market. English wines can be of good quality, but often cost more than a comparable wine from the continent.
For good reasons, Fischer Boel has particularly targeted crisis distillation. She stated, 'Crisis distillation is becoming a depressingly regular feature of our common organisation for wine. While it offers temporary assistance to producers, it does not deal with the core of the problem - that Europe is producing too much wine for which there is no market.'
The problems the EU faces in this area is shown by the news that French wine growers will receive extra money from their own government to supplement the crisis distillation cash awarded to them recently by the Commission. The EU Wine Management Committee agreed to allow France to convert up to 1.5 million hectolitres of table wine and 1.5 million hl of quality wine into bioethanol. Unpopular French prime minister Dominique de Villepin is calling for 'exceptional national measures' to supplement the Commission's subsidy, a move that is probaby illegal.
I have just got hold of an interesting book on The World's Wine Markets: Globalization at Work edited by Kym Anderson and published by Edward Elgar and I will report any interesting points made when I have read it.
Whatever shape the reform takes the EU is still going to spend €1.2 billion a year on wine subsidies, but the aim is to spend less of the money on the wine that no one is going to drink and is distilled into industrial alcohol or bioethanol. As wine drinkers, especially those looking for a reasonably priced but drinkable wine, turn to 'new world' wines such as those from Australia and Chile, European wines need to become more competitive. My own consumption pattern is probably not unusual in the UK - Australian or Chilean wines for everyday drinking, and more expensive German, Alsatian or Italian wines for more special occasions.
The EU has been considering four broad options: keeping the status quo, carrying out a fundamental reform, implementing the 2003 CAP changes in the sector, or endorsing a complete deregulation of the market. Because this is the CAP we are talking about, the two more radical options are not really on the table.
The most likely mix is temporarily encouraging wine producers to 'grub up' their vines in return for funding, although such policies have not always been cost effective in the past, and extending the current restrictions on planting rights until 2013. Many of the existing cash subsidies would be cut back and overall EU production would be reduced. This would not be welcome news for traditional wine producing nations like France, Italy and Spain.
Incidentally, England does not yet produce enough wine to come within the EU regime but could do in the future if the area occupied by vineyards continues to grow, encouraged by the prospect of global warming. Many of the existing vineyards are boutique wineries, often appealing to a tourist market. English wines can be of good quality, but often cost more than a comparable wine from the continent.
For good reasons, Fischer Boel has particularly targeted crisis distillation. She stated, 'Crisis distillation is becoming a depressingly regular feature of our common organisation for wine. While it offers temporary assistance to producers, it does not deal with the core of the problem - that Europe is producing too much wine for which there is no market.'
The problems the EU faces in this area is shown by the news that French wine growers will receive extra money from their own government to supplement the crisis distillation cash awarded to them recently by the Commission. The EU Wine Management Committee agreed to allow France to convert up to 1.5 million hectolitres of table wine and 1.5 million hl of quality wine into bioethanol. Unpopular French prime minister Dominique de Villepin is calling for 'exceptional national measures' to supplement the Commission's subsidy, a move that is probaby illegal.
I have just got hold of an interesting book on The World's Wine Markets: Globalization at Work edited by Kym Anderson and published by Edward Elgar and I will report any interesting points made when I have read it.
Doha Round crisis
Crawford Falconer, chairman of the Doha agricultural trade negotiations, is to present a paper on Wednesday June 21st in an attempt to get a basis for agreement in the troubled Round. Apparently Falconer's proposals will be close to the compromise model put forward by the Brazilian-led G-20 group. On the biggest tariffs, their compromise proposal of 75% cuts is halfway between the EU offer of 60% and the US demand for 90%. G-20 also proposes a maximum tariff of 100% whereas the EU has ad valorem tariff rates substantially over 100% in several sectors.
However, it will be far from a conclusive document with options and lots of brackets. Nevertheless, his efforts and those of Canada, which has cast itself in the role of mediator, may not be enough. The ministerial meeting at the end of the month may not produce the hoped for outline settlement. The parties are digging their heels in and taking quite entrenched positions.
EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has refused to confirm or deny rumours that the paper will be based on new figures given to Falconer by the Commission that go further than the EU's October proposal. Falconer's paper is, however, likely to be closer to the G-20 proposal than Brussels would want.
Opposition to what they would see as a sell out is buiilding among member states with the usual suspects involved. France, Italy, Greece, Poland, Ireland and Hungary are the countries most worried that the Commission is ready to sacrifice European agriculture for limited gains in areas such as services and industry. The UK and its liberal allies (Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania and Estonia) is backing the Commission's aim to get a deal in Geneva before the summer break.
Fischer Boel faces a real dilemma. She thinks that the EU still has 'some slight room for manoeuvre' within the negotiating mandate given it by the Council of Ministers, but an EU spokesperson admitted that the room for manoeuvre was 'not very large'.
It should also be remembered that there is a group of countries in which Japan and Switzerland are prominent that take an even harder line on market access issues. The Swiss have argued that if the idea of a tariff cap was dropped, there could be more flexibility in other areas of the negotiations. Canada has suggested that a cap could exist, but countries facing the biggest difficulty in complying could be given some leeway. This is a well intentioned idea but it is very vague in its present form and could drive a coach and horses through parts of any agreement.
Georgaphical indications
This remains a key issue for the EU because of its relationship to the strategy of developing high value added niche products in Europe. The EU and Switzerland, backed by accession states Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, together with Kenya (with its horticulture sector), Morocco and Thailand, argue that the higher level of protection awarded to wines and spirits should, in the future, be extended to all agricultural products.
The EU has already won the battle to stop marketers using terms such as 'champagne' or 'port' for products which are not made in the specific region to which they relate, although success there was partly the consequence of direct agreement between wine producers in the EU and US. However, products such as 'Parma ham' can still use the name provided that their packaging states they are produced outside of the EU.
Little progress is being made on the issue with opposition to the EU's stance coming from countries as diverse as the US, Brazil and Taiwan.
However, it will be far from a conclusive document with options and lots of brackets. Nevertheless, his efforts and those of Canada, which has cast itself in the role of mediator, may not be enough. The ministerial meeting at the end of the month may not produce the hoped for outline settlement. The parties are digging their heels in and taking quite entrenched positions.
EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has refused to confirm or deny rumours that the paper will be based on new figures given to Falconer by the Commission that go further than the EU's October proposal. Falconer's paper is, however, likely to be closer to the G-20 proposal than Brussels would want.
Opposition to what they would see as a sell out is buiilding among member states with the usual suspects involved. France, Italy, Greece, Poland, Ireland and Hungary are the countries most worried that the Commission is ready to sacrifice European agriculture for limited gains in areas such as services and industry. The UK and its liberal allies (Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania and Estonia) is backing the Commission's aim to get a deal in Geneva before the summer break.
Fischer Boel faces a real dilemma. She thinks that the EU still has 'some slight room for manoeuvre' within the negotiating mandate given it by the Council of Ministers, but an EU spokesperson admitted that the room for manoeuvre was 'not very large'.
It should also be remembered that there is a group of countries in which Japan and Switzerland are prominent that take an even harder line on market access issues. The Swiss have argued that if the idea of a tariff cap was dropped, there could be more flexibility in other areas of the negotiations. Canada has suggested that a cap could exist, but countries facing the biggest difficulty in complying could be given some leeway. This is a well intentioned idea but it is very vague in its present form and could drive a coach and horses through parts of any agreement.
Georgaphical indications
This remains a key issue for the EU because of its relationship to the strategy of developing high value added niche products in Europe. The EU and Switzerland, backed by accession states Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, together with Kenya (with its horticulture sector), Morocco and Thailand, argue that the higher level of protection awarded to wines and spirits should, in the future, be extended to all agricultural products.
The EU has already won the battle to stop marketers using terms such as 'champagne' or 'port' for products which are not made in the specific region to which they relate, although success there was partly the consequence of direct agreement between wine producers in the EU and US. However, products such as 'Parma ham' can still use the name provided that their packaging states they are produced outside of the EU.
Little progress is being made on the issue with opposition to the EU's stance coming from countries as diverse as the US, Brazil and Taiwan.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Toffs would be hit by farm subsidy cap
Some of Britain's wealthiest aristocrats would be hit by a plan to revive caps on farm subsidies, a proposal fought off by Britain and Germany in 2002. However, farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is proposing to revive the plan next year.
Farmsubsidy.org, a group that monitors CAP payments, calculated that the Commission's original proposal for a €300,000 (£207,000) cap would have hit 1,880 farms in the old EU 15. 1,430 were actually in Germany, many of them former collective farms in East Germany. There were 330 farms in Britain and just 30 in France. British landowners that would be hit include the Duke of Westminster and Duke of Marlborough.
The British government hit back at the proposal, claiming that blue blooded gentry were exponents of modern, large-scale efficient agriculture. A Defra spokesman said that the main objective of CAP reform was to make the EU more competitive in world agricultural markets. 'To achieve that it needs to reward farmers who are the most efficient', he said. 'There is no point in CAP subsidies propping up a failing market.'
Others would argue that the CAP is not there to help farms that are capable of being internationally competitive without large subsidies, but rather to promote rural development and help more marginal, peripheral farmers survive. One solution might be to taper subsidies above the €300,000 level.
In any case the policy might be difficult to implement. The legal definition of a 'farm' is far from clear. Jack Thurston of farmsubsidy.org warned that large farms might simply split up ownership to get round a cap.
Farmsubsidy.org, a group that monitors CAP payments, calculated that the Commission's original proposal for a €300,000 (£207,000) cap would have hit 1,880 farms in the old EU 15. 1,430 were actually in Germany, many of them former collective farms in East Germany. There were 330 farms in Britain and just 30 in France. British landowners that would be hit include the Duke of Westminster and Duke of Marlborough.
The British government hit back at the proposal, claiming that blue blooded gentry were exponents of modern, large-scale efficient agriculture. A Defra spokesman said that the main objective of CAP reform was to make the EU more competitive in world agricultural markets. 'To achieve that it needs to reward farmers who are the most efficient', he said. 'There is no point in CAP subsidies propping up a failing market.'
Others would argue that the CAP is not there to help farms that are capable of being internationally competitive without large subsidies, but rather to promote rural development and help more marginal, peripheral farmers survive. One solution might be to taper subsidies above the €300,000 level.
In any case the policy might be difficult to implement. The legal definition of a 'farm' is far from clear. Jack Thurston of farmsubsidy.org warned that large farms might simply split up ownership to get round a cap.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Prices rise as demand for food for fuel grows
Earlier this week I gave evidence to an informal session of the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. One issue that was raised was likely future trends in food prices, particularly after a further reform of the CAP.
However, long before that happens, mounting competition between fuel and food could drive up the cost of food. It would be a nasty shock for western consumers who have been used to falling real food prices for a long time, but the real hit would be on poorer people living in developing countries.
The US, the world's largest exporter of corn (maize) will convert as much or more of the grain into ethanol next year than it will sell abroad according to the United States Department of Agriculture. As petrol (gas) prices climb, farmers are diverting more of their harvest towards producing fuel rather than food or feedstock for animals.
Prices of corn have risen by close to 20 per cent as world grain stocks have fallen to their lowest level since the early 1970s. There has also been a substantial impact on world sugar prices which have doubled over the past year to a 25-year high. About 10 per cent of world sugar output is now used to produce ethanol. The figure is just 3 per cent for corn but it is rising fast.
Good world harvests over the past few years have concealed the impact of rising demand for ethanol. US energy legislation requires ethanol production to increase to 7.5bn gallons by 2012, requiring about 68 million tonnes of grain, more than the total grain harvest of Canada. Keith Colins, chief economist at USDA, noted, 'We are embarking on a profound change in our agricultural economy.'
However, long before that happens, mounting competition between fuel and food could drive up the cost of food. It would be a nasty shock for western consumers who have been used to falling real food prices for a long time, but the real hit would be on poorer people living in developing countries.
The US, the world's largest exporter of corn (maize) will convert as much or more of the grain into ethanol next year than it will sell abroad according to the United States Department of Agriculture. As petrol (gas) prices climb, farmers are diverting more of their harvest towards producing fuel rather than food or feedstock for animals.
Prices of corn have risen by close to 20 per cent as world grain stocks have fallen to their lowest level since the early 1970s. There has also been a substantial impact on world sugar prices which have doubled over the past year to a 25-year high. About 10 per cent of world sugar output is now used to produce ethanol. The figure is just 3 per cent for corn but it is rising fast.
Good world harvests over the past few years have concealed the impact of rising demand for ethanol. US energy legislation requires ethanol production to increase to 7.5bn gallons by 2012, requiring about 68 million tonnes of grain, more than the total grain harvest of Canada. Keith Colins, chief economist at USDA, noted, 'We are embarking on a profound change in our agricultural economy.'
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Milk quota rules may face court challenge
Given that there's an internal market, it's always been a mystery why milk quota can't be traded across national borders (although some member states restrict trading within their own borders). Some farmers don't have enough quota, others have quota they would like to sell at a decent price and use the capital for other activities. Above all, trading quota would prevent the structure of the dairy industry in the EU ossifying in a way that made it even less internationally competitive than it is already.
Now the milk quota rules may be subject to a case in the European Court of Justice based on the principle of the free movement and trade of people, goods and services across EU borders. In February British milk quota trader Ian Potter managed to transfer several million litres of quota from Britain to Italy. Italy is only 56 per cent self-sufficient in milk production and the high price of quota is forcing dairy farmers out of business. The British farmers got more than they would have done in the depressed British market.
Potter was encouraged in this course of action by the sale of 200,000 litres of quota from Hungary to Italy last year. Following the signing of the quota transfer contracts in the Potter deal, forms were lodged with the Italian authorities and the English Rural Payments Agency. The RPA duly rejected the transfers, but the Italian authorities were less definite, saying that they did not believe that the transfer requests that were being used quite conformed to the current EU law.
While the self-styled Italian Milk Warriors wait for their day in court, the Italian authorities appear to be prepared to recognise the transfers for the time being and will not seek to collect superlevy from the fifteen Italian farms involved.
Now the milk quota rules may be subject to a case in the European Court of Justice based on the principle of the free movement and trade of people, goods and services across EU borders. In February British milk quota trader Ian Potter managed to transfer several million litres of quota from Britain to Italy. Italy is only 56 per cent self-sufficient in milk production and the high price of quota is forcing dairy farmers out of business. The British farmers got more than they would have done in the depressed British market.
Potter was encouraged in this course of action by the sale of 200,000 litres of quota from Hungary to Italy last year. Following the signing of the quota transfer contracts in the Potter deal, forms were lodged with the Italian authorities and the English Rural Payments Agency. The RPA duly rejected the transfers, but the Italian authorities were less definite, saying that they did not believe that the transfer requests that were being used quite conformed to the current EU law.
While the self-styled Italian Milk Warriors wait for their day in court, the Italian authorities appear to be prepared to recognise the transfers for the time being and will not seek to collect superlevy from the fifteen Italian farms involved.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
EU may give ground on tariffs in Doha Round
The EU has indicated that it may give further ground on the crucial issue of tariffs in the Doha Round of trade negotiations which are at increasing risk of collapsing altogether. However, by doing so, they have encountered resistance from some member states, while American sources think that the likely offer is insufficient. Hence the EU finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place.
The EU's current offer is to cut farm tariffs by an average of 39 per cent, an offer substantially diluted by its insistence that 8 per cent of tariff lines should be designated as sensitive and hence exempted from the cuts. The G20 group of emerging countries led by Brazil has asked for a 54 per cent overall cut, while the US is holding out for 66 per cent.
Press reports in Brussels suggest that the EU might increase its average cut to around 50 per cent. A spokesman for EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said that a 54 per cent cut was out of the question, but did not deny the possibility of an offer in the region of 50 per cent. There has, however, been no indication of a reduction in the percentage of tariff lines to be designated as sensitive.
The EU is also insisting on a quid pro quo, in particular a much lower ceiling for industrial good tariffs than the 30 per cent proposed by India and Brazil. The EU and US have previously asked for 15 per cent, but may be prepared to raise that figure by a few percentage points.
However, France has made it clear that it does not want further reductions in farm tariffs or subsidies without substantial concessions elsewhere. Moreover, a spokesman for the Austrian agriculture ministry (Austria is the current president) declared that 'Member states would be very surprised should there be a new EU offer on the table. A majority of member states have grave concerns.'
The office of the USTR confirmed that the EU proposal would fall well short of American demands. The US view that the EU should agree cuts of between 54 and 66 per cent and designate just 1 per cent of tariff lines as sensitive. It is this latter issue that is the difficult one as the EU could make quite substantial cuts in high tariffs and still maintain effective protection. Charles Grassley, the Iowa senator who chairs the finance committee which has lead responsibility for trade policy in the Senate, has stated, 'If Plan B is a minimalist approach, then don't bring Plan B to me.'
There's a long way to go and time is slipping away.
The EU's current offer is to cut farm tariffs by an average of 39 per cent, an offer substantially diluted by its insistence that 8 per cent of tariff lines should be designated as sensitive and hence exempted from the cuts. The G20 group of emerging countries led by Brazil has asked for a 54 per cent overall cut, while the US is holding out for 66 per cent.
Press reports in Brussels suggest that the EU might increase its average cut to around 50 per cent. A spokesman for EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said that a 54 per cent cut was out of the question, but did not deny the possibility of an offer in the region of 50 per cent. There has, however, been no indication of a reduction in the percentage of tariff lines to be designated as sensitive.
The EU is also insisting on a quid pro quo, in particular a much lower ceiling for industrial good tariffs than the 30 per cent proposed by India and Brazil. The EU and US have previously asked for 15 per cent, but may be prepared to raise that figure by a few percentage points.
However, France has made it clear that it does not want further reductions in farm tariffs or subsidies without substantial concessions elsewhere. Moreover, a spokesman for the Austrian agriculture ministry (Austria is the current president) declared that 'Member states would be very surprised should there be a new EU offer on the table. A majority of member states have grave concerns.'
The office of the USTR confirmed that the EU proposal would fall well short of American demands. The US view that the EU should agree cuts of between 54 and 66 per cent and designate just 1 per cent of tariff lines as sensitive. It is this latter issue that is the difficult one as the EU could make quite substantial cuts in high tariffs and still maintain effective protection. Charles Grassley, the Iowa senator who chairs the finance committee which has lead responsibility for trade policy in the Senate, has stated, 'If Plan B is a minimalist approach, then don't bring Plan B to me.'
There's a long way to go and time is slipping away.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Grain mountain problem grows
The arable sector was the first commodity regime within the CAP to be reformed and it is often assumed that all the major problems are behind us, particularly with the abolition of rye intervention in the Fischler reforms, a product often grown just to sell into intervention.
Unfortunately, not all the problems have been solved. Support prices have been cut by around 45 per cent, but intervention stocks at the end of the last buying season were at their highest level for twelve years, 15,482 million tonnes and they look likely to rise again this year.
Much of current grain production in Eastern Europe is being grown with intervention in mind and doing anything about it is seen as a political hot potato as there is a reluctance to cause trouble with the new member states who are already feeling sore about other issues. Hungary has invested considerable sums of money in increasing grain storage capacity in anticipation of the increase in intervention stocks.
Franz Fischler was the first major figure to question whether one can really have a common policy in such a diverse agricultural region as Europe. A recent study for the Commission by consultants LMC argues that a single intervention price is a barrier to the flow of cereal from surplus regions, particularly landlocked regions like East-Central Europe, to the main grain deficit area, the Iberian peninsula.
The report also criticises set aside (the rate is 10 per cent in western Europe) as a blunt policy instrument which mainly benefits the United States. Set aside land is generally 30 per cent less productive than land not set aside (our local farmer has chosen his worst drained and smallest field) and producers in East-Central Europe are exempt until at least 2009. The US goverment gains because set aside pushes up world prices and hence cuts their outlays on deficiency payments.
The report has some sensible but radical solutions such as having only one intervention price based on common wheat, getting rid of set aside, limiting support payments to the grain barons and purchasing only breadmaking wheat and then just in Spain and Portugal.
Unfortunately these ideas would upset the powerful big grain producers in the EU and are hence unlikely to be adopted, so the grain mountain will just keep on growing.
Unfortunately, not all the problems have been solved. Support prices have been cut by around 45 per cent, but intervention stocks at the end of the last buying season were at their highest level for twelve years, 15,482 million tonnes and they look likely to rise again this year.
Much of current grain production in Eastern Europe is being grown with intervention in mind and doing anything about it is seen as a political hot potato as there is a reluctance to cause trouble with the new member states who are already feeling sore about other issues. Hungary has invested considerable sums of money in increasing grain storage capacity in anticipation of the increase in intervention stocks.
Franz Fischler was the first major figure to question whether one can really have a common policy in such a diverse agricultural region as Europe. A recent study for the Commission by consultants LMC argues that a single intervention price is a barrier to the flow of cereal from surplus regions, particularly landlocked regions like East-Central Europe, to the main grain deficit area, the Iberian peninsula.
The report also criticises set aside (the rate is 10 per cent in western Europe) as a blunt policy instrument which mainly benefits the United States. Set aside land is generally 30 per cent less productive than land not set aside (our local farmer has chosen his worst drained and smallest field) and producers in East-Central Europe are exempt until at least 2009. The US goverment gains because set aside pushes up world prices and hence cuts their outlays on deficiency payments.
The report has some sensible but radical solutions such as having only one intervention price based on common wheat, getting rid of set aside, limiting support payments to the grain barons and purchasing only breadmaking wheat and then just in Spain and Portugal.
Unfortunately these ideas would upset the powerful big grain producers in the EU and are hence unlikely to be adopted, so the grain mountain will just keep on growing.
EU isolated on sensitive products
The EU is looking increasingly isolated over the question of 'sensitive' products in the stuttering Doha Round, even though it may be prepared to give ground on its insistence that eight per cent of product lines should be deemed 'sensitive' and given special levels of protection. However, it is now the only major player insisting that tariff quota increases for such products be calculated as a percentage of imports rather than a percentage of domestic consumption.
The World Bank has pointed out that the designation of only 2 per cent of products in developed countries and 4 per cent in developing countries as sensitive would 'virtually eliminate the poverty impacts of a Doha agreement.'
Of course, what 'sensitive' means is 'politically sensitive in the EU and in particular in key member states'. Sugar is a very likely candidate for this treatment. However, the EU confectionery industry is arguing against further protection, pointing out that it is being undermined by imports of cheap confectionery from Asia. They argue that if sugar became a sensitive product it could cost them €1.2bn a year which would go into the pockets of the sugar industry.
As it so happens, the world price sugar is increasing anyway because of rising oil prices and the consequent diversion of greater quantities of sugar, in particular in major producer Brazil, for ethanol production.
The World Bank has pointed out that the designation of only 2 per cent of products in developed countries and 4 per cent in developing countries as sensitive would 'virtually eliminate the poverty impacts of a Doha agreement.'
Of course, what 'sensitive' means is 'politically sensitive in the EU and in particular in key member states'. Sugar is a very likely candidate for this treatment. However, the EU confectionery industry is arguing against further protection, pointing out that it is being undermined by imports of cheap confectionery from Asia. They argue that if sugar became a sensitive product it could cost them €1.2bn a year which would go into the pockets of the sugar industry.
As it so happens, the world price sugar is increasing anyway because of rising oil prices and the consequent diversion of greater quantities of sugar, in particular in major producer Brazil, for ethanol production.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Threat to farming in East Anglia
East Anglia is one of England's most productive and intensively farmed regions but it may not be producing arable crops in quantity for much longer if a report from the rural advisory service ADAS is to be believed.
Farming is the most important diffuse source of water pollution in the EU and tough new targets to reduce it have been set by the EU's framework directive on water quality. According to ADAS, the pollution from chemically intensive farming is proving highly difficult to control. Despite an overall reduction in the use of fertiliser and pesticide additives avross the region, levels of diffuse nutrient pollutants in UK waters are continuing to rise, posing a significant threat to acquatic wildlife and, in the long term, public water supplies.
The problem is particularly serious in East Anglia because of the relatively dry regional climate, which is gradually becoming drier and warmer because of global warming. This means that there is less rainwater available to dilute water contaminants.
ADAS concludes that the problem can only be addressed by significant changes in land use, including the removal of sizeable tracts of farmland from production. As much as half of the arable land in East Anglia could have to be converted into unfertilised restorative grassland or forest.
NFU sources are sceptical, however, that the problem is quite that serious, arguing that there is a get out clause that takes account of economic impact.
Farming is the most important diffuse source of water pollution in the EU and tough new targets to reduce it have been set by the EU's framework directive on water quality. According to ADAS, the pollution from chemically intensive farming is proving highly difficult to control. Despite an overall reduction in the use of fertiliser and pesticide additives avross the region, levels of diffuse nutrient pollutants in UK waters are continuing to rise, posing a significant threat to acquatic wildlife and, in the long term, public water supplies.
The problem is particularly serious in East Anglia because of the relatively dry regional climate, which is gradually becoming drier and warmer because of global warming. This means that there is less rainwater available to dilute water contaminants.
ADAS concludes that the problem can only be addressed by significant changes in land use, including the removal of sizeable tracts of farmland from production. As much as half of the arable land in East Anglia could have to be converted into unfertilised restorative grassland or forest.
NFU sources are sceptical, however, that the problem is quite that serious, arguing that there is a get out clause that takes account of economic impact.
Doha prospects look bleak
The prospects for progress in the Doha Round trade talks are looking increasingly bleak with some analysts doubting whether a successful conclusion will be possible. The political shakeup in the Bush administration does not help. USTR Rob Portman will be leaving his job to head up Bush's budget team.
Portman was brought in by Bush 11 months ago to negotiate a successful outcome to the Doha Round. His replacement is being interpreted by some as a sign of reduced US interest in the round. His replacement, the current deputy Susan Schwab, is regarded as a knowledgeable trade lawyer but as lacking the political clout of her predecessor who was well connected in Congress.
There is concern about how far Europe can negotiate effectively given the weakness of the new government in Italy and the continuing political upheaval and uncertainty in France which faces presidential elections next year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be required to take a leadership role.
It is now clear that the April 30 for agreeing modalities in agriculture (i.e., hard numbers) which was set at the Hong Kong ministerial will now be missed. The only area where progress has been made is on the Blue Box where there is broad agreement that the figure at which spending would be capped could be reduced from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent of domestic spending. But there is still an argument about whether this discipline can be made effective, e.g., by introducing commodity specific disciplines.
Portman was brought in by Bush 11 months ago to negotiate a successful outcome to the Doha Round. His replacement is being interpreted by some as a sign of reduced US interest in the round. His replacement, the current deputy Susan Schwab, is regarded as a knowledgeable trade lawyer but as lacking the political clout of her predecessor who was well connected in Congress.
There is concern about how far Europe can negotiate effectively given the weakness of the new government in Italy and the continuing political upheaval and uncertainty in France which faces presidential elections next year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be required to take a leadership role.
It is now clear that the April 30 for agreeing modalities in agriculture (i.e., hard numbers) which was set at the Hong Kong ministerial will now be missed. The only area where progress has been made is on the Blue Box where there is broad agreement that the figure at which spending would be capped could be reduced from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent of domestic spending. But there is still an argument about whether this discipline can be made effective, e.g., by introducing commodity specific disciplines.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Irish farming faces big shake up
Irish farm minister Mary Coughlan
One sign of the onset of big changes in European farming is a radical shake up in Irish farm policy. Ireland has generally been a staunch ally of France on CAP issues, while constituency politics reinforced by the STV voting system has ensured that farm interests have been paid due regard by policy makers.
However, farm minister Mary Coughlan has launched a new agri-food policy. She said that policy needed to reflect the reality of decoupled payments, different consumer lifestyles and increasing competition arising from a new WTO deal. Competitiveness, she said, was a life and death issue for farms and food firms.
Her message has been reinforced by the Assistant Secretary General of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Tony Burke. He warned in a speech in London that Ireland would have to be flexible in facing up to the shock of lower producer prices and increased imports in the years to come. 'Agriculture has to become a modern, hi-tech, consumer-drive process', he declared. In a country that produces nine times as much beef as it needs, 12,000 tonnes were imported from South America last year, reflecting the growth of fierce competition on the world market.
The first consequence of the new policy has been the establishment of a commercial milk quota exchange. Coughlan argued that a new, market-led approach to quota transfer was required to put the dairy sector on a competitive footing for the future. At present less than 4% of the milk produced in Ireland is restructured annually and there is little incentive to transfer quota.
However, traditional rural lobby, the Irish Creamery Suppliers' Association, described the move as 'rash' and 'utter madness'. Which probably means that Coughlan has got it about right.
France reasserts CAP leadership
France has sort to reassert its traditional leadership of European agricultural policy with a paper presented to the latest Farm Council setting out a vision for the future of the CAP. The paper can be seen as a riposte to the liberal agenda set out by Britain in a paper of its own last November.
The French paper received a far more favourable reception than that from Britain. Only Denmark, Sweden, Latvia and Britain spoke out against the French paper which was endorsed by Germany, Italy and Spain among other countries. A centrepiece of the paper was a call to shore up the incomes of farmers in the face of increasingly tough markets.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Fischer Boel's head of cabinet, Poul Skytte Christopherssen implicitly criticised Britain by stating that 'complex questions about the future of agricultural policy are not boiled down to the single issue of money.' However, he insisted that his boss 'has always been a reformer. She remains, and will remain, a reformer.' Maybe. But she is no Franz Fischler in terms of having a comprehensive vision for the overhaul of the CAP.
The French paper received a far more favourable reception than that from Britain. Only Denmark, Sweden, Latvia and Britain spoke out against the French paper which was endorsed by Germany, Italy and Spain among other countries. A centrepiece of the paper was a call to shore up the incomes of farmers in the face of increasingly tough markets.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Fischer Boel's head of cabinet, Poul Skytte Christopherssen implicitly criticised Britain by stating that 'complex questions about the future of agricultural policy are not boiled down to the single issue of money.' However, he insisted that his boss 'has always been a reformer. She remains, and will remain, a reformer.' Maybe. But she is no Franz Fischler in terms of having a comprehensive vision for the overhaul of the CAP.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Now Arla enrages Danes in cartoons row
Danish dairy giant Arla has been trying to placate consumers in the Middle East insulted by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. But in trying to build bridges with Islam it has upset some consumers in Denmark.
Arla placed adverts in 25 Middle Eastern newspapers rejecting the widely held Danish view that the publication of the drawings was defensible as freedom of expression and should not be apologised for. The action was praised by a meeting of influential Islamic sholars in Bahrain. The conference decided to open talks with the company which could pave the way for an end to a boycott that Arla says is likely to cost it €53.6m in lost sales this year.
Back in Denmark, howver, some domestic consumers are outraged at what they see as an abandonment of Danish values, arguing that Arla's need to make money has been put before freedom of expression. 'Some of our consumers are furious', admitted an Arla spokesman. 'We don't often get this many consumer responses about the same issue within a few days.'
Arla placed adverts in 25 Middle Eastern newspapers rejecting the widely held Danish view that the publication of the drawings was defensible as freedom of expression and should not be apologised for. The action was praised by a meeting of influential Islamic sholars in Bahrain. The conference decided to open talks with the company which could pave the way for an end to a boycott that Arla says is likely to cost it €53.6m in lost sales this year.
Back in Denmark, howver, some domestic consumers are outraged at what they see as an abandonment of Danish values, arguing that Arla's need to make money has been put before freedom of expression. 'Some of our consumers are furious', admitted an Arla spokesman. 'We don't often get this many consumer responses about the same issue within a few days.'
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Tescophobia
This term will not mean much to the preponderantly international readership of this blog, so some explanation is necessary. Britain has a highly concentrated grocery retail sector with some 30% of the market held by one firm, Tesco (which has some international presence in Eastern Europe, Thailand etc.) The next two biggest players in terms of market share are Sainsbury's and Asda which is owned by Wal-Mart.
Some versions of the theory of monopoly would argue that 30% comes close to being a dominant position and the UK's Competition Commission has launched yet another investigation into the retail grocery market.
Tesco used to be known as the 'pile it high and sell it cheap' store in comparison to the more up market Sainsbury's, but it has cleverly positioned itself in mid-market, overtaking the faltering (although now recovering) Sainsbury's in the process. Marks and Spencers and Waitrose (part of the John Lewis Partnership) tend to be more up market, the Co-op appeals to the ethical consumer, while Asda and Morrisons compete on price.
A number of charges are laid against Tesco and the other big supermarkets. One is that they use their market dominant position to squeeze the margins offered to processors and farmers, while continually requiring higher quality standards. However, their suppliers are understandably unwilling to come forward with evidence of demands for a range of additional payments, e.g., for store openings.
Another charge, and one that has led to the current investigation, is that by opening smaller outlets in town centres (rather than their usual edge of town locations) they are driving out of business convenience (or what Americans call 'mom and pop') stores. This has received a receptive hearing from the media and legislators, although in my experience many of these stores offer high prices and poor service. However, never let market forces get in the way of an emotive argument.
I have to confess that we do our shopping at Tesco's every week. There are those who argue that it would be cheaper if one went to a succession of small shops and that one would also get better quality produce. This may be the case, but the only specialist shop we use regularly is a fishmonger. What the critics forget is the time costs that specialist shopping entails. In today's society where many people are cash rich and time poor, that is a relevant consideration.
Government has also been very reluctant to act against the supermarkets because they bring benefits to consumers by holding down prices through competition and the use of their market position. This helps to restrain inflation and particularly benefits a key New Labour constituency, working people with families.
Tescophobia is rife among the 'chattering classes', i.e., the articulate and well educated members of the class with access to the media. But, as Tesco themselves say, what shoppers do is more important than what they say and they continue to pour through the doors of the supermarkets.
Where Tesco may be vulnerable to a competition enquiry is its possession of 'land banks' of attractive retail sites which it is alleged it hoards to keep rivals out of the market. Sometimes land is very scarce in prime locations, however. Gerrards Cross is one of the richest communities in England. The only place Tesco could find to build a store was over the railway line. They built a tunnel over it which then collapsed, fortunately with no trains going through it.
Supermarkets like Tesco are trying to expand their global reach, while France has relaxed laws designed to protect small shops, so these are not purely British issues.
Globalisation and concentration in retailing is likely to be a continuing trend.
Some versions of the theory of monopoly would argue that 30% comes close to being a dominant position and the UK's Competition Commission has launched yet another investigation into the retail grocery market.
Tesco used to be known as the 'pile it high and sell it cheap' store in comparison to the more up market Sainsbury's, but it has cleverly positioned itself in mid-market, overtaking the faltering (although now recovering) Sainsbury's in the process. Marks and Spencers and Waitrose (part of the John Lewis Partnership) tend to be more up market, the Co-op appeals to the ethical consumer, while Asda and Morrisons compete on price.
A number of charges are laid against Tesco and the other big supermarkets. One is that they use their market dominant position to squeeze the margins offered to processors and farmers, while continually requiring higher quality standards. However, their suppliers are understandably unwilling to come forward with evidence of demands for a range of additional payments, e.g., for store openings.
Another charge, and one that has led to the current investigation, is that by opening smaller outlets in town centres (rather than their usual edge of town locations) they are driving out of business convenience (or what Americans call 'mom and pop') stores. This has received a receptive hearing from the media and legislators, although in my experience many of these stores offer high prices and poor service. However, never let market forces get in the way of an emotive argument.
I have to confess that we do our shopping at Tesco's every week. There are those who argue that it would be cheaper if one went to a succession of small shops and that one would also get better quality produce. This may be the case, but the only specialist shop we use regularly is a fishmonger. What the critics forget is the time costs that specialist shopping entails. In today's society where many people are cash rich and time poor, that is a relevant consideration.
Government has also been very reluctant to act against the supermarkets because they bring benefits to consumers by holding down prices through competition and the use of their market position. This helps to restrain inflation and particularly benefits a key New Labour constituency, working people with families.
Tescophobia is rife among the 'chattering classes', i.e., the articulate and well educated members of the class with access to the media. But, as Tesco themselves say, what shoppers do is more important than what they say and they continue to pour through the doors of the supermarkets.
Where Tesco may be vulnerable to a competition enquiry is its possession of 'land banks' of attractive retail sites which it is alleged it hoards to keep rivals out of the market. Sometimes land is very scarce in prime locations, however. Gerrards Cross is one of the richest communities in England. The only place Tesco could find to build a store was over the railway line. They built a tunnel over it which then collapsed, fortunately with no trains going through it.
Supermarkets like Tesco are trying to expand their global reach, while France has relaxed laws designed to protect small shops, so these are not purely British issues.
Globalisation and concentration in retailing is likely to be a continuing trend.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Big shakeup faces EU dairy sector
Shoppers visiting Asda (Wal-Mart owned) stores in the UK have been greeted by dairy farmers complaining about the low prices they receive for their milk and the margin claimed by the processors and retailers.
Some dairy farmers are certainly finding it hard to make a profit, but bleaker times may be ahead for the sector across the European Union. If the planned phase out of export subsidies goes ahead, let alone tariff reductions, dairying will be hard hit. It depends to a large degree to the export of surplus product on to the world market under written by EU subsidies.
The EU is closely behind the climatically favoured Kiwis as the world's leading exporter of butter and skimmed milk powder. However, whereas New Zealand's success reflects its lush pastures and absence of really cold weather in most of the country, the EU spends close to €1 billion a year to help its exports on the world market. When export subsidies go 11% of total EU butter production and 18% of skimmed milk powder will have to be absorbed on the domestic market.
When the current reform programme is completed in July 2007 the EU butter intervention price will stand at €2463 per tonne. Calculating the world market price is notoriously difficult because in practice there is no one world price, but Dairy Markets estimate it at around €1570 to €1650 per tonne. The world market price could well go up, particularly if dairy production falls in Europe, but not to an extent that would close a gap of €800 a tonne or more.
There may be particular implications for the UK market. Dairy UK chairman David Curry has warned that 'There is a danger that if the export route is closed, big volumes of Irish milk will be seeking a home on the British market at heavily discounted prices.'
All this helps to explain why the EU is so keen to keep as many tariff lines as possible within the 'sensitive' products designation in the Doha Round talks and also to ensure that any tariff cuts for sensitive products are as low as possible. What the EU wants is to limit the amount of trade in the sector while retaining as high a level of domestic support as possible. One reason it has painted itself into a corner is the decision to retain dairy quotas, an artificial market restraint if there ever was one, until the middle of the next decade.
However, other products like beef and poultry meat also have claims for 'sensitive' treatment, so dairying is unlikely to get all the protection it wants. Which is perhaps why it is the most efficient and innovative dairy farmers in the UK are getting out of the business and employing their capital where it can earn a better return. Those who cannot think of any alternative activity tend to stay on and try to eke out a living. They are the farmers likely to be found demonstrating at Asda (although some of their fellow farmers have argued that they should be dropped as Asda suppliers). The irrationality of exit patterns could be regarded as a market failure.
Some dairy farmers are certainly finding it hard to make a profit, but bleaker times may be ahead for the sector across the European Union. If the planned phase out of export subsidies goes ahead, let alone tariff reductions, dairying will be hard hit. It depends to a large degree to the export of surplus product on to the world market under written by EU subsidies.
The EU is closely behind the climatically favoured Kiwis as the world's leading exporter of butter and skimmed milk powder. However, whereas New Zealand's success reflects its lush pastures and absence of really cold weather in most of the country, the EU spends close to €1 billion a year to help its exports on the world market. When export subsidies go 11% of total EU butter production and 18% of skimmed milk powder will have to be absorbed on the domestic market.
When the current reform programme is completed in July 2007 the EU butter intervention price will stand at €2463 per tonne. Calculating the world market price is notoriously difficult because in practice there is no one world price, but Dairy Markets estimate it at around €1570 to €1650 per tonne. The world market price could well go up, particularly if dairy production falls in Europe, but not to an extent that would close a gap of €800 a tonne or more.
There may be particular implications for the UK market. Dairy UK chairman David Curry has warned that 'There is a danger that if the export route is closed, big volumes of Irish milk will be seeking a home on the British market at heavily discounted prices.'
All this helps to explain why the EU is so keen to keep as many tariff lines as possible within the 'sensitive' products designation in the Doha Round talks and also to ensure that any tariff cuts for sensitive products are as low as possible. What the EU wants is to limit the amount of trade in the sector while retaining as high a level of domestic support as possible. One reason it has painted itself into a corner is the decision to retain dairy quotas, an artificial market restraint if there ever was one, until the middle of the next decade.
However, other products like beef and poultry meat also have claims for 'sensitive' treatment, so dairying is unlikely to get all the protection it wants. Which is perhaps why it is the most efficient and innovative dairy farmers in the UK are getting out of the business and employing their capital where it can earn a better return. Those who cannot think of any alternative activity tend to stay on and try to eke out a living. They are the farmers likely to be found demonstrating at Asda (although some of their fellow farmers have argued that they should be dropped as Asda suppliers). The irrationality of exit patterns could be regarded as a market failure.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Be very, very afraid
David Richardson is an East Anglian arable farmer who has a regular column in Farmers Weekly. I met him once and he is a nice guy. But he is also an eloquent exponent of the notion that farmers are hard done by and should continue to receive substantial subsidies from a grateful population. One of his regular arguments is that the food security arguments used when the common market was founded are just as valid today, only now the threat comes from terrorists rather than the Soviet Union. Exactly what terrorist incident would disrupt the food supply chain on a massive scale is never quite explained.
So one has to be very worried when Richardson, who is usually whingeing about the failure of Defra to 'back' farmers, praises a speech by an EU commissioner. Even more so when the commissioner in question is Peter Mandelson who has recently been showing his protectionist colours by using anti-dumping legislation to stop European consumers enjoying cheap shoes from China. 'Is Mandelson our mate?' is the heading on Richardson's column who is depicted with the kind of stick that was once used for poking pigs and the kind of cloth cap that only elderly farmers wear.
Well, is Mandy the farmers' new friend? What he did tell the National Farmers' Union annual conference was that the CAP is not obsolete and that agriculture as a sector cannot be treated like all others. Why not? Because 'It is too intimately connected to wider issues such as the environment, food security and the future of the countryside.' The reference to food security was particularly worrying as it can be used as a portmenteau justification for limitless subsidies, whereas one can attempt some valuation of beneficial externalities such as cherished landscapes.
The CAP has rightly been under the cosh for its impact on the Global South in recent years, but Mandy gave it large in the manner of his famous 'I am not a quitter' speech to all those softies with a misplaced concern about poor farmers. 'I am not going to be swayed by lazy political correctness into giving ground in agriculture simply because this will please a vociferous lobby that has misunderstood what is really need to tackle word poverty.' So Oxfam and all the other Global South NGOs can tear up their research right now.
Where he did encourage reformers was his declaration that it didn't make sense to spend over 40% of the Community budget on agriculture. He also recognised the reality that China was becoming the industrial workshop of the world, Brazil its most competitive supplier of bulk commodities and India a great service provider. The future for Europe was in providing top quality, knowledge intensive, value added food among other goods and services. In that he is right and David Richardson with his calls for shoring up self-sufficiency and cutting imports is wrong. The global food economy is here, there is plenty of room for high quality local products (backed up by a system of Geographical Indications), but this is time to cut back agricultural protectionism not to reinforce it. There is still everything to play for in the Doha Round.
So one has to be very worried when Richardson, who is usually whingeing about the failure of Defra to 'back' farmers, praises a speech by an EU commissioner. Even more so when the commissioner in question is Peter Mandelson who has recently been showing his protectionist colours by using anti-dumping legislation to stop European consumers enjoying cheap shoes from China. 'Is Mandelson our mate?' is the heading on Richardson's column who is depicted with the kind of stick that was once used for poking pigs and the kind of cloth cap that only elderly farmers wear.
Well, is Mandy the farmers' new friend? What he did tell the National Farmers' Union annual conference was that the CAP is not obsolete and that agriculture as a sector cannot be treated like all others. Why not? Because 'It is too intimately connected to wider issues such as the environment, food security and the future of the countryside.' The reference to food security was particularly worrying as it can be used as a portmenteau justification for limitless subsidies, whereas one can attempt some valuation of beneficial externalities such as cherished landscapes.
The CAP has rightly been under the cosh for its impact on the Global South in recent years, but Mandy gave it large in the manner of his famous 'I am not a quitter' speech to all those softies with a misplaced concern about poor farmers. 'I am not going to be swayed by lazy political correctness into giving ground in agriculture simply because this will please a vociferous lobby that has misunderstood what is really need to tackle word poverty.' So Oxfam and all the other Global South NGOs can tear up their research right now.
Where he did encourage reformers was his declaration that it didn't make sense to spend over 40% of the Community budget on agriculture. He also recognised the reality that China was becoming the industrial workshop of the world, Brazil its most competitive supplier of bulk commodities and India a great service provider. The future for Europe was in providing top quality, knowledge intensive, value added food among other goods and services. In that he is right and David Richardson with his calls for shoring up self-sufficiency and cutting imports is wrong. The global food economy is here, there is plenty of room for high quality local products (backed up by a system of Geographical Indications), but this is time to cut back agricultural protectionism not to reinforce it. There is still everything to play for in the Doha Round.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Don't panic say Euro leaders as bird flu hits
EU farm and health bosses have called on European consumers not to panic as avian flu hit an indoor turkey farm in France despite efforts to prevent its spread from wild birds. The H5 virus is certainly not tranmissable in poultry cooked at over 70 degrees C., but consumer panic is difficult to stop and poultry sales are already estimated to be 30% down in France. Large quantities of French meat have been diverted to the UK wholesale market. There has been a 20% fall in Germany, but there has been a worse hit in Italy where retailers have experienced a 70% drop in consumption. In the UK Tesco reported that there had been no decline in demand for eggs and poultry meat with the message getting through that this is not a food safety issue.
So far the only humans who have caught the virus have been in close contact with flocks not kept in modern conditions. However, the influenza virus is susceptible to mutation and it is at least possible that the avian flu could combine with human strains to create a new pandemic (an influenza pandemic is overdue in any case). Stocking vaccine might be of little help as it might not be able to counteract a new version.
Additional deaths in the UK in the event of a pandemic are estimated at least 50,000 and there would be considerable economic disruption from people failing to report for work. The food supply chain would certainly be affected. The fact of the matter is that just because we are in the 21st century there is no technological silver bullet that can stop a flu pandemic, any more than anyone could stop the pandemic that killed my grandmother at the end of the First World War.
As far as animal health is concerned, the EU has allowed France and Germany to vaccinate poultry. The decision marks the first significant application of the EU's new policy, adopted after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, of allowing selective vaccination of farm animals despite the possible impact on trade. The EU's view is that because bird flu is a global problem vaccination is unlikely to hit trade.
However, opinion on the vaccination issue is divided. Countries such as Germany believe that the advantages are outweighed by the costs (around €0.2 to €0.3 on a commercial farm) and the fear that the symptoms of the virus can simply be masked rather than eliminated.
In Britain Defra's view is that the vaccines currently available are slow to work and do not stop infected birds transmitting the disease to others. Fred Landeg, deputy chief veterinary officer at DEFRA said, 'Though these vaccines protect against the disease, they will not prevent birds from becoming infected and shedding virus. It can take up to three weeks to develop immunity, and some poultry require two doses.'
So far the only humans who have caught the virus have been in close contact with flocks not kept in modern conditions. However, the influenza virus is susceptible to mutation and it is at least possible that the avian flu could combine with human strains to create a new pandemic (an influenza pandemic is overdue in any case). Stocking vaccine might be of little help as it might not be able to counteract a new version.
Additional deaths in the UK in the event of a pandemic are estimated at least 50,000 and there would be considerable economic disruption from people failing to report for work. The food supply chain would certainly be affected. The fact of the matter is that just because we are in the 21st century there is no technological silver bullet that can stop a flu pandemic, any more than anyone could stop the pandemic that killed my grandmother at the end of the First World War.
As far as animal health is concerned, the EU has allowed France and Germany to vaccinate poultry. The decision marks the first significant application of the EU's new policy, adopted after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, of allowing selective vaccination of farm animals despite the possible impact on trade. The EU's view is that because bird flu is a global problem vaccination is unlikely to hit trade.
However, opinion on the vaccination issue is divided. Countries such as Germany believe that the advantages are outweighed by the costs (around €0.2 to €0.3 on a commercial farm) and the fear that the symptoms of the virus can simply be masked rather than eliminated.
In Britain Defra's view is that the vaccines currently available are slow to work and do not stop infected birds transmitting the disease to others. Fred Landeg, deputy chief veterinary officer at DEFRA said, 'Though these vaccines protect against the disease, they will not prevent birds from becoming infected and shedding virus. It can take up to three weeks to develop immunity, and some poultry require two doses.'
Monday, February 06, 2006
Danish dairy firm hit by cartoons row
Trade between Denmark and the Middle East may take years to recover from the row resulting from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. This has sparked a boycott of Arla's products in Muslim countries.
The boycott is reported to have cost Arla Foods £1 million a day and by the end of last week it was reported to have lost between £40m and £50m. Some 170 employees across Denmark have been sent home due to the impact of reduced sales. Arla Foods is also a big player in the UK dairy market, but no effects have reported there.
The widespread boycott of Danish goods by Muslim consumers led to an almost complete halt in sales in the region leading Arla to suspend production at its Saudi Arabian plant. Arla products have been removed from shelves completely in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The company describes the situation as 'critical' in Yemen, Egypt and Lebanon and notes that there have been demonstrations in Algeria.
Arla's executive director Finn Hansen said it would take a long time for the Danish dairy giant to re-establish the business and good trading relations it had in the Middle East which was its main market outside Europe. Establishing a presence in such markets is an essential part of the EU dairy industry's strategy to survive the phasing out of export subsidies and likely tariff reductions as a result of eventual agreement in the Doha Round.
The boycott is reported to have cost Arla Foods £1 million a day and by the end of last week it was reported to have lost between £40m and £50m. Some 170 employees across Denmark have been sent home due to the impact of reduced sales. Arla Foods is also a big player in the UK dairy market, but no effects have reported there.
The widespread boycott of Danish goods by Muslim consumers led to an almost complete halt in sales in the region leading Arla to suspend production at its Saudi Arabian plant. Arla products have been removed from shelves completely in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The company describes the situation as 'critical' in Yemen, Egypt and Lebanon and notes that there have been demonstrations in Algeria.
Arla's executive director Finn Hansen said it would take a long time for the Danish dairy giant to re-establish the business and good trading relations it had in the Middle East which was its main market outside Europe. Establishing a presence in such markets is an essential part of the EU dairy industry's strategy to survive the phasing out of export subsidies and likely tariff reductions as a result of eventual agreement in the Doha Round.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Grain mountain growing
There is a common assumption that intervention mountains are a thing of the past. This is not necessarily the case. The EU's grain mountain is growing fast and looks like getting bigger.
It is now at a highest level for nearly a decade. At the start of the 2004/5 there were just 5mt in store. By the start of the 2005/6 marketing year this had trebled to 15.48mt. By mid-January, assuming that all grain submitted into intervention, the potential total was 18.6mt. And with nearly five months of the buying in season left, the stockpile could rise to 20mt or more by the end of May.
The problem is concentrated primarily in five countries in the middle of Europe - Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These five countries accounted for 93 per cent of the nearly 7mt offered in intervention between November and mid-January.
These countries have experienced two strong successive grain harvests? One might think that they could have sold the grain to drought hit Spain, but transport costs by road were roo high. The rationalisation of the region's pig and poultry markets prior to EU accession has limited the size of the feed market. And to the east, competition from the main Black Sea producers is fiercer than ever before.
So those, like the Austrian presidency, who are calling for a period of stability in CAP reform should remember that many of the old problems are still with us.
It is now at a highest level for nearly a decade. At the start of the 2004/5 there were just 5mt in store. By the start of the 2005/6 marketing year this had trebled to 15.48mt. By mid-January, assuming that all grain submitted into intervention, the potential total was 18.6mt. And with nearly five months of the buying in season left, the stockpile could rise to 20mt or more by the end of May.
The problem is concentrated primarily in five countries in the middle of Europe - Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These five countries accounted for 93 per cent of the nearly 7mt offered in intervention between November and mid-January.
These countries have experienced two strong successive grain harvests? One might think that they could have sold the grain to drought hit Spain, but transport costs by road were roo high. The rationalisation of the region's pig and poultry markets prior to EU accession has limited the size of the feed market. And to the east, competition from the main Black Sea producers is fiercer than ever before.
So those, like the Austrian presidency, who are calling for a period of stability in CAP reform should remember that many of the old problems are still with us.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
2014 could be zero hour
The year 2014 could be zero hour for a new look CAP argues Agra Europe. By then export subsidies should have been phased out and the current financial perspectives agreement will have expired.
The EU budget deal does contain provision for a wide ranging review of the CAP in 2008/9, but no timetable for reform is built into it. France has effectively locked the CAP into current spending patterns with the deal it secured in 2002. What has changed, however, is that spending on new member states Romania and Bulgaria will have to be accommodated within the budget ceiling originally agreed for 25 member states.
Meanwhile Commissioner Fischer Boel has revived the idea of a €300,000 limit per farming enterprise (what actually constitues a 'farm' is not easy to define) on CAP payments for discussion in the 2008/9 review. This is like a red rag to a bull with the UK who scuppered the idea along with Germany in the 2002 negotiations. The UK's argument was that such a ceiling would penalise 'efficient' farmers, but its real concern was that it would hit the many large-scale farmers in Britain, including members of the aristocracy and the royal family.
The EU budget deal does contain provision for a wide ranging review of the CAP in 2008/9, but no timetable for reform is built into it. France has effectively locked the CAP into current spending patterns with the deal it secured in 2002. What has changed, however, is that spending on new member states Romania and Bulgaria will have to be accommodated within the budget ceiling originally agreed for 25 member states.
Meanwhile Commissioner Fischer Boel has revived the idea of a €300,000 limit per farming enterprise (what actually constitues a 'farm' is not easy to define) on CAP payments for discussion in the 2008/9 review. This is like a red rag to a bull with the UK who scuppered the idea along with Germany in the 2002 negotiations. The UK's argument was that such a ceiling would penalise 'efficient' farmers, but its real concern was that it would hit the many large-scale farmers in Britain, including members of the aristocracy and the royal family.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Analysis not matched by outcome
The UK Government produced a good critique of the CAP as part of its efforts to secure further reform in the EU budget negotitations. Unfortunately, it had little impact on the outcome. As The Economist has commented, 'Despite the promised review in 2098, the deal puts off any further serious reform of the CAP until 2013.'
Nevertheless, the key arguments are worth reproducing. The paper makes the key point that the reforms that have taken place so far are only partial for three main reasons:
1. A mass of market intervention and support measures remain in place
2. High tariffs, production quotas, set-aside, export subsidies (albeit now to be phased out by 2013), intervention purchase and other mechanisms distort markets
3. To many options remain for member states to continue with coupled direct production-linked payment schemes, albeit reduced in scale
The paper sees the capitalisation of subsidy and support values into the price of land as a major obstacle to change. Much of the money paid out doesn't benefit farmers because of capitalisation of land values and the charges of suppliers of other inputs. In France, for example, where much of the land is owned by non-farmers, the actual value of susbidies remaining with farmers is as low as 20 per cent of the original payment.
The paper also has a welcomed pop at the much repeated and rarely criticised argument about the environmental impact of 'food miles'. Research commissioned by Defra shows that the transport of imported agricultural produce by sea accounts for only 1.5 per cent of the total external costs associated with food transport to and within the UK. This is mainly because fewer long journeys of large ships replace many short journeys by HGVs. One might add that much of the global warming effect results from trips made by car to out-of-town supermarkets.
The paper argues that the challenge for the EU is to ensure that agriculture is treated no differently from other sectors of the economy. This is where there is a fundamental division between the UK and its opponents who argue that the CAP produces food security benefits, high quality food, preserves cherished landscape and maintains the fabric of rural society.
There is, perhaps, a tension here with the UK government's stated objective of an agriculture that is 'socially responsive to the needs of local communities.' That is where rural development policy comes in, but it has taken a hit under the budget agreement.
Nevertheless, the key arguments are worth reproducing. The paper makes the key point that the reforms that have taken place so far are only partial for three main reasons:
1. A mass of market intervention and support measures remain in place
2. High tariffs, production quotas, set-aside, export subsidies (albeit now to be phased out by 2013), intervention purchase and other mechanisms distort markets
3. To many options remain for member states to continue with coupled direct production-linked payment schemes, albeit reduced in scale
The paper sees the capitalisation of subsidy and support values into the price of land as a major obstacle to change. Much of the money paid out doesn't benefit farmers because of capitalisation of land values and the charges of suppliers of other inputs. In France, for example, where much of the land is owned by non-farmers, the actual value of susbidies remaining with farmers is as low as 20 per cent of the original payment.
The paper also has a welcomed pop at the much repeated and rarely criticised argument about the environmental impact of 'food miles'. Research commissioned by Defra shows that the transport of imported agricultural produce by sea accounts for only 1.5 per cent of the total external costs associated with food transport to and within the UK. This is mainly because fewer long journeys of large ships replace many short journeys by HGVs. One might add that much of the global warming effect results from trips made by car to out-of-town supermarkets.
The paper argues that the challenge for the EU is to ensure that agriculture is treated no differently from other sectors of the economy. This is where there is a fundamental division between the UK and its opponents who argue that the CAP produces food security benefits, high quality food, preserves cherished landscape and maintains the fabric of rural society.
There is, perhaps, a tension here with the UK government's stated objective of an agriculture that is 'socially responsive to the needs of local communities.' That is where rural development policy comes in, but it has taken a hit under the budget agreement.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Big farms still take biggest share of the loot
A small handful of big farms received a big proportion of EU direct aid payments under the old CAP regime according to recently released Commisson figures. Of the €27.2 billion in subsidies paid out to some 5.2 million EU farmers in 2002, over €1 billion was handed out to just 1,140 large farms. And each of these fortunate recipients received over €500,000 each.
Germany had the highest number of farms receiving payments of over €0.5 million each with 960 farmers receiving €0.9 billion between them. This reflects the survival in private hands of what were big collective farms in the former East Germany. At the other end of the scale, well over half the farms receiving CAP aid in 2002 (some 2.9 million) received annual aid cheques of less than €1,250. Of these farms, 2.3 million were situtaed in either Italy, Greece or Spain.
The largest overall recipient of direct aid continued to be France which received €6.9 billion in 2002. Of this amount, €2.6 million was shared out between fewer than ten of the biggest farms. It is sometimes forgotten that France is not a land of peasants or even medium-sized family farms, but has some very big agribusinesses.
We have heard of a new webiste that aims to give detailed information about the recipients of EU farms subsidies. Visit Subsidies .
Germany had the highest number of farms receiving payments of over €0.5 million each with 960 farmers receiving €0.9 billion between them. This reflects the survival in private hands of what were big collective farms in the former East Germany. At the other end of the scale, well over half the farms receiving CAP aid in 2002 (some 2.9 million) received annual aid cheques of less than €1,250. Of these farms, 2.3 million were situtaed in either Italy, Greece or Spain.
The largest overall recipient of direct aid continued to be France which received €6.9 billion in 2002. Of this amount, €2.6 million was shared out between fewer than ten of the biggest farms. It is sometimes forgotten that France is not a land of peasants or even medium-sized family farms, but has some very big agribusinesses.
We have heard of a new webiste that aims to give detailed information about the recipients of EU farms subsidies. Visit Subsidies .
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Sweeteners lead to sugar deal
In a rare success for the UK presidency, EU farm ministers have agreed to a reformed sugar regime to operate from next July. Sufficient sweeteners had to be offered to the most vociferous opponents to get them to accept a deal, although one had to be reached before too long given the WTO deadline of next May and the fact that the regime itself would expire in the summer.
Ministers agreed to a slight cut in the depth of the price cut, and to an increase in the rate of compensation. The European Commission and ministers compromised on a 36% cut in the price of sugar (a relative marginal reduction in the original figure of 39%), and a 4.2% increase in compensation for farmers. They will thus now receive compensation covering 64.2% of the loss incurred by the price cut. There is a also a more generous compensation scheme for inefficient European sugar producers who will be forced to halt production because of the price drop. Extra compensation will be given to farmers in countries that give up 50 per cent of their production, a move that will principally benefit Italy and Spain.
Finland benefits from a special deal that allows beet farmers in one of the least competitive sugar producer countries in Europe a special aid of €350m so they can continue supplying he one remaining beet producer in the country. Why not import sugar from elsewhere which is what mostly happens anyway.
However, these side payments should not distract attention from a substantial reduction in the guaranteed price. In other words, a deal has been struck that will not bust the budget or fail to curb uneconomic production in the sector.
The new compromise proposal – the second to be tabled at this week's EU farm Council – offers significant sweeteners for various countries, in particular Italy, one of the most vociferous opponents of the reform. Poland, Latvia and Greece still refused to endorse the compromise. The producer price for sugar will be reduced in four stages, with a cumulative reduction over four years of 20%, 25%, 30% and 36%.
The deal has come under criticism from both third world NGOs and industrial suger users. Some development experts suggested that the EU had been forced to offer more compensation to inefficient European farmers at the expense of their more vulnerable sugar cane rivals. 'Developing countries have been sacrificed in order for Europe to reach a deal', said Luis Morago, head of Oxfam International in Brussels.
The UK Industrial Sugar Users Group deplored last-minute concessions that would still leave the EU price about double that in the rest of the world. 'This deal takes the easy way out by simply dumping increased compensation costs on consumers and industrial users.' In fact the EU internal reference price will be €404 per tonne, about 40 per cent above the current spot price. Moreover, the world price could rise if uneconomic EU production is withdrawn and bioethanol actually takes off in a significant way.
For all the criticism, the deal was probably as good as could be obtained given the opposition and will bolster the EU's position in world trade talks.
Ministers agreed to a slight cut in the depth of the price cut, and to an increase in the rate of compensation. The European Commission and ministers compromised on a 36% cut in the price of sugar (a relative marginal reduction in the original figure of 39%), and a 4.2% increase in compensation for farmers. They will thus now receive compensation covering 64.2% of the loss incurred by the price cut. There is a also a more generous compensation scheme for inefficient European sugar producers who will be forced to halt production because of the price drop. Extra compensation will be given to farmers in countries that give up 50 per cent of their production, a move that will principally benefit Italy and Spain.
Finland benefits from a special deal that allows beet farmers in one of the least competitive sugar producer countries in Europe a special aid of €350m so they can continue supplying he one remaining beet producer in the country. Why not import sugar from elsewhere which is what mostly happens anyway.
However, these side payments should not distract attention from a substantial reduction in the guaranteed price. In other words, a deal has been struck that will not bust the budget or fail to curb uneconomic production in the sector.
The new compromise proposal – the second to be tabled at this week's EU farm Council – offers significant sweeteners for various countries, in particular Italy, one of the most vociferous opponents of the reform. Poland, Latvia and Greece still refused to endorse the compromise. The producer price for sugar will be reduced in four stages, with a cumulative reduction over four years of 20%, 25%, 30% and 36%.
The deal has come under criticism from both third world NGOs and industrial suger users. Some development experts suggested that the EU had been forced to offer more compensation to inefficient European farmers at the expense of their more vulnerable sugar cane rivals. 'Developing countries have been sacrificed in order for Europe to reach a deal', said Luis Morago, head of Oxfam International in Brussels.
The UK Industrial Sugar Users Group deplored last-minute concessions that would still leave the EU price about double that in the rest of the world. 'This deal takes the easy way out by simply dumping increased compensation costs on consumers and industrial users.' In fact the EU internal reference price will be €404 per tonne, about 40 per cent above the current spot price. Moreover, the world price could rise if uneconomic EU production is withdrawn and bioethanol actually takes off in a significant way.
For all the criticism, the deal was probably as good as could be obtained given the opposition and will bolster the EU's position in world trade talks.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Changing shape of budget
The CAP budget for agricultural markets and the SFP has been scaled back to a mere €43,280 million in 2006, or €51,051 million when one adds in rural development. However, it is the composition of the budget that is in some ways more interesting. Of course, by far the greater part these days goes on direct aids to farmers (€34,817m).
If one looks at the market support budget, the largest budget line is now for fruit and vegetables at €1,544m, followed by €1,494m for the wine lake and €1376m for sugar. 'Textile plants', effectively cotton subsidies, come fourth at €969m: these are, of course, very controversial in the current WTO talks in terms of their impact on poor West African countries.
Milk products and cereals, once the biggest items, now come 5th and 6th respectively, although it should be remembered that payments now largely take the form of direct aids.
If one looks at the market support budget, the largest budget line is now for fruit and vegetables at €1,544m, followed by €1,494m for the wine lake and €1376m for sugar. 'Textile plants', effectively cotton subsidies, come fourth at €969m: these are, of course, very controversial in the current WTO talks in terms of their impact on poor West African countries.
Milk products and cereals, once the biggest items, now come 5th and 6th respectively, although it should be remembered that payments now largely take the form of direct aids.
DG Agri has a French head again
For a long time, DG-Agri was known as a French fiefdom with a French head of the bureaucracy, many French and Francophone staff and even a canteen that was supposed to serve the best food in the Commission! For some time now DG Agri has had a Spanish head, but on 1 January he will be replaced one of his deputies, French national Jean-Luc Demarty.
However, this may not be a sign of a return to old style agricultural politics. An alternative view is that it reflects the decreased significance of DG Agri with the real power over the future of Europe's farmers now in the hands of DG Trade. Indeed, Le Figaro has claimed that Paris lobbied without success to get a French head of trade - the job has gone to Irishman David O'Sullivan.
However, this may not be a sign of a return to old style agricultural politics. An alternative view is that it reflects the decreased significance of DG Agri with the real power over the future of Europe's farmers now in the hands of DG Trade. Indeed, Le Figaro has claimed that Paris lobbied without success to get a French head of trade - the job has gone to Irishman David O'Sullivan.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Where does the CAP cash go?
In a letter to European Voice CAP campaigner Terry Wynn MEP points out that little information is made available on who gets the large sums of money spent on CAP. Only Denmark, the UK, Estonia, Sweden and Slovenia (now joined by Belgium) make the information available.
When it is made available, it is quite revealing. Wynn points out that UK figures show that Lincolnshire receives three times more in agricultural subsidies than the north-west of England combined and has only a third of the number of farms. He points out that there is no disclosure of where the money goes in France despite the fact that it receives a quarter of CAP expenditure.
The Belgian payment agency, BIRB, has now posted details of the recepients of CAP money. At the top of the list is the sugar refinery in Tienen which received €91.9 million in 2004. At the bottom is the Sacred Heart pyschiatric hospital in Ypres which received €148.70.
There was considerable political resistance to the publication of the information. The agriculture minister in the federal government is Sabine Laruelle, a Walloon Liberal, who happens to be a former president of the Walloon farmers' union. She said she would not release names and amounts and that what was happening 'leads only to a witch hunt', pointing out that 'People focus on examples such as the Queen of England.'
Meanwhile, Yves Leterme, the Christian Democrat head of the Flemish regional government complained about efforts by commissioners Fischer Boel and Slim Kallas (audit and anti-fraud) to get national governments to disclose who gets what from the CAP regime. Leterme said that if the Commissioners were minded to make statements 'which intrude against our constitutional rights to the protection of privacy, then they had better keep their mouths shut.' However, Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt decided in favour of disclosure.
This is public money and EU citizens are entitled to know where it is going. Publication may also serve as a deterrent to fraud which remains a persistent problem in the CAP.
When it is made available, it is quite revealing. Wynn points out that UK figures show that Lincolnshire receives three times more in agricultural subsidies than the north-west of England combined and has only a third of the number of farms. He points out that there is no disclosure of where the money goes in France despite the fact that it receives a quarter of CAP expenditure.
The Belgian payment agency, BIRB, has now posted details of the recepients of CAP money. At the top of the list is the sugar refinery in Tienen which received €91.9 million in 2004. At the bottom is the Sacred Heart pyschiatric hospital in Ypres which received €148.70.
There was considerable political resistance to the publication of the information. The agriculture minister in the federal government is Sabine Laruelle, a Walloon Liberal, who happens to be a former president of the Walloon farmers' union. She said she would not release names and amounts and that what was happening 'leads only to a witch hunt', pointing out that 'People focus on examples such as the Queen of England.'
Meanwhile, Yves Leterme, the Christian Democrat head of the Flemish regional government complained about efforts by commissioners Fischer Boel and Slim Kallas (audit and anti-fraud) to get national governments to disclose who gets what from the CAP regime. Leterme said that if the Commissioners were minded to make statements 'which intrude against our constitutional rights to the protection of privacy, then they had better keep their mouths shut.' However, Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt decided in favour of disclosure.
This is public money and EU citizens are entitled to know where it is going. Publication may also serve as a deterrent to fraud which remains a persistent problem in the CAP.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Group opposed to sugar reform grows
Poland has joined the eleven countries led by Spain who are opposed to the Commission's proposals for reform of the sugar regime. Just four of the opposing countries - Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain - would be enough to block reform under the qualified majority system.
This latest development is causing concern in the Commission and the UK presidency. The WTO has declared the current regime illegal and the current regulation expires next June which would lead to chaos if nothing is put in its place.
The Commission has to think of some way of buying off opposition without rendering the whole reform pointless. The opposing states are calling for smaller price cuts over a longer period with more compensation and it is difficult to see how this can be squared with the WTO judgement or the EU budget.
It might be possible to include the option of partial decoupling for states such as Italy who feel they are worst hit by the price reduction, although it is questionable whether keeping small Italian sugar producers in business is compatible with the spirit of the reform. Certainly national compensation envelopes for sugar producers are still under consideration, but the sweetener would have to be significant.
A further complicating factor is that the opposition countries are suggesting that cuts should be applied initially just to regions with a surplus of production. If one interprets that as countries with B quotas, leading sugar producers would be hit, notably France and Germany where up to 20 per cent of overall production quotas are B quotas.
So this is all about winners and losers rather than a rational reform strategy that would be helpful for the EU as a whole. As June approaches, no doubt some sort of reform, with more side payments, will be devised.
This latest development is causing concern in the Commission and the UK presidency. The WTO has declared the current regime illegal and the current regulation expires next June which would lead to chaos if nothing is put in its place.
The Commission has to think of some way of buying off opposition without rendering the whole reform pointless. The opposing states are calling for smaller price cuts over a longer period with more compensation and it is difficult to see how this can be squared with the WTO judgement or the EU budget.
It might be possible to include the option of partial decoupling for states such as Italy who feel they are worst hit by the price reduction, although it is questionable whether keeping small Italian sugar producers in business is compatible with the spirit of the reform. Certainly national compensation envelopes for sugar producers are still under consideration, but the sweetener would have to be significant.
A further complicating factor is that the opposition countries are suggesting that cuts should be applied initially just to regions with a surplus of production. If one interprets that as countries with B quotas, leading sugar producers would be hit, notably France and Germany where up to 20 per cent of overall production quotas are B quotas.
So this is all about winners and losers rather than a rational reform strategy that would be helpful for the EU as a whole. As June approaches, no doubt some sort of reform, with more side payments, will be devised.
Bulgaria, Romania accession in trouble
Preparations for integration into the CAP remain 'areas of serious concern' for both Bulgaria and Romania just fourteen months away from their planned accession to the EU. To those who say cynically 'we have been here before', noting that outstanding problems when ten member states joined were glossed over, two points need to be borne in mind:
1. The EU is a much less confident and ferbile state following the effective failure of the Constitution
2. The problems with Bulgaria and Romania are more serious than those in the earlier wave of East European entrants.
Food safety is a major area of concern, with the Commission noting deficiencies in both countries in terms of animal disease control and regulations relating to BSE. Romania has made a little more progress in some areas, but both countries have failed to make progress in setting up an Integrated Administration and Control System.
The tone of the Commission report suggests that the warnings issued may be more than the usual routine pleas to get a move on. The situation is to be reviewed in April/May of next year when the postponement of accession by one year may be recommended.
1. The EU is a much less confident and ferbile state following the effective failure of the Constitution
2. The problems with Bulgaria and Romania are more serious than those in the earlier wave of East European entrants.
Food safety is a major area of concern, with the Commission noting deficiencies in both countries in terms of animal disease control and regulations relating to BSE. Romania has made a little more progress in some areas, but both countries have failed to make progress in setting up an Integrated Administration and Control System.
The tone of the Commission report suggests that the warnings issued may be more than the usual routine pleas to get a move on. The situation is to be reviewed in April/May of next year when the postponement of accession by one year may be recommended.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
French play food securirty card
Peter Mandelson is caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to reach agreement in the Doha Round agricultural trade negotiations. On the one hand, he has to move towards the negotiating demands of the US (and the G-20). On the other, he has to avoid annoying France so much that it derails the whole negotiation and hence the Doha Round. The EU has now made a new set of concessions, but they may be too little for the US and too much for France.
France has wheeled out their finance minister, Thierry Breton, to defend the CAP in an interview in the Financial Times. This is a smart move as he is an avowed moderniser who formed his own software company in 1981, before running a science park and then taking charge of high tech groups Bull, Thompson and France Telecom.
But he insists that the CAP is essential for Europe's future and must not be sacrificed at the altar of the WTO. He challenges Tony Blair's description of the CAP as 'spending of the past', describing it as a modern, forward-looking policy, essential for safeguarding the security of Europe's food chain.
He claims that Europe has developed one of the best - and safest - agricultural systems in the world. 'There is no magic here: we have decided to put our money together to build this infrastructure.' He argues that anyone who thinks agriculture is a market like any other is 'old-fashioned', as they ignore growing risks to food security.
He seems to think that the growing world population poses a problem in terms of producing enough food, although this is partly a question of what limits are placed on the introduction of new technology. It is also the case that in the west people are consuming more food than is good for their health or at least food of the wrong kind.
It is the case that agricultural markets have their own special features ('cobweb cycles' etc.) and this is why one does need some stabilisation mechanisms, although these might be provided more efficiently by state guaranteed insurance arrangements rather than by subsidies.
Breton argues that we must protect food security 'at all costs' otherwise 'we will have new food catastrophes, or even pandemics.' The link between averting avian flu and subsidising marginal farmers is quite a tenuous one. In the UK, people have tried to use the threat of terrorism to wave the food security card, but have never been able to demonstrate exactly what the threat to the food chain is.
If subsidies were removed overnight, many European farmers would go out of business to the extent that world food prices would rise. There is a case for replacing subsidies by some kind of bond scheme with a finite life.
However, there is a case for providing some help for farmers for the positive externalities they provide (such as cherished landscapes), while there is a rural development case for providing help to remoter regions (which is not to say that depopulation is necessarily always a bad thing).
What is difficult to justify is spending nearly half the European budget and over €40 billions a year on the CAP and rural development. The opportunity cost is considerable at a time when Europe faces major challenges in world markets and needs more spending on research and development and innovation.
The French insistence on defending the CAP may not only derail the Doha negotiations, it may even eventually place the whole European project - or least its viability - in jeopardy.
France has wheeled out their finance minister, Thierry Breton, to defend the CAP in an interview in the Financial Times. This is a smart move as he is an avowed moderniser who formed his own software company in 1981, before running a science park and then taking charge of high tech groups Bull, Thompson and France Telecom.
But he insists that the CAP is essential for Europe's future and must not be sacrificed at the altar of the WTO. He challenges Tony Blair's description of the CAP as 'spending of the past', describing it as a modern, forward-looking policy, essential for safeguarding the security of Europe's food chain.
He claims that Europe has developed one of the best - and safest - agricultural systems in the world. 'There is no magic here: we have decided to put our money together to build this infrastructure.' He argues that anyone who thinks agriculture is a market like any other is 'old-fashioned', as they ignore growing risks to food security.
He seems to think that the growing world population poses a problem in terms of producing enough food, although this is partly a question of what limits are placed on the introduction of new technology. It is also the case that in the west people are consuming more food than is good for their health or at least food of the wrong kind.
It is the case that agricultural markets have their own special features ('cobweb cycles' etc.) and this is why one does need some stabilisation mechanisms, although these might be provided more efficiently by state guaranteed insurance arrangements rather than by subsidies.
Breton argues that we must protect food security 'at all costs' otherwise 'we will have new food catastrophes, or even pandemics.' The link between averting avian flu and subsidising marginal farmers is quite a tenuous one. In the UK, people have tried to use the threat of terrorism to wave the food security card, but have never been able to demonstrate exactly what the threat to the food chain is.
If subsidies were removed overnight, many European farmers would go out of business to the extent that world food prices would rise. There is a case for replacing subsidies by some kind of bond scheme with a finite life.
However, there is a case for providing some help for farmers for the positive externalities they provide (such as cherished landscapes), while there is a rural development case for providing help to remoter regions (which is not to say that depopulation is necessarily always a bad thing).
What is difficult to justify is spending nearly half the European budget and over €40 billions a year on the CAP and rural development. The opportunity cost is considerable at a time when Europe faces major challenges in world markets and needs more spending on research and development and innovation.
The French insistence on defending the CAP may not only derail the Doha negotiations, it may even eventually place the whole European project - or least its viability - in jeopardy.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Half speed ahead in Doha Round
It's half speed ahead in the Doha Round agricultural trade negotiations after the US and EU tabled new offers, following by a compromise paper by the G-20 which was in part an attempt to reconcile their internal differences.
The US put the EU on the spot with a new offer on domestic subsidies which was launched with a fanfare with a Financial Times article by US Trade Representative Rob Portman. The offer was not quite as generous as it seemed as it would allow the controversial counter cyclical payments initiated by the US in the 2002 Farm Act to continue, but their size would be limited to a maximum $5 billion a year, compared with $7.6 billion at the moment.
This was enough to alarm Senator Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the US Senate's agriculture committee who sent a letter to US ag secretary Mike Johanns telling him not to sell out the store and in particular to do nothing that would lower the level of farm spending in the US. The Bush Administration would like nothing more than to cut the level of farm spending as one means of dealing with the huge US budget deficit.
The EU has also had its internal problems with France, backed by thirteen other member states, trying to limit the room for manoeuvre of trade commissioner Peter Mandelson to an extent that would have probably derailed the Hong Kong ministerial. However, the French were beaten back at an emergency meeting of the Council of foreign ministers, in itself an unusual event. However, the French remain hot under the collar under the issue and will no doubt cause more trouble as they did in the Uruguay Round.
The real sticking point remains tariffs with the EU calling for a maximum 50 per cent cut on the highest tariffs compared with a 90 per cent figure advocated by the US. As Agra Europe has commented, a 90 per cent cut would mean that the EU butter intervention price would have to be slashed by 25 per cent which would be a heavy blow for Europe's troubled dairy industry. However, the US points out that the current EU offer would lead to an average cut in European farm tariffs of 24.5 per cent, less than the 36 per cent average agreed in the Uruguay Round.
The US wants 'sensitive' products to be limited to 1 per cent of tariff lines, with the EU asking for up to 8 per cent. This would offer protection for around 160 EU tariff lines. Remember, for 'sensitive' read 'politically sensitive'.
The real horse trading is beginning, but there is still a long way to go before agreement is reached.
The US put the EU on the spot with a new offer on domestic subsidies which was launched with a fanfare with a Financial Times article by US Trade Representative Rob Portman. The offer was not quite as generous as it seemed as it would allow the controversial counter cyclical payments initiated by the US in the 2002 Farm Act to continue, but their size would be limited to a maximum $5 billion a year, compared with $7.6 billion at the moment.
This was enough to alarm Senator Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the US Senate's agriculture committee who sent a letter to US ag secretary Mike Johanns telling him not to sell out the store and in particular to do nothing that would lower the level of farm spending in the US. The Bush Administration would like nothing more than to cut the level of farm spending as one means of dealing with the huge US budget deficit.
The EU has also had its internal problems with France, backed by thirteen other member states, trying to limit the room for manoeuvre of trade commissioner Peter Mandelson to an extent that would have probably derailed the Hong Kong ministerial. However, the French were beaten back at an emergency meeting of the Council of foreign ministers, in itself an unusual event. However, the French remain hot under the collar under the issue and will no doubt cause more trouble as they did in the Uruguay Round.
The real sticking point remains tariffs with the EU calling for a maximum 50 per cent cut on the highest tariffs compared with a 90 per cent figure advocated by the US. As Agra Europe has commented, a 90 per cent cut would mean that the EU butter intervention price would have to be slashed by 25 per cent which would be a heavy blow for Europe's troubled dairy industry. However, the US points out that the current EU offer would lead to an average cut in European farm tariffs of 24.5 per cent, less than the 36 per cent average agreed in the Uruguay Round.
The US wants 'sensitive' products to be limited to 1 per cent of tariff lines, with the EU asking for up to 8 per cent. This would offer protection for around 160 EU tariff lines. Remember, for 'sensitive' read 'politically sensitive'.
The real horse trading is beginning, but there is still a long way to go before agreement is reached.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Non-GM costs to rise, claims report
European food producers will face significantly higher costs over the next three years if staunch opposition to using GM ingredients continues, a study commissioned by Agricultural Biotechnology Europe (who have a particular stance) suggests. Up to now the cost of Europe's anti-GM stance has been minimal as the greater cost of producing non-GM ingredients has been pushed down the supply chain.
This will change, it is claimed, as the availability of guaranteed non-GM ingredients declines and the premium on non-GM supplies rises. A particular problem is the availability of non-GM soyabeans. Soyabeans are used in producing a wide range of processed foods (even biscuits) and over half the soyabeans planted across the globe are now GM. Brazil, the primary supplier of non-GM soya products to the EU, has now formally approved the planting of transgenic soyabean seeds (although they were already grown illegally) so the percentage is likely to grow.
The existing differential between GM and non-GM could double in the next one to three years. For example, producers of broiler feed are likely to find that the premium over transgenic varieties for soya meal and soya oil will rise from between 10 per cent and 13 per cent to as much as 25 per cent. Margarine producers, 70 per cent of whom currently support non-GM policies, would see a rise of 16 per cent over three years or €85m annually.
There is some dispute about whether GM crops are as cheap to produce as their supporters claim, so these figures may be exaggerated. Retailers and processors face a dilemma as consumers are resistant to GM ingredients but also resistant to price rises.
GM-free zone ruled illegal
The European Court of First Instance has ruled that Upper Austria is not allowed to declare itself a 'non-genetically modified' zone. The ban had been originally rejected by the Commission on the grounds that there was no scientific evidence to support it. This is the first time that the Court has ruled on a general regional prohibition of GM crops although there are many other areas in Europe that proclaim themselves to be GM free. The Commission stated that the decision was a clear pronouncement that the free movement of goods within the EU had to be respected, but Upper Austria is likely to fight on.
WTO panel ruling delayed
The WTO dispute panel ruling on the EU's alleged moratorium for new genetically modified products has been put off until after the WTO's Hong Kong ministerial in December. The cover story is scheduling reasons, but it is clearly an attempt to prevent this conflict spilling over into already difficult negotiations.
This will change, it is claimed, as the availability of guaranteed non-GM ingredients declines and the premium on non-GM supplies rises. A particular problem is the availability of non-GM soyabeans. Soyabeans are used in producing a wide range of processed foods (even biscuits) and over half the soyabeans planted across the globe are now GM. Brazil, the primary supplier of non-GM soya products to the EU, has now formally approved the planting of transgenic soyabean seeds (although they were already grown illegally) so the percentage is likely to grow.
The existing differential between GM and non-GM could double in the next one to three years. For example, producers of broiler feed are likely to find that the premium over transgenic varieties for soya meal and soya oil will rise from between 10 per cent and 13 per cent to as much as 25 per cent. Margarine producers, 70 per cent of whom currently support non-GM policies, would see a rise of 16 per cent over three years or €85m annually.
There is some dispute about whether GM crops are as cheap to produce as their supporters claim, so these figures may be exaggerated. Retailers and processors face a dilemma as consumers are resistant to GM ingredients but also resistant to price rises.
GM-free zone ruled illegal
The European Court of First Instance has ruled that Upper Austria is not allowed to declare itself a 'non-genetically modified' zone. The ban had been originally rejected by the Commission on the grounds that there was no scientific evidence to support it. This is the first time that the Court has ruled on a general regional prohibition of GM crops although there are many other areas in Europe that proclaim themselves to be GM free. The Commission stated that the decision was a clear pronouncement that the free movement of goods within the EU had to be respected, but Upper Austria is likely to fight on.
WTO panel ruling delayed
The WTO dispute panel ruling on the EU's alleged moratorium for new genetically modified products has been put off until after the WTO's Hong Kong ministerial in December. The cover story is scheduling reasons, but it is clearly an attempt to prevent this conflict spilling over into already difficult negotiations.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Back to the old days in Germany?
Once upon a time the typical German agriculture minister was a member of the CSU from Bavaria. Of course, sometimes the minister came from another Land and was a member of the FPD or the CDU. But wherever they came from, the ministers were male, had close ties to the agriculture industry and evidently enjoyed good food and beer. Those from Bavaria were particularly attuned to the concerns of the relatively small-scale, often part-time and potentially marginal farmers of this distinctive southern and Catholic part of Germany.
All this was shaken up an urban German Green woman, Renate Kunast, took over a changed farm portfolio that paid greater attention to food safety, food quality and consumer concerns. Organic farming was viewed with particular favour. Whether she made as great a difference as was initially hoped (or feared) remains an open question. It does seem, however, that the changed portfolio title with its emphasis on consumer affairs will be kept.
Now the CSU is back in the agriculture portfolio in Angela Merkel's Grand Coalition. Ministerial responsibilities have not yet been finalised, but the man tipped by the media to be Germany's new farm minister is the CDU/CSU's former deputy leader, Horst Seehofer.
German agricultural wire service Agrimanager describes Seehofer as a 'controversial health expert,' who has previously been responsible for agricultural matters in his party, but 'has not yet gained real standing in this sector'.
In other words, the former health minister looks like a bit of a wild card at first sight, someone with a base in his party, but not necessarily linked into the traditional farm policy networks. So it may not be back to business as usual.
Our Munich correspondent comments, 'You are right to suggest that Seehofer is not the traditional CSU guy. He resigned from his role as deputy leader of the CDU/CSU in Parliament in 2004 because he disagreed with the party's policy, in other words he resigned on the basis of his convictions.'
'What would be far more worrying from my perspective would be alternative being discussed at the moment, Michael Glos, who is known not least for calling Fischer and Trittin "eco-stalinists"'. And he is very traditional.'
All this was shaken up an urban German Green woman, Renate Kunast, took over a changed farm portfolio that paid greater attention to food safety, food quality and consumer concerns. Organic farming was viewed with particular favour. Whether she made as great a difference as was initially hoped (or feared) remains an open question. It does seem, however, that the changed portfolio title with its emphasis on consumer affairs will be kept.
Now the CSU is back in the agriculture portfolio in Angela Merkel's Grand Coalition. Ministerial responsibilities have not yet been finalised, but the man tipped by the media to be Germany's new farm minister is the CDU/CSU's former deputy leader, Horst Seehofer.
German agricultural wire service Agrimanager describes Seehofer as a 'controversial health expert,' who has previously been responsible for agricultural matters in his party, but 'has not yet gained real standing in this sector'.
In other words, the former health minister looks like a bit of a wild card at first sight, someone with a base in his party, but not necessarily linked into the traditional farm policy networks. So it may not be back to business as usual.
Our Munich correspondent comments, 'You are right to suggest that Seehofer is not the traditional CSU guy. He resigned from his role as deputy leader of the CDU/CSU in Parliament in 2004 because he disagreed with the party's policy, in other words he resigned on the basis of his convictions.'
'What would be far more worrying from my perspective would be alternative being discussed at the moment, Michael Glos, who is known not least for calling Fischer and Trittin "eco-stalinists"'. And he is very traditional.'
Could Parliament block sugar reform?
Because there is no co-decision on CAP 'guarantee' expenditure matters, something that would have been tackled by the failed EU treaty, the role of the European Parliament in farm reform is usually relatively limited compared to other areas of EU policy.
However, the Parliament may be in a position to block progress on the sugar reform, enabling it to extract further concessions from the Commission. The Council cannot legally adopt CAP legislation until the MEPs have delivered an opinion on the proposal - but there is no obligation to take their views into account. One mechanism that the Parliament does have to protest over proposals it opposes is to delay delivery of the necessary opinion, or to threaten not to deliver it all.
Commissioner Fischer Boel has responded to the Commission's rapporteur on the sugar reform dossier, Jean-Claude Fruteau. She has ruled out one main demand, a compensation level to sugar beet farmers increased from 60% to 80%. Her view is that it is in line with what has been offered in other reformed sectors and any more would be too generous.
She was, however, prepared to take a look again at the proposed sugar restructuring fund which Fruteau described as ungenerous. She also tried to reassure MEPs that the lower internal EU price for sugar would give third countries less incentive to engage in fraud through so-called triangular imports. This is where countries re-export imported sugar claiming that it is their own produce. She stated that if a particular country failed to observe the rules, or if sugar imports were causing serious disturbance to the EU market (shades of the recent Mandelson intervention on Chinese textiles), the EU reserved the right to withdraw tariff preferences.
Fischer Boel and the UK presidency stress that a decision on sugar reform is needed in possible, both to help farmers make their planting plans for next year and also to prevent a row about sugar derailing the agricultural talks at the Hong Kong WTO ministerial in December.
However, the Parliament may be in a position to block progress on the sugar reform, enabling it to extract further concessions from the Commission. The Council cannot legally adopt CAP legislation until the MEPs have delivered an opinion on the proposal - but there is no obligation to take their views into account. One mechanism that the Parliament does have to protest over proposals it opposes is to delay delivery of the necessary opinion, or to threaten not to deliver it all.
Commissioner Fischer Boel has responded to the Commission's rapporteur on the sugar reform dossier, Jean-Claude Fruteau. She has ruled out one main demand, a compensation level to sugar beet farmers increased from 60% to 80%. Her view is that it is in line with what has been offered in other reformed sectors and any more would be too generous.
She was, however, prepared to take a look again at the proposed sugar restructuring fund which Fruteau described as ungenerous. She also tried to reassure MEPs that the lower internal EU price for sugar would give third countries less incentive to engage in fraud through so-called triangular imports. This is where countries re-export imported sugar claiming that it is their own produce. She stated that if a particular country failed to observe the rules, or if sugar imports were causing serious disturbance to the EU market (shades of the recent Mandelson intervention on Chinese textiles), the EU reserved the right to withdraw tariff preferences.
Fischer Boel and the UK presidency stress that a decision on sugar reform is needed in possible, both to help farmers make their planting plans for next year and also to prevent a row about sugar derailing the agricultural talks at the Hong Kong WTO ministerial in December.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Turkey and the CAP
Turkish accession to the European Union would pose formidable problems for the CAP. These arise from the very large numbers of people employed on the land in Turkey, often engaged in very low value added forms of agriculture. 30 per cent of the population in Turkey is engaged in agriculture compared with only 5 per cent in the EU-25. If Turkey was to join the EU today it would more than double the agricultural population, adding 7.2 million people to the current 6.9 million.
Agriculture has an 11.5 per cent share of GDP in Turkey, compared with 1.9 per cent in the EU-15. Some 40 per cent of the population live in rural areas. Agricultural exports are 11.2 per cent of total exports compared with 3.9 per cent in the EU-15. Labour productivity in agriculture is low. Gross Value Added per person is agriculture is one-eighth of the average EU-15 level. Average income per employed household member in Turkish agriculture is less than 40 per cent of the level for non-agricultural workers.
Agriculture does, however, have a dual structure with commercial farms and export-oriented chains for individual products co-existing with subsistence or semi-subsistence farming. The average farm size is six hectares compared to the EU average of 13 hectares. In terms of value, fruit, vegetables and cereals are the most important farm products. Fruit and vegetable production alone accounts for 43 per cent of total output, compared with only 15 per cent in the EU. They also represent over half of Turkey’s agricultural exports. The livestock sector is much less competitive and badly in need of structural modernisation. The country already ranks as Europe’s largest fruit grower, behind Italy and Spain. Turkey occupies a strong position in relation to individual speciality crops. It is the second largest producer of hazelnuts in the world and is a competitive producer of peas, lentils and olive oil.
There are major animal health problems in Turkey. In the veterinary area, major efforts would have to be made to improve conditions and in particular controls on the eastern border. Some highly infectious animal diseases that have virtually disappeared in western and northern Europe remain endemic in Turkey. For example, outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have occurred in virtually every year since 1996. Turkey is also prone to outbreaks of anthrax and brucellosis. Food hygiene standards are poor.
Turkey lacks an adequate infrastructure of trained staff to implement the various rules and regulations that accompany CAP membership, although it is the case that farm policies are even more interventionist than those of the CAP. Yet levels of support are lower with a PSE in Turkey of 26 per cent compared with 37 per cent in the EU-15.
Rural development policy in Turkey is focused on large-scale investments in areas such as irrigation. Major dam projects are being undertaken in south-east Anatolia and should increase the farmland area benefiting from irrigation facilities by some twenty per cent. Structural policy would be a new concept for Turkey, however.
Agricultural policy has often been driven by vote seeking in rural areas and farmers’ organisations have been weakly developed. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Reform Implementation Project (ARIP) of 2001-5 represents a new direction in agricultural policy and aims to bring Turkey more in line with the EU. Price support has been reduced, subsidies have been removed and a direct income support for farmers similar to that now used in the EU has been introduced. This is not, however, fully decoupled as it is based on flat-rate payments per hectare, capped at 50 hectares. Most products, however, still enjoy high levels of trade protection, reflected in a considerable agricultural trade surplus. Attempts to reform the state-controlled Agricultural Sales Co-operatives have made little progress.
Calculations of the impact on the EU budget of Turkish membership vary according to the basis for the estimates made. Most estimates are based on the assumption of Turkish membership by 2015 which many analysts regard as unrealistically early. Assumptions also have to be made about the progress on further CAP reform by 2015.
The Commission’s own figure estimates the cost to the agriculture budget in 2015 at 2004 prices would be around €11.3bn, a larger sum than that taken up by the ten new entrants to the EU in 2004. Economists at Wageningen Univeristy have come up with a lower estimate of €5.2bn, made up of €3.6bn for market measures and direct aid and €1.6bn for rural development expenditure. However, this depends on a number of assumptions that include reform of the EU sugar regime, abolition of EU export refunds and a 20 per cent appreciation of the Turkish lira. There would also need to be 2 per cent annual decreases in EU income transfers from 2006 and further WTO tariff cuts after the completion of the Doha Round. Agra Europe estimates that the accession of Turkey and Croatia would add around €60 billion at the end of the next budgetary perspectives period or an estimated 19 per cent addition to an estimated 2013 expenditure level of €51.2bn for the EU-27, pushing the CAP spending total to around €60 bilion. In broad terms it seems realistic to expect an increase of over 20 per cent in the current CAP budget following Turkish membership.
Turkish membership would lock the EU into a long-term commitment to transferring resources to a largely backward agrarian economy. Indeed, in the short run, the shock of competition with the EU would exacerbate pre-existing problems of poverty.
Modernisation through skill transfer would be limited by the fact that 18 per cent of the agricultural workforce is illiterate. If employment in farming was to be reduced to a level nearer to its share of national output, a working paper by the Centre for European Reform estimates that it would be necessary to take eight million families out of agriculture.
There is a real danger that Turkish membership would embed a CAP dominated by redistributive policies that maintain inefficient forms of agricultural production. Admittedly, the prospect of Turkish membership could provide a new reform stimulus, but such pressures tend to have uneven effects.
Turkish accession is largely driven by 'big picture' political considerations, particularly for the UK, with the question of the CAP being left to negotiations with the hope that it will be all right on accession night. However, failure to arrive at a satisfactory deal would certainly delay entry and might halt it altogether given the lack of enthusiasm among many European states.
Agriculture has an 11.5 per cent share of GDP in Turkey, compared with 1.9 per cent in the EU-15. Some 40 per cent of the population live in rural areas. Agricultural exports are 11.2 per cent of total exports compared with 3.9 per cent in the EU-15. Labour productivity in agriculture is low. Gross Value Added per person is agriculture is one-eighth of the average EU-15 level. Average income per employed household member in Turkish agriculture is less than 40 per cent of the level for non-agricultural workers.
Agriculture does, however, have a dual structure with commercial farms and export-oriented chains for individual products co-existing with subsistence or semi-subsistence farming. The average farm size is six hectares compared to the EU average of 13 hectares. In terms of value, fruit, vegetables and cereals are the most important farm products. Fruit and vegetable production alone accounts for 43 per cent of total output, compared with only 15 per cent in the EU. They also represent over half of Turkey’s agricultural exports. The livestock sector is much less competitive and badly in need of structural modernisation. The country already ranks as Europe’s largest fruit grower, behind Italy and Spain. Turkey occupies a strong position in relation to individual speciality crops. It is the second largest producer of hazelnuts in the world and is a competitive producer of peas, lentils and olive oil.
There are major animal health problems in Turkey. In the veterinary area, major efforts would have to be made to improve conditions and in particular controls on the eastern border. Some highly infectious animal diseases that have virtually disappeared in western and northern Europe remain endemic in Turkey. For example, outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have occurred in virtually every year since 1996. Turkey is also prone to outbreaks of anthrax and brucellosis. Food hygiene standards are poor.
Turkey lacks an adequate infrastructure of trained staff to implement the various rules and regulations that accompany CAP membership, although it is the case that farm policies are even more interventionist than those of the CAP. Yet levels of support are lower with a PSE in Turkey of 26 per cent compared with 37 per cent in the EU-15.
Rural development policy in Turkey is focused on large-scale investments in areas such as irrigation. Major dam projects are being undertaken in south-east Anatolia and should increase the farmland area benefiting from irrigation facilities by some twenty per cent. Structural policy would be a new concept for Turkey, however.
Agricultural policy has often been driven by vote seeking in rural areas and farmers’ organisations have been weakly developed. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Reform Implementation Project (ARIP) of 2001-5 represents a new direction in agricultural policy and aims to bring Turkey more in line with the EU. Price support has been reduced, subsidies have been removed and a direct income support for farmers similar to that now used in the EU has been introduced. This is not, however, fully decoupled as it is based on flat-rate payments per hectare, capped at 50 hectares. Most products, however, still enjoy high levels of trade protection, reflected in a considerable agricultural trade surplus. Attempts to reform the state-controlled Agricultural Sales Co-operatives have made little progress.
Calculations of the impact on the EU budget of Turkish membership vary according to the basis for the estimates made. Most estimates are based on the assumption of Turkish membership by 2015 which many analysts regard as unrealistically early. Assumptions also have to be made about the progress on further CAP reform by 2015.
The Commission’s own figure estimates the cost to the agriculture budget in 2015 at 2004 prices would be around €11.3bn, a larger sum than that taken up by the ten new entrants to the EU in 2004. Economists at Wageningen Univeristy have come up with a lower estimate of €5.2bn, made up of €3.6bn for market measures and direct aid and €1.6bn for rural development expenditure. However, this depends on a number of assumptions that include reform of the EU sugar regime, abolition of EU export refunds and a 20 per cent appreciation of the Turkish lira. There would also need to be 2 per cent annual decreases in EU income transfers from 2006 and further WTO tariff cuts after the completion of the Doha Round. Agra Europe estimates that the accession of Turkey and Croatia would add around €60 billion at the end of the next budgetary perspectives period or an estimated 19 per cent addition to an estimated 2013 expenditure level of €51.2bn for the EU-27, pushing the CAP spending total to around €60 bilion. In broad terms it seems realistic to expect an increase of over 20 per cent in the current CAP budget following Turkish membership.
Turkish membership would lock the EU into a long-term commitment to transferring resources to a largely backward agrarian economy. Indeed, in the short run, the shock of competition with the EU would exacerbate pre-existing problems of poverty.
Modernisation through skill transfer would be limited by the fact that 18 per cent of the agricultural workforce is illiterate. If employment in farming was to be reduced to a level nearer to its share of national output, a working paper by the Centre for European Reform estimates that it would be necessary to take eight million families out of agriculture.
There is a real danger that Turkish membership would embed a CAP dominated by redistributive policies that maintain inefficient forms of agricultural production. Admittedly, the prospect of Turkish membership could provide a new reform stimulus, but such pressures tend to have uneven effects.
Turkish accession is largely driven by 'big picture' political considerations, particularly for the UK, with the question of the CAP being left to negotiations with the hope that it will be all right on accession night. However, failure to arrive at a satisfactory deal would certainly delay entry and might halt it altogether given the lack of enthusiasm among many European states.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Sugar row could hit WTO talks
The decision by the EU to dump nearly two million tonnes of sugar on the world market (technically 'declassification' of quota sugar) despite a WTO ruling that such sales were illegal could have an impact on the Doha Round trade talks.
A statement by Brazil said (in rather convoluted syntax): 'It is unavoidable to note the negative signal the EC sends to WTO negotiators less than three months before the ministerial conference in Hong Kong by taking this decision on declassification. Hardly any of us could find a more deleterious way to express the gap between words and deeds.' The declassification is up to ten times as big as in previous years and the Brazilians claim that it could push the world price down by six per cent. The problem the Commission faces is that there are already nearly a million tonnes of surplus sugar stored across Europe at the Commission's expense.
The EU claims that since no deadline has yet been set to bring its sugar regime in compliance with the WTO ruling, it can get rid of its surplus in the meantime. An abitrator has been appointed to determine a reasonable length of time for the EU to comply and is due to report by late October. The delay between ruling and implementation means that complainats Brazil, Thailand and Australia are unlikely to be able to obtain legal redress against the EU for its decision to offload surplus sugar.
If the arbitrator does side with the complainants, this will be the first time that a major WTO member has failed to respect its commitments (in terms of export subsidies). Will the WTO be able to effectively discipline one of its most powerful members?
One lump or two? The state of the reform debate
There are signs of an emerging consensus. Member states that are hard hit such as Hungary, Ireland and Italy continue to complain about their fate, but really they are following the traditional EU tactic of getting some side payments in return for their agreement.
As Agra Europe recently commented, the Commission faces the unenviable task of negotiating 'the downsizing of a hugely bloated EU sugar market while somehow keeping on the right side of WTO law and avoiding causing too many bankruptcies among sugar producers and refiners in Europe and around the world ... Having created a monstrous regime which flew in the face of all principles of economic rationality, its creators knew all too well that the monster would bite back if anyone tried to interfere with it.'
The Commission suggested at a recent meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture that new member states could receive a Separate Sugar Payment (SSP) as compensation for price cuts. The argument made for this payment is that farmers there have no track record of entitlements before accession in 2004. Latvia and Lithuania have been particularly concerned that the compensation for beet growers in the sugar proposal could go to landowners rather than the beet farmers.
Parliament's draft report unhelpful
The rapporteur on the sugar reform dossier in the European Parliament (Jean-Claude Fruteau) has come up with an unhelpful set of proposals in his draft report. They would both undermine the reform and penalise developing countries as well as hitting the EU budget.
The report suggests that the reduction in the reference price for sugar should be 25 per cent over three years not 39 per cent over two years as the Commission has proposed. It is difficult to see how such a scaled down reduction could permit the EU to meet its WTO commitments.
The report also suggests that the Commission should offer 80 per cent compensation for income losses incurred by EU sugar beet growers, a one third increase in the 60 per cent currently on the table. The idea that farmers in the new member states could receive their compensation on a per hectare basis is, however, compatible with the Commission's recent proposal discussed above and one wonders if a version of it might be used in the EU-15.
The report also proposes delaying the full implementation of the Everything But Arms agreement for six years until 2015. Imports of sugar from these developing countries could be controlled through a transitional period. Quotas would remain in place until 2015 but import duties would be gradually decreased. A so-called 'safeguard' clause would limit net exports by EBA countries to the difference between the sugar produced and the consumption level of each country.
The sugar lobby was earlier successful in delaying EBA implementation until 2009. Any further delay would be opposed by Global South groups like Oxfam.
A statement by Brazil said (in rather convoluted syntax): 'It is unavoidable to note the negative signal the EC sends to WTO negotiators less than three months before the ministerial conference in Hong Kong by taking this decision on declassification. Hardly any of us could find a more deleterious way to express the gap between words and deeds.' The declassification is up to ten times as big as in previous years and the Brazilians claim that it could push the world price down by six per cent. The problem the Commission faces is that there are already nearly a million tonnes of surplus sugar stored across Europe at the Commission's expense.
The EU claims that since no deadline has yet been set to bring its sugar regime in compliance with the WTO ruling, it can get rid of its surplus in the meantime. An abitrator has been appointed to determine a reasonable length of time for the EU to comply and is due to report by late October. The delay between ruling and implementation means that complainats Brazil, Thailand and Australia are unlikely to be able to obtain legal redress against the EU for its decision to offload surplus sugar.
If the arbitrator does side with the complainants, this will be the first time that a major WTO member has failed to respect its commitments (in terms of export subsidies). Will the WTO be able to effectively discipline one of its most powerful members?
One lump or two? The state of the reform debate
There are signs of an emerging consensus. Member states that are hard hit such as Hungary, Ireland and Italy continue to complain about their fate, but really they are following the traditional EU tactic of getting some side payments in return for their agreement.
As Agra Europe recently commented, the Commission faces the unenviable task of negotiating 'the downsizing of a hugely bloated EU sugar market while somehow keeping on the right side of WTO law and avoiding causing too many bankruptcies among sugar producers and refiners in Europe and around the world ... Having created a monstrous regime which flew in the face of all principles of economic rationality, its creators knew all too well that the monster would bite back if anyone tried to interfere with it.'
The Commission suggested at a recent meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture that new member states could receive a Separate Sugar Payment (SSP) as compensation for price cuts. The argument made for this payment is that farmers there have no track record of entitlements before accession in 2004. Latvia and Lithuania have been particularly concerned that the compensation for beet growers in the sugar proposal could go to landowners rather than the beet farmers.
Parliament's draft report unhelpful
The rapporteur on the sugar reform dossier in the European Parliament (Jean-Claude Fruteau) has come up with an unhelpful set of proposals in his draft report. They would both undermine the reform and penalise developing countries as well as hitting the EU budget.
The report suggests that the reduction in the reference price for sugar should be 25 per cent over three years not 39 per cent over two years as the Commission has proposed. It is difficult to see how such a scaled down reduction could permit the EU to meet its WTO commitments.
The report also suggests that the Commission should offer 80 per cent compensation for income losses incurred by EU sugar beet growers, a one third increase in the 60 per cent currently on the table. The idea that farmers in the new member states could receive their compensation on a per hectare basis is, however, compatible with the Commission's recent proposal discussed above and one wonders if a version of it might be used in the EU-15.
The report also proposes delaying the full implementation of the Everything But Arms agreement for six years until 2015. Imports of sugar from these developing countries could be controlled through a transitional period. Quotas would remain in place until 2015 but import duties would be gradually decreased. A so-called 'safeguard' clause would limit net exports by EBA countries to the difference between the sugar produced and the consumption level of each country.
The sugar lobby was earlier successful in delaying EBA implementation until 2009. Any further delay would be opposed by Global South groups like Oxfam.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Grain mountain fears grow
The grain sector is the EU commodity regime where reform is supposed to have been effective, bringing EU prices close to world levels. Why, then, are the amounts of grain in intervention stores growing? This trend reminds us of the susceptibility of the CAP to euro-dollar exchange rates and the potential for increasing output in the new member states of Eastern Europe.
Although some parts of the EU were badly hit by severe midsummer droughts, seen by some as both a symptom of and a contributor to global warming, this year's harvest is well above the average level for the past five years, even if it is 10 per cent down on last year's record. Internationally, harvests have been good and prices have suffered as a result.
Against the background of the Doha Round trade talks, and already under criticism for releasing sugar on to the world market, the EU is likely to be careful about subsidised exports. This means that the grain mountain will start to grow again. If the dollar appreciates, of course, some of the pressure could be eased as this would automatically move the world price of grain closer to the EU level, but this doesn't seem too likely. But there are longer term factors at work.
The Commission sets a lot of store by the reimposition of compulsory ten per cent set aside in 2004, but farmers simply farm the remaining area more intensively, often setting aside the least desirable land (as happens on the farm nearest to me).
However, the larger problem is the prospect of increases in yield in Eastern Europe as productivity improves. Severe weather conditions in the main sowing and growing periods hit production by around ten per cent in the new member states this year.
The scope for gains in productivity is shown by the fact that wheat yields in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are currently around 3.8 tonnes/hectare, only just over half the EU-15 figure of 7.3 tonnes a hectare. In the worst case scenario, intervention stocks could be 20 million tonnes in 2010 rather than the 3 million tonnes anticipated by the Commission. Reform of the grain regime could come back on the agenda.
Although some parts of the EU were badly hit by severe midsummer droughts, seen by some as both a symptom of and a contributor to global warming, this year's harvest is well above the average level for the past five years, even if it is 10 per cent down on last year's record. Internationally, harvests have been good and prices have suffered as a result.
Against the background of the Doha Round trade talks, and already under criticism for releasing sugar on to the world market, the EU is likely to be careful about subsidised exports. This means that the grain mountain will start to grow again. If the dollar appreciates, of course, some of the pressure could be eased as this would automatically move the world price of grain closer to the EU level, but this doesn't seem too likely. But there are longer term factors at work.
The Commission sets a lot of store by the reimposition of compulsory ten per cent set aside in 2004, but farmers simply farm the remaining area more intensively, often setting aside the least desirable land (as happens on the farm nearest to me).
However, the larger problem is the prospect of increases in yield in Eastern Europe as productivity improves. Severe weather conditions in the main sowing and growing periods hit production by around ten per cent in the new member states this year.
The scope for gains in productivity is shown by the fact that wheat yields in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are currently around 3.8 tonnes/hectare, only just over half the EU-15 figure of 7.3 tonnes a hectare. In the worst case scenario, intervention stocks could be 20 million tonnes in 2010 rather than the 3 million tonnes anticipated by the Commission. Reform of the grain regime could come back on the agenda.
Swiss to reform farm support
Switzerland is one of just five countries in the world with Producer Subsidy Equivalents calculated by the OECD at over the 60 per cent level. But now the Swiss Government has set out measures to make sharp cuts in support and liberalise markets. The government is planning to make significant expenditure cuts in a number of product sectors, abolish export subsidies, reduce tariffs on feed grain and switch from market support to direct aid payments, thus following the model of the EU.
The leader of the Swiss Farmers' Union, Jacques Bourgeois [sic] complained, 'Farms will face average income reductions of 20 per cent. This is totally unreasonable as farm incomes are already more than 40 per cent below those in other branches of industry.' However, the government is determined to promote the trend towards fewer, larger farms. One wonders about the future of those high alpine farms that so delight tourists to Switzerland.
The leader of the Swiss Farmers' Union, Jacques Bourgeois [sic] complained, 'Farms will face average income reductions of 20 per cent. This is totally unreasonable as farm incomes are already more than 40 per cent below those in other branches of industry.' However, the government is determined to promote the trend towards fewer, larger farms. One wonders about the future of those high alpine farms that so delight tourists to Switzerland.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Ahern draws return fire
Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern set out his stall in the defence of the CAP in the Financial Times last week but drew return fire from two of Europe's leading agricultural economists.
The Irish prime minister claimed that the CAP objectives set out in the Treaty of Rome were 'still valid today', although some think that circumstances in Europe are rather different today.
He then used the oft resorted to argument that we have to give the 'radical' 2003 reforms a chance to work. 'Farmers, like other business people, need a reasonable degree of stability in the policy environment in which they operate.' Well, they have had decades of handouts from European taxpayers and no one has seriously suggested a Kiwi style overnight abolition of the CAP.
He then goes on to argue that we shouldn't display our hand before the Doha Round talks in Hong Kong, which is reasonable enough. He then gets out the food security card, claiming that 'Europe's food supplies could, once again, become vulnerable.' He has the good sense not to mention terrorists, but even if extremists did manage to get to sea and blow up one or two ships carrying food, the impact would be negligible on overall supply.
We come to the crux of his real concerns when he starts to talk about damage to Europe's rural fabric and one hears echoes of de Valera's famous 1940s speech about Irish maidens dancing at crossroads etc. There is a serious point here, but what is needed is a vigorous and well designed rural development policy.
Ahern gets himself into trouble with his claims that there is 'a broad comparability of support' between the EU and the US. The OECD's Stefan Tangermann delivered a magisterial rebuke in a letter to the pink 'un, stating 'some numbers quoted are not exact.' (Put less politely, they are wrong). The former Gottingen professor points out that in the US in 2003 farm support stood at 15 per cent of receipts compared with 36 per cent in the EU.
Tangermann is constrained by the rules of an international organisation, but Reading University's Alan Swinbank was blunter. He notes that Ahern fails to point out that the decoupled subsidies are 'linked to lamd, enriching the land owner, and that they are based on area farmed, chiefly benefiting larger businesses rather than small, marginal farms'.
Swinbank points out that the October 2002 European Council meeting suggested 'that a ceiling would be set on CAP expenditure, not that a spending entitlement would be established.' The nub of his case is that the CAP 'is an imposition on the EU taxpayer crowding out other policy initiatives and creating winners and losers among member states. Mr Ahern overlooks the economic (and political) costs that a failed CAP imposes on the EU. Resources could be better deploted in other activities (providing genuine environmental benefits, and development in rural areas, for example).
The call for further reform will not go away. But the UK does not have sufficient political support to push it forward, despite Tony Blair's recent comment that his big regret about all the reforms he had undertaken was that they had not been radical enough.
The Irish prime minister claimed that the CAP objectives set out in the Treaty of Rome were 'still valid today', although some think that circumstances in Europe are rather different today.
He then used the oft resorted to argument that we have to give the 'radical' 2003 reforms a chance to work. 'Farmers, like other business people, need a reasonable degree of stability in the policy environment in which they operate.' Well, they have had decades of handouts from European taxpayers and no one has seriously suggested a Kiwi style overnight abolition of the CAP.
He then goes on to argue that we shouldn't display our hand before the Doha Round talks in Hong Kong, which is reasonable enough. He then gets out the food security card, claiming that 'Europe's food supplies could, once again, become vulnerable.' He has the good sense not to mention terrorists, but even if extremists did manage to get to sea and blow up one or two ships carrying food, the impact would be negligible on overall supply.
We come to the crux of his real concerns when he starts to talk about damage to Europe's rural fabric and one hears echoes of de Valera's famous 1940s speech about Irish maidens dancing at crossroads etc. There is a serious point here, but what is needed is a vigorous and well designed rural development policy.
Ahern gets himself into trouble with his claims that there is 'a broad comparability of support' between the EU and the US. The OECD's Stefan Tangermann delivered a magisterial rebuke in a letter to the pink 'un, stating 'some numbers quoted are not exact.' (Put less politely, they are wrong). The former Gottingen professor points out that in the US in 2003 farm support stood at 15 per cent of receipts compared with 36 per cent in the EU.
Tangermann is constrained by the rules of an international organisation, but Reading University's Alan Swinbank was blunter. He notes that Ahern fails to point out that the decoupled subsidies are 'linked to lamd, enriching the land owner, and that they are based on area farmed, chiefly benefiting larger businesses rather than small, marginal farms'.
Swinbank points out that the October 2002 European Council meeting suggested 'that a ceiling would be set on CAP expenditure, not that a spending entitlement would be established.' The nub of his case is that the CAP 'is an imposition on the EU taxpayer crowding out other policy initiatives and creating winners and losers among member states. Mr Ahern overlooks the economic (and political) costs that a failed CAP imposes on the EU. Resources could be better deploted in other activities (providing genuine environmental benefits, and development in rural areas, for example).
The call for further reform will not go away. But the UK does not have sufficient political support to push it forward, despite Tony Blair's recent comment that his big regret about all the reforms he had undertaken was that they had not been radical enough.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Mary Coughlan, Ireland's farm minister
At a time when Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern has been defending the CAP in the Financial Times and getting it large from Professors Swinbank and Tangermann in return, it's a good time to take a look at Ireland's farm minister, Mary Coughlan.
There was a time when you had to have three qualifications to be a farm minister: you had to be a farmer, or at least an employee of a farmers' organisation or agricultural bureaucracy; you had to be a man; and you had to be overweight, to demonstrate that you had played your part in reducing the CAP surplus.
Mary Coughlan does, admittedly, come from a very rural constituency, Donegal South West. She was elected to the Dail for Fianna Fail shortly after graduating in politics and sociology from University College, Dublin in 1987. This rapid rise may have been helped by the fact that her father was a politician. Married with two young children, she became a minister of state in 2001. But the move from minister of social and family affairs to replace the long-serving Joe Walsh as farm minister in 2004 was something of a surprise.
She clearly represents modern, successful Ireland, with a reputation as having a sharp mind and an affable personality. Unfortunately she is a defender of traditional CAP policies. She wants the EU to be cautious in the Doha Round negotiations and she is disappointed by the UK's call for further reform of the CAP. 'I think it's unfair. A commitment was given in 2002 that funding would be fixed for 10 years. Tony Blair must keep his promise.'
Ireland has generally been a staunch ally of France on CAP reform and the matter is of such importance to the Republic that it is the prime minister who has to be wheeled out to explain why further reform is inappropriate.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
CAP still takes nearly half of the budget
Defenders of the CAP in its present form are always asking why another reform is needed. Last year agriculture and rural development allocations accounted for 47.5% (€43.6 billion) of the EU budget, admittedly down from 54.1% (€44.4 billion) in 2003.
France was once more the largest recipient of agricultural largesse, followed by Spain, Germany and Italy. New member state Poland appeared in fifteenth position.
Could a better use be found or at least some of this €43.6 billion? I and many others think so.
France was once more the largest recipient of agricultural largesse, followed by Spain, Germany and Italy. New member state Poland appeared in fifteenth position.
Could a better use be found or at least some of this €43.6 billion? I and many others think so.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Some progress in Doha Round
Some progress was made in Doha Round talks between the 'group of five' (EU, US, Brazil, India and Australia) in Paris at the end of the last week. The secrecy surrounding the talks suggests that concrete proposals were being discussed, particularly on the vexed question of market access.
The US and the EU have now accepted the five tier proposal put forward by the G-20 and the EU has indicated that it will keep its list of sensitive products demanding special treatment to a minimum. It is understood that the EU and the US have put concrete tariff reduction proposals on the table, but much needs to be done before the Hong Kong ministerial in December.
At the farm council last week, a number of member states, Spain being the most vociferous, accused the Commission of 'selling out' to the US after a visit by Mariann Fischer Boel to Washington. However, the doughty farm commissioner was having none of it, retorting that 'We are not a gift shop.'
My current forecast of likely Doha Round outcomes in agriculture is:
• There will be an agreement, but not at Hong Kong (there isn’t enough time to sort out all the complexities)
• Export subsidies and their equivalents will be phased out by 2017
• There will be sharper reductions for high tariffs and a 100% AVE limit with very limited exceptions (essentially rice tariffs in Korea and Japan). There will be exemptions from the formula adopted for ‘sensitive’ products
• Permitted domestic support levels will be reduced but not in a way that will seriously trouble the EU and the US
• Cairns Group countries will be allowed to keep their single desk exporters, subject to undertakings on transparency
• ‘As one gets closer to the final deals that need to be fashioned, the GI issue will no doubt play a significant role in the balance of advantage that countries will seek from the Round.’ (Tim Josling)
• Provision for future negotiations will include a review of which subsidies should qualify for Green Box treatment
Anyone who wants my full paper on the Doha Round should E mail me at w.p.grant@warwick.ac.uk
The US and the EU have now accepted the five tier proposal put forward by the G-20 and the EU has indicated that it will keep its list of sensitive products demanding special treatment to a minimum. It is understood that the EU and the US have put concrete tariff reduction proposals on the table, but much needs to be done before the Hong Kong ministerial in December.
At the farm council last week, a number of member states, Spain being the most vociferous, accused the Commission of 'selling out' to the US after a visit by Mariann Fischer Boel to Washington. However, the doughty farm commissioner was having none of it, retorting that 'We are not a gift shop.'
My current forecast of likely Doha Round outcomes in agriculture is:
• There will be an agreement, but not at Hong Kong (there isn’t enough time to sort out all the complexities)
• Export subsidies and their equivalents will be phased out by 2017
• There will be sharper reductions for high tariffs and a 100% AVE limit with very limited exceptions (essentially rice tariffs in Korea and Japan). There will be exemptions from the formula adopted for ‘sensitive’ products
• Permitted domestic support levels will be reduced but not in a way that will seriously trouble the EU and the US
• Cairns Group countries will be allowed to keep their single desk exporters, subject to undertakings on transparency
• ‘As one gets closer to the final deals that need to be fashioned, the GI issue will no doubt play a significant role in the balance of advantage that countries will seek from the Round.’ (Tim Josling)
• Provision for future negotiations will include a review of which subsidies should qualify for Green Box treatment
Anyone who wants my full paper on the Doha Round should E mail me at w.p.grant@warwick.ac.uk
EU wine lake is forming again
Despite the provision of substantial funds for restructuring and the distillation of wine into industrial alcohol, the EU wine lake is forming again. As is the case with many commodity sectors in the CAP, the underlying problem is a structural one.
On the one hand, consumption levels are down, particularly in 'traditional' wine drinking countries such as France, Italy and Spain where the total quantity of wine consumed has fallen by over 50 per cent since 1980. Wine is not necessarily a popular drink with young people in these countries, with beer, alcopops and spirits becoming more popular. In Italy, there are reports that British style binge drinking is catching on.
On the demand side, there is fierce competition from so-called 'New World' wines, e.g., from California, Chile, Australia and New Zealand. These wines are particularly popular in the British market where the emphasis is on low to medium priced 'drinkable' wines. I know that the Australians keep their best wines for domestic consumption. Chilean wines have been doing particularly well in recent years.
As a consequence, EU wine stocks are rising. In Spain wine stocks are now larger than annual production. Total expenditure in the sector in 2004 was €1.227 billion and is estimated at €1.329 billion for 2005. €450m goes into a far from successful vineyard restructing programme, €387m into wine distillation, €232m for alcohol storage and €67 million for wine storage.
A big problem has been the ineffective management of vineyard grubbing and replanting schemes by national governments. The Commission has ordered France to pay back €14.5m of funds received to restructure and modernise vineyards after the money was allegedly misspent.
The Commission has stated that 'It is possible that due to the great variations in production which are typical of the sector and modifications in domestic and world demand, it may be necessary to resort to special intervention measures on the market, as prudently allowed for by the Council.'
Translated this means 'We have no accurate idea of what is going on here so we may have to bail the sector out again and the Council knew this would be good politics because some powerful member states are involved.'
On the one hand, consumption levels are down, particularly in 'traditional' wine drinking countries such as France, Italy and Spain where the total quantity of wine consumed has fallen by over 50 per cent since 1980. Wine is not necessarily a popular drink with young people in these countries, with beer, alcopops and spirits becoming more popular. In Italy, there are reports that British style binge drinking is catching on.
On the demand side, there is fierce competition from so-called 'New World' wines, e.g., from California, Chile, Australia and New Zealand. These wines are particularly popular in the British market where the emphasis is on low to medium priced 'drinkable' wines. I know that the Australians keep their best wines for domestic consumption. Chilean wines have been doing particularly well in recent years.
As a consequence, EU wine stocks are rising. In Spain wine stocks are now larger than annual production. Total expenditure in the sector in 2004 was €1.227 billion and is estimated at €1.329 billion for 2005. €450m goes into a far from successful vineyard restructing programme, €387m into wine distillation, €232m for alcohol storage and €67 million for wine storage.
A big problem has been the ineffective management of vineyard grubbing and replanting schemes by national governments. The Commission has ordered France to pay back €14.5m of funds received to restructure and modernise vineyards after the money was allegedly misspent.
The Commission has stated that 'It is possible that due to the great variations in production which are typical of the sector and modifications in domestic and world demand, it may be necessary to resort to special intervention measures on the market, as prudently allowed for by the Council.'
Translated this means 'We have no accurate idea of what is going on here so we may have to bail the sector out again and the Council knew this would be good politics because some powerful member states are involved.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)