Threat to cross-border trade

The internal market is arguably the greatest achievement of the European Union and from time to time we are told that it is now almost complete. However, regulatory decisions can easily derail it and a threat has arisen to cross-border trade between England and Scotland.

The Scottish Government is planning to capitalise on its low incidence of Bovine TB by applying to the European Commission for TB-free status. They have held back from making an immediate application after auctioneers and meat wholesalers expressed reservations. They warned that the sustainability of abattoirs and markets could be threatened as cross-border trade dried up.

It might also be counter productive in terms of containing the disease. Scottish finishers typically buy cattle from the north of England where TB is less common. However, if they are not prepared to pay the cost of pre-movement testing, they might start buying from high-risk areas in Wales and the West of England.

Another complication is that some farmers have holdings on either side of the national border. It is also unclear whether livestock taken from Scotland and not sold at an English market can then be returned north of the border.

It's sometimes a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world in agricultural policy. No doubt the move is seen as a patriotic one in Scotland, but whether it is good policy is another matter.

Eurosceptic MPs deny they had snouts in trough

Eurosceptic Conservative MPs have argued that there is nothing inconsistent in receiving payments from the CAP whilst being critical of it - which is indeed the case. The three MPs were the subject of an investigation screened by More4.

Former Conservative Party chairman Michael Ancram was said to have received £11,451 for his farm in the Scottish borders (not an unusual figure for a large business). David Heathcoat-Amory received £114,000 for his Scottish farms while Philip Dunne received £201,000 for his farm in Herefordshire.

The three MPs were among 45 who last year supported Eurosceptic Bill Cash's amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. All three of them mounted a robust defence of the farm subsidies received by businesses in which they had an interest. Mr Ancram pointed out that as a non-active partner, he only received money if the farm made a profit, which it hadn't done in the 12 months to May 2009. The year before it had only made a small profit. He commented, 'I'd love to see the CAP reformed - as long as it exists I'm entitled to claim.'

Mr Heathcoat-Amory said his arrangements were part of a farming partnership and the money didn't go into his bank account. Mr Dunne, who is MP for Ludlow, said the farm support arrangements enabled him to employ 20 people and farm effectively to award-winning environmental standards. He agreed that the CAP was in need of reform, but said it should be done at a European-wide level so UK farmers were not disadvantaged (which is indeed the only level at which it could be done).

If a flawed system exists, it is difficult to blame individuals who are entitled to claim for doing so. Nevertheless, as the countdown to a general election begins, it is evident that there are some contradictions in Conservative policy on Europe. Part of this arises from a tension between the Eurosceptic views of Conservative activists and many MPs and the need to pursue a strategy at the European level which protects British interests. Antagonising the EU over a range of issues could reduce the political capital at Britain's disposal to pursue CAP reform, although it could be argued that Labour has not made as much progress in that direction as it originally hoped.

'Can't pay, won't pay' say French farmers

French farmers have been told that they have to pay back hundreds of millions of euros after the Commission ruled that the subsidies were paid out illegally. Moreover, the Commission doesn't just want the €330m back, it is also charging interest of up to €150m.

With Sarko disporting himself in the Mediterranean as he recovers from his recent fainting fit, Francois Lafitte, president of the fruit and vegetable producers' union Fédécom has warned of a 'fiery' summer if the government pushes ahead with plans to claw the money back in September.

According to Mr Lafitte, recovering the money for taxpayers would bankrupt farmers. He also claims that Brussels has got its sums wrong (which is possible). But the French state has admitted that the subsidies, paid over a ten year period, were illegal under European law.

Mr Lafitte claims that the subsidies were needed to see off competition from Spain and Portugal. They were producing more cheaply at a time when French producers had a surplus. No mention of the consumer here.

France has launched an appeal at the European Court of Justice, but thinks that the process of repayment should start even before a decision is taken, otherwise they could end up paying even more. They don't sound very confident about their case.

The subsidies have to be paid back by January 2010, but new farm minister Bruno Le Maire has said that he would 'do nothing to compromise the future of the industry' which is being hit by current low prices.

He didn't explain how he would square this particular circle other than to say 'I will be very careful that the situation of each farmer will be analysed on a case-to-case basis in order not to penalise the most fragile.'

Translation:
1. Decisions will be subject to political pressures as I don't want to blot my copybook.
2. The most efficient will be hit hardest.

Have milk prices turned the corner?

Problems in the EU dairy sector have led the Commission to resort to the tired old policy instruments of intervention buying of skimmed milk powder and export subsidies. To be fair to the Commission, they have had to resist a lot of political pressure for even more intervention, including backing off the planned phasing out of quotas which have ossified the EU dairy sector and made it less internationally competitive.

However, there are a few signs of an improvement in prices. In the UK the NFU believes the corner has been turned for dairy farmers supplying the liquid market after Robert Wiseman Dairies announced that it was raising its price by 0.3p a litre. This increase follows a period of better returns from the cream market and will take the standard litre price for about 900 direct suppliers to 24.3p before seasonality deductions.

Prospects for milk used in manufacturing are less good. Skimmed milk powder continues to flow into intervention stores throughout Europe. While President Obama enjoyed one of the best publicised beers in history, the USA continues to distort the world market with subsidised exports.

Prices on global commodity markets are still under pressure. Butter is quoted at about £1160/t, while skimmed milk powder has slipped back recently to £1227-£1288/t. EU prices are somewhat better and the butter price has climbed above the intervention level. But significant volumes of skimmed milk powder are still being sold into intervention at about £1450/t. These stocks will eventually have to be sold into the market with an inevitable depressing effect.

What is evident is that supermarkets have been creaming off profits. According to a new market situation report from the Commission, 'the pronounced fall in the prices of milk and dairy commodities since the end of 2007 has only triggered a slight decline in consumer prices for dairy products.'

Since the end of 2007, Commission figures show that the wholesale butter price has dropped by 39 per cent, skimmed milk powder by 49 per cent, cheese by 18 per cent and milk by 31 per cent. Yet the price consumers pay in the shops for dairy products has dropped by just 2 per cent.

The Commission's conclusion is that 'the EU dairy supply chain does not function efficiently.' The market power of supermarkets, particularly in Britain, but increasingly in other member states, is considerable.

Competition policy authorities seem reluctant to act. Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to get hard evidence of exploitation of market power as suppliers feel they are vulnerable, even with guarantees of confidentiality.

However, there is also a broader political context as supermarkets help the less well off by holding down food prices. Given the importance to New Labour of working people and their families, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to back strong action, but I would not expect Dave Cameron to take a very different line when he is in charge.

Meanwhile, the Commission has proposed extending intervention purchasing for 13 months. Even more worrying, it has suggested allowing state aids of up to €15,000 per dairy farmers. This will do nothing to solve the industry's structural challenges.

Franco German alliance revived

France and Germany are seeking to revive the Franco-German alliance on CAP reform, seeking to agree a mutual deal which they can then impose on others. This may, however, not be so easy in a 27 member state EU. France and Germany may, however, be able to exploit the existence of a lame duck administration in Britain, the main champion of liberal solutions, combined with a likely change of government next year.

Paris and Berlin haveannounced the creation of a Franco-German working group to frame reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013. The working group was established on 2 July, a day before newly-appointed French Farm Minister Bruno Le Maire met with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso to explain France's stance on the future reform.

Le Maire said Barroso had shared his views on the 'strategic importance' of agriculture to the EU and on guaranteeing European food security.' It is absolutely necessary to regulate production,' Le Maire told the press after the meeting, insisting that the agricultural sector is far too strategic to be left to market forces alone.

'More regulation' will be France's guiding line in negotiations on farm reform, he added. But regulation does not necessarily mean quotas, he added, a reference to ongoing protests over milk prices.

'Our main political objective must be to guarantee stable and decent revenue for farmers,' he went on, noting that French farmers had lost 20 pet cent of their income since 2008. Such price volatility and decreases are 'not economically viable' and 'farmers cannot live with such instability,' he stressed. In other words, they must be funded by European taxpayers.

Franco-German cooperation on CAP reform will be very tight, Le Maire said, indicating that he would add a German official to his cabinet to prepare the work. Similarly, a French official will be sent to Berlin, he said.

The working group is open for others to join, he added, announcing a charm offensive tour of EU capitals that will start in London before going to Madrid, Rome, Bucharest and Warsaw. Paris and Berlin expect to table their first guiding principles for CAP reform 'in the coming months,' he added.

The appointment of Marie, formerly junior minister for European affairs, as farm minister in the 23 June reshuffle was itself significant. An ENArque, he has no clear agricultural experience or background. He is, however, a fluent German speaker and made numerous visits to Berlin in the first half of the year.

Superficial change

Santiago, Chile: it was argued in the panel on agricultural policy and trade at the IPSA conference yesterday that the so-called ´paradigm shift´ in discussion of the CAP had not occurred in 2003 as some had argued or, if it had, it had had few concrete results. Supposedly the state assisted paradigm was replaced by a new multifunctionality paradigm. However, it was argued by Carsten Daugbjerg from Aarhus University that the multifunctionality paradigm provided cover for the continuation of state assistance.

Another paper looked at ´rent seeking´ interpretations of agricultural subsidy. From the ensuing discussion a view emerged that whilst such models might not be able to explain the origins of subsidy policies, they might be useful in understanding their continuation.

UK can compete - so does it need subsidies?

Russia and Romania may be two of the cheapest places in the world to produce wheat, byt the UK is only a little way behind. Releasing the result of its Global Cost of Production Challenge, Bidwells Agriculture head of research Carl Atkin, said that despite the higher unit price of inputs in the UK, cost of production per tonne is only marginally higher than in eastern Europe. 'This is because of the considerable yield advantage the UK has, based on first-class soils and a maritime climate.'

Western Europe's temperate maritime climate produces one of the longest and most suitable growing seasons in the world for wheat, Mr Atkin explained. While the soils in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are often of equal or better quality, climatic and weather constraints temper output. In addition, there is considerable yield volatility in other parts of the world, where occasional crop failures need to be factored in. This is partly why UK what production costs per tonne are lower in Australia, Brazil and Canada.

Moreover, post-farmgate costs needed to be factored in. These can be substantial if infrastructure is poor and costs-to-market are high, as is generally the case in Russia. Costs are rsing in places such as Russia and Romania faster tham in, say Australia and Canada, as land and labour costs escalate.

If UK wheat can compete on world markets, do large-scale arable operations in East Anglia really need subsidies to be viable? Of course, re-directing CAP payments elsewhere could simply subsidise efficiency. Introducing a measure such as a cap on payments to large farmers would disadvantage the UK relative to other member states. But this analysis does raise questions about whether blanket subsidies are still required.

Could Doha be back on?

India's new government is eager to resume the Doha round of world trade talks, according to the country's new minister for commerce and industry. Anand Sharma told the Financial Times that India was keen to break the impasse in negotiations. Mr Sharma's tone marks a significant shift from his predecessor, Kamal Nath, who was known for his uncomprising stance in the Doha talks.

Many countries blamed India for the breakdown of ministerial talks a year ago intended to forge a blueprint for concluding the Doha round. The meeting ended in disarray after India and the US failed to reach a compromise over the special safeguard mechanism, designed to protect farmers in poor countries from surges of agricultural imports. Washington said imports should have to increase 40 per cent to trigger safeguard tariffs, whereas India wanted a very low 10 per cent trigger.

World trade negotiations have been the most significant driver for CAP reform for nearly two decades and a resumption of them could counter balance strengthening protectionist forces in Europe.

The debate on the post-2013 CAP

The debate on the future of the CAP after 2013 has now started following the informal Farm Council in the Czech Republic earlier this month. Those who want to influence the debate have about twelve months before the Commission publishes a Communication (effectively a White Paper) on future policy in the summer/early autumn of next year. Formal legislative proposals will then be published in the middle of 2011 together with the proposals for the financial perspectives from 2014 to 2019 or 2020.

At the Farm Council there was a surprisingly strong consensus on maintaining a strong 1st Pillar after 2013, principally in the form of Single Farm Payments (SFP). Britain sent a junior minister, Jane Kennedy, who has since resigned and she made a ritual reptition of the UK Government's position of wanting to phase out direct payments altogether. However, it is clear that this argument is going nowhere and that the French subsidisation discourse is back in the driving seat.

Justifications advanced for subsidy

What are the justifucations for continuing SFP? Are they an income support or are they there to support the provision of public goods? If the former, they are remarkably inefficient as most of the money goes to larger farmers. Commissioner Fischer Boel, however, made the argument that dairy farmers would be in even worse trouble without direct payments.

The Commission has estimated that 40 per cent of farms would disappear in some sectors if the CAP budget was stopped tomorrow - and farmer incomes would drop by more than two-thirds, from levels already below the EU average. No serious analyst is recommending withdrawing the budget overnight. We would rather not be here, but we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. However, objectives need to be clearly stated and prioritised and there needs to be a measureable link between objectives and policy instruments. In other words, no blanket subsidies that do not lead to demonstrable outcomes.

It is argued that the ovearching objective is to maintain farming across the EU, i.e., to avoid rural exodus and abandonment of the land. Leaving the land unfarmed would certainly have negative biodiversity impacts and also impair landscapes, affecting rural tourism. However, there needs to be more emphasis on the overall vigour of the rural economy, reducing its dependence on farming and ensuring that infrastructure such as broadband is in place everywhere.

A widely used argument at the Council was that the higher environmental, food safety, food quality, traceability, animal health and welfare standards that EU producers face in relation to non-EU producers cannot be rewarded by the market and therefore justify subsidies. There is certainly a case here, but the monitoring and enforcement of cross-compliace needs to be substantially improved if these subsidies are to be justified.

The food security argument was also raised and the difficulty with this is that it can become a portmanteau argument for 'business as usual', rather than taking a careful look at what might be required, for example, in terms of climate change adaptation.

Abandoning old forms of calculation

There was broad agreement that the historical reference base must be abandoned to legitimise payments after 2013. The adoption of a regional flat rate payment for all member states seems likely, although Finland is pressing for a differentiation between different types of farms, e.g., arable and livestock. Decoupling is also important, but Finland has argued in favour of coupling in sensitive regions where farming might otherwise stop.

Some are nore equal than others

Retiring European Parliament Agriculture Committee chaurman Neil Parish paraphased Orwell by stating that while all Member States are equal, some are more equal than others. New member states receive less than €200 per hectare in SFP compared with an EU average figure of just over €300. Greece receives more than €500 per hectare and Latvia barely €100.

However, French Minister Michel Barnier made it clear that 'equity was not the same as equality', arguing that a wide range of other criteria should be considered. Commissioner Fischer Boel made it clear that she thought that a flat rate payment across the EU was unrealistic.

Commissioner Fischer Boel has reserved her position about serving a second term as Farm Commissioner, but acknowledged that she would have to come to a decision in the near future.

SFP to stay - Fischer Boel

Farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel expects Single Farm Payment (SFP) to stay after 2013. 'I believe that some kind of basic income safety net will be needed,' she told an informal farm council meeting in the Czech Republic. Why that cannot be provided by the social security system was not explained.

However, SFPs should be linked to the delivery of public goods 'to avoid further intensification and industrialisation of farming which could entail serious environmental, economic and social consequences.'

She also made it clear that payments should no longer be made on an historic basis. Her view is that there is no sense in two neighbouring farmers getting widely different levels of payment on the basis of what they were doing ten years ago.

EU could do better on environmental farming

Millions of pounds of txapayers' money intended for environmental projects is instead being used to prop up damaging farmning practices across Europe, according to a report Could Do Better compiled for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds by Birdlife International.

The report highlights some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitants for wildlife. 'In principle this European funding is great news for wildlife because it supports agri-environment schemes which protect biodiversity - but the truth is that implementation of the policy by many member states is weak,' warned RSPB's head of agriculture policy Gareth Morgan.

'In compiling this report we found examples of agricultural schemes receiving large amounts of public subsidy from the EU which had no environmental benefit at all, in fact some were causing the degradation of the environment.'

Farmland bird species are in decline across Europe and this is often linked to changes in agricultual activities. Many of these threatened species are extremely senistive to changes in their habitat caused by intensification of farming. For example, the Spanish imperial eagle requires large areas of sparse wood picture rich in rabbit and the eastern European red-footed falcon requires traditional farmland with ponds rich in dragonflies.

'The findings of this report make it clear that the CAP is still not functioning properly and requires radical reform,' Gareth added. 'Agri-environmental schemes can and do deliver great results for farming and wildlife, but only if member states commit to them properly - otherwise it is simply an exercise in handing out money for nothing.'

'Some EU governments are clearly unprepared to stand up to the vigorous lobbying of their agricultural sector. If they continue to put forward dodgy agri-environmental schemes which have no positive impact on biodiversity then Brussels should have the backbone to kick them out.'

Examples of money down the drain included €790m in Portugal that has been invested in irrigation projects which will destroy wildlife habitats and increase water over-abstraction. In Cyprus conservation money is being spent on opening forestry roads and creating forest firebreaks which fragment bird habitats and disturb populations. Italy, France and Ireland also get the thumbs down for spending money on agri-environmental schemes that have no impact on normal farming practice and no benefit for the environment.

However, in England agri-environment schemes are judged to have been well designed and to be delivering benefits for biodiversity.

The full report can be downloaded here: Birdlife

Sterling fall gives farmers subsidy cash windfall

British farmers are set for a cash windfall worth hundreds of millions of pounds because of the fall of the pound against the eurp. Within the next fortnight farmers must tell Defra whether they want to receive their subsidies in pounds or euros ahead of the figure being fixed in September.

The last single farm payment was worth about £3bn to UK farmers when it was paid out at the end of last year based on an exchange rate of 79p to the euro. Since then, the euro has appreciated to about 90p.

Peter Kendall, chairman of the National Farmers' Union said that if the exchange rate stayed the same payments would be about 13 per cent higher than last year. This would add up to an extra payout of more than £300m to farmers.

Many farmers have used hedging strategies to fix their payments in advance at 92p per euro or higher. However, that is an option that is only really available to larger farmers. Less prosperous farmers with smaller farms have not been able to do so and are still exposed to market fluctuations.

Perhaps they should set some of the extra money aside to pay their tax bills. Tax liabilities will be higher after increased profits during the last two harvest. Accountants Grant Thornton warned that many farmers faced substantial tax bills next January and July.

Grain supply deficit by 2009-10

Grain stocks are projected to rise by 39 per cent this year to 160m tonnes after Russian and the Ukraine planted large crops in response to rising global prices. But, according to Societé Generale, the global wheat crop could shrink to around 642 million tonnes in 2009-10.

This still a bumper harvest by historical standards but significantly lower than last year. With consumption expected to increase to 657m tonnes, the market could see a supply deficit by the end of 2009-10. This could contribute to what is expected to be an era of volatile prices.

An important factor in the situation is the disapperarance of Argentina as a reliable exporter. Farmers there are due to start planting the 2009-10 crop in less than a month and there could be a fall of some 30 per cent on the 2008-9 season and the lowest since 1902-03 when Argentina was starting to earn a reputation as the bread basket of the world.

The decline stems from three years of misguided government intervention in wheat trading in which farmers are periodically banned from selling overseas; a 23 per cent tariff on exports; and a serious drought that has slashed exports. A long-running conflict between the government and soyabean farmers will slash export income this year. Lower wheat planting levels will lead to a bigger shift to soya, though, which is Argentina's biggest cash crop.

El Tejar, one of Argentina's leading agricultural groups, has frozen investments at home and is looking elsewhere in the region, such as neighbouring Uruguay and Brazil, where the regulatory hurdles that plague Argentina are absent.

The whole history of Argentina over the last hundred years is an object lesson in how political meddling can undermine a country's propserity. As far as farm trade is concerned, export taxes are just as much a distorting mechanism as import barriers.

Blanket subsidies to continue after 2020

Pillar 1 subsidies are likely to continue after 2020, forecast Professor Allan Buckwell, the Policy Director of the Country Land and Business Association, in an interesting talk at the President's Seminar of the Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE) in London yesterday.

He emphasised that agriculture should be able to look after itself. What it needed was imagination and drive, having the ideas about what customers want and having the energy and determination to see it through.

There was a possibility of big change in the next CAP reforms comparable to what happened in 1992 and 2000. However, he was concerned that we might not take the opportunity.

Trade liberalisation was in suspense. There was a real debate about going on about the extent to which we believed in international trade. Countries in Asia might think that the solution to their food security was to buy up land and rights to farm in Africa.

The 20th century trend in agriculture was for prices to fall in real terms, despite the growth in world population and income. However, this downward trend had slowed in the last twenty prices. Now we were in an era of more volatile prices. But if scarcity did produce systematically higher prices, what did that mean for policy? More support for farmers or less? It was hardly likely to lead to more support.

In seven out of the last eleven years farm income without support payments in the UK would be negative and even when positive was miniscule. The rapid removal of farm support would require structural adjustments.

Farmers thought that Pillar 2 was too bureaucratic and inaccessible to many farmers. For governments the administrative costs were high, there was the requirement for co-funding and the issue of whether benefits were discernible.

The status quo position on the Single Farm Payment was to cut, but how far and how fast. There was a wide distribution of payments among member states - Greece with its cotton and tobacco subsidies at one end with high payments and new member states like Latvia at the other. The distribution per beneficiary was even broader, although here the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the UK came out on top.

Would there be more uniform payments? What is the purpose of the payments? France favoured a basic husbandry payment. Which features of Pillar 2 could be dropped?

Putting the case for a food and environmental security policy, Professor Buckwell asked who is against food and environmental security? Who disputes that these are threatened? Europe faced the task of feeding its own population and possibly others as well.

The key point in food security was long-run production capacity - not letting good land to be built on or go under salt water. Knowledge and skills and research and development were also of key importance. One had to achieve food security as the key goal but without avoidable environmental degradation.

€53 billion (the CLA's estimate of the total cost of the policy) was not an obscene amount to be spending. He was not saying that the current policy was right, but any policy would need a significant budget.

Agricultural economist Sir John Marsh intervened from the floor to point out that subsidies kept resources in use which were les than optimal. We needed to be specific about what it was were were trying to create. CAP was originally created because of what seemed to be a fairly straightforward relationship between food availability and consumption. It then became a social policy because there were farmers with low incomes. Environmental aspects was too broad a term. The measurement of value to the public as a whole was less well defined.

There was an interesting exchange between Professor Buckwell and Martin Haworth of the NFU revealing 'differences of emphasis' between the two organisations. Haworth quetsioned whether both food and environmental security were under threat. He didn't agree that there was environmental degradation as things were getting better.

He disagreed with Allan Buckwell's suggestion that one should work with green organisations. It was dangerous to form an alliance with environmental organisations as this involved accepting that agricultural production was part of the environmental problem. In the set aside debate, environmental oganisations had convinced themselves that the only solution was to de-intensify agriculture in the form of set aside.

Haworth told Buckwell, 'What you are proposing is quite a dangerous way forward and not one we would support. We support the current architecture of pillar 1 and 2.'

Changes proposed for LFA payments

The European Commission has unveiled proposals to make changes in the way in which Less Favoured Area (LFA) payments are made. A policy review was set in train following criticism by the European Court of Auditors in 2003 (these things take time) that some countries were abusing the definition of 'less favoured'. This particularly applied to so-called 'intermediate' areas.

In its Communication the Commission suggests that payments should be made in future on the basis of 'biophysical' rather than socio-economic criteria. The Commission's view is that future payments should be based on soils, drainage, climate and terrain rather than socio-economic disadvantage to satisfy the public that the money is being well spent.

The proposals have caused alarm in Scotland where 83 per cent of the land area is deemed intermediate LFA and attracts funding of about £61m a year into livestock farming into this areas. Wales also has 80 per cent of its land area designated as LFA.

CAP bonanza for big Irish dairy companies

Figures obtained through a freedom of information request to the Irish Department of Agriculture show that the country's top dairy companies did well in securing CAP money in the form of export refunds and intervention aid.

It was actually Greencore, which owns Irish Sugar, that topped the recipient's list with restructuring funds that amounted to a cool €84m.

However, the Irish Dairy Board received €6.5m, followed by Kerry Ingredients with €5.1m. In third place was the company behind Baileys cream liqueur, R & A Bailey, owned by the drinks giant Diageo, which received €2.9m. It is believed that most of the payments were for export refunds, but that the IDB received money for limited butter intervention in 2008.

Given that dairy markets were relatively strong in 2008, these payments are well down on the levels of 2007 and earlier years. Given the widespread current use of export refunds, the 2009 figures are likely to be significantly higher.

In all cases the companies have defended the payments, claiming that they were a mechanism used to support the milk price to farmers. However, it is unlikely that all the money reached farmers.

Australia re-thinks drought subsidy

Even in an irrigation district, conditions in Australia can be dry

Australia is re-thinking its subsidy to drought hit farmers. This has a wider relevance, both in terms of how one adapts agricultural policy to climate change and how a subsidy can grow almost unnoticed. Australia has pursued a policy of eliminating agricultural subsidies, other than in investment in knowledge and R and D which most commentators would support.

The drought income supplement was an exception and it is mainly that subsidy which has pushed Australia's PSE up to a (still low) 7 per cent. What was once a 1 in 20 experience is now more likely to be 1 in 5 calling in question the notion of 'exceptional circumstances'. This is no surprise as work by Linda Botterill at ANU showed that it was difficult to come up with an objective definition of drought and the definition used is largely a socially constructed one.

In an interview with Agra Focus top Australian agricultural civil servant Stephen Hunter discussed the challenges that his country is facing in relation to climate change. He noted that Australia has always tended to have a higher variability in climate than most countries. However, the available evidence on the impact of climate change suggests that the south of the continent will become much drier with a higher variability in climate and the north will face increased rainfall. He commented, 'We have always had droughts. It's just that Climate Change is making it more likely.'


Flood irrigation is a less common sight now

On a visit to the irrigation district around Griffith, NSW a few years ago I was surprised at the amount of rice, a water intensive crop, that was being grown. But Hunter reveals in the interview that this has fallen drastically in recent years to as little as 2 to 5 per cent of normal levels. On farm, there has been a marked move away from flood iririgation and towards drip irrigation rather than sprays. One major lesson for Southern Europe in particular is the desirability of having a system of water trading in place so that it can be used at its highest value.

Hunter admits that there are limits to the extent to which the commercial market can provide multi peril crop insurance. The approach being used is to equip farmers to understand their local climate better and to outline management changes they might make to respond better to those conditions, e.g., low tillage farming to deal with soil problems.

Another interesting arrangement which allows market smoothing without distorting interventions is the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. This allows farmers to even out their income by putting into deposit surplus funds in a good year that will help them in less good years. What is distinctive about the scheme is that it is attached to tax incentives.

Australia often has some interesting policy lessons. Anyone who is interested in what I learnt on my recent visit about the management of cattle diseases can E mail me for a Power Point presentation.

Fischer Boel defends export subsidies

Farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has reiterated the EU's commitment to phase out all export subsidies by 2013, but in the meantime has insisted on their use to defend EU market share. Responding to concerns that the dairy export refunds, reintroduced in January, mean 'dumping' cheap produce on developing countries, Fischer Boel said that the EU cannot risk losing its market share to other major exporters.

The return of the subsidies has been widely criticised by agricultural exporting countries such as Australia. But concern has also been expressed within the EU itself. Germany is known to have been concerned that the subsidies are creating a damaging dumping effect in some developing countries.

Fischer Boel explained that in countries such as the Dominican Republic, the impact of subsidised EU exports is not to directly harm domestic produce. These markets are in fact a battleground between the EU and other developed world exporters, she argued.

Of course the EU is not directly competing on the liquid milk market in these countries. However, I recall reading studies by Oxfam and Cafod relating to the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Small local dairy farmers found that their market in local processing factories was driven out by skimmed milk powder from the EU.

Overdoing the gloom

I regard climate change as a major challenge. As it is a global public bad, it requires action by governments, individually, at EU level and globally. However, these actions will be insufficient if there is not an adequate response by business and by citizens.

In my view excessively gloomy predictions about climate change actually have a disempowering effect on citizens. They start to think it is all hopeless and they might as well continue with their existing environmentally unfriendly lifestyles.

Some of those putting forward these views have a broader agenda which is well served by taking an excessively pessimistic view of the prospects for climate change mitigation. (Adaptation is only now really starting to get on the EU agenda in a serious way).

This was the case with one of the speakers at the recent meeting of the Franco-British Council that I attended. I have so much material from this meeting that it is going to take some time for me to blog it all.

I thought that this particular speaker made some good points, but he undermined them through overstatement. He started by stating that we were just nine meals from anarchy because of our over reliance on retailers for buffer stocks. We do sometimes rely too much on leading supermarkets as a private governance mechanism, a subject which I am personally interested in. Indeed, I believe that Cobra, the civil contingencies unit in the Cabinet Office, has taken an interest in the subject of potential threats to food stocks.

The speaker argued that national food self-sufficiency was in long-term decline. The UK was increasingly reliant on imports when the ability of the rest of the world to provide for us was weakening. The fabric of biodiversity, nature's insurance plan against disaster, was wearing thin.

The speaker went on to argue that intensive farming defied ecological gravity. I think that this depends on how it is done. In arable farming, one needs the use of methods of Integrated Crop Management and Integrated Pest Management, subjects I have written on with my biological science colleagues. Livestock farming needs to observe animal welfare standards. All these objectives can, and are, being pursued through appropriate EU policies and it this dimension of the CAP that needs to be developed and strengthened.

The speaker argued that obesity is a climate change issue and that we need to consume less. The food crisis had been coopted to promote asymmetric market liberalisation and particular commercial agencies.

Where I did agree with the speaker was his emphasis on the importance of the planet's hydrological cycle. The proportion of the earth's surface subject to extreme drought had already increased from one to three per cent and could increase to one third by the end of the century [this is a worst case scenario in my view].

A person associated with DG Agri asked whether there was really a problem about generating a sufficient food supply. Yields had improved in the past. This commentator also defended biofuels, arguing that higher energy prices in the longer run would mean that they would be used without public policy.

The speaker asserted that biology must become before economics and politics. Scientists, however, were prone to pander to politicians. This is not my experience of working with natural scientists. It is not a question of biology coming before politics, but the insights of economics, political science, law, biological science and many other disciplines being brought together as in the RELU programme: RELU

A person from a farmers' organisation argued that the model of a richer country outbidding everyone else on the world market was not sustainable in the future.

The speaker concluded by celebrating the return of dirigiste politics and said that we could fundamentally re-engineer the economy as we did in the run up to the Second World War. The state rules ok!

For some of my work on ICM and IPM go to: Biologicals

On animal welfare: Livestock

Re-education for Commission officials

On a visit to China a few years ago I met an elderly professor who had been sent with his students to the countryside during the Maoist period for 're-education' by the peasants. He struck a deal with the local peasants that allowed them to work on their books two days a week.

Now farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, a large-scale farmer with her husband in Denmark, has decided that Commission officials in DG Agri need re-education. She considers that they are too detached from farmers and don't understand their problems.

The so-called Harvest Experience programme means that all agriculture staff will be sent to stay on farms from 2010. One goal is to encourage Commission officials to use simpler language.

It will be interesting to see where the farmer hosts are found from. I suspect that many of them will be drawn from farmer organisations and will have an axe to grind.

Historically, DG VI as it once was had a reputation of being particularly close to farmers. Its head official was always drawn from France and was usually close to large-scale French grain interests. Many of the officials were French and those Brits who worked there were usually Francophiles. One compensation was that it was said to have the best canteen in the Commission.

The Kinnock reforms ended the French domination at top level. Mind you, a lot of nonsense still comes out of DG Agri. A British academic was telling me about a talk given to students by one of its officials. He claimed that the livelihood of one person in five in Europe depended on the CAP. He worked this out by adding up those working in farming, those in food processing and those in input industries.

It was pointed out to him that it would be possible to have a healthy and competitive food sector in Europe without subsidy and protection.

The French official view

At the meeting of the Franco-British Council I attended last Monday, it was interesting to hear the current French official view expressed by a senior French person.

A food security theme was heavily emphasised with the food riots being invoked, it being argued that the health and well being of one billion people was threatened. Reference was made to the challenge presented by volatile prices. It was argued that food was a strategic asset and that we had lost sight of this in recent decades.

European policy ensured the food security of half a billion Europeans. Far from being a fortress, the EU was the world's leading importer from the developing world.
It was claimed that we had now reformed the CAP. This may be true, but it has not been transformed and many of its undesirable features remain in place.

It was argued that we should move away from the old stereotypical arguments about productionism versus environmentalism or markets versus self-sufficiency. We must produce more in a more sustainable way.

Into the lion's den

The Franco-British Council invited me to a large seminar in London yesterday on the Common Agricultural Policy. It was a very interesting day, although it was somewhat disconcerting to be asked questions in French about the policy from its defenders. Those present were a mix of academic and practitioners.

The meeting was conducted on Chatham House terms, but it gave an interesting indication of both current French and British thinking on the future of the CAP. Over the next week or so, I will reflect on some of the arguments put forward. The overall atmosphere was one of constructive dialogue, although one French speaker had to get in a dig about Britain not having learnt anything from BSE.

Much of the discussion focused on Pillar 2 issues in terms of rural development and how the CAP could be developed to meet the challenge of climate change. Indeed, one argument put forward from the British side was that the distinction between the pillars had become unhelpful and what was needed was a blended rural and environmental policy.

I wouldn't claim that the French participants necessarily bought into this, but I think there was an acceptance that there had to be debate about the underlying principles and goals of the CAP and without this one would not be able to arrive at better policy.

Why CAP reform happened

The latest Journal of Common Market Studies (vol.47, 2, March 2009) contains an important article exploring the determinants of CAP reform. It is written by Alan Swinbank, a distinguished agricultural economist and a leading proponent of reform and Arlindo Cunha who was chair of the Agriculture Council in 1992 at the time of the MacSharry reform.

They have used a particular method, the Delphi technique, to survey a range of key influentials including Ray MacSharry and Franz Fischler. It allows them to analyse how the drivers of reform have changed over time through the 1992, 1999 and 2003 reforms.

Among the key findings were:
1. The Agriculture Commissioner has a key entreprenurial role (as I argued in my 1997 book on the CAP, 'the Commissioner makes a difference'
2. International trade negotiations were a major driver of reform (in this case providing confirmation of a widely held view)
3. Pressures from environmental groups, and from the media and public opinion, were identified as of growing importance, from a low base in 1992 to real significance in 2003. By contrast, farmers' organisations, the food processing indsutries, consumers and academics were judged to have had little influence on the reform process.

The European Parliament was seen as being of little influence in the reform process. Pressures from the European Council and the finance ministers in ECOFIN were seen to be more important in promoting the reform agenda than the Farm Council. Views on the role of the Farm Council were more divergent than almost any other subject covered in the survey. Some thought it had been conservative for a long time, running behind events, others took the view that it softened the Commission position.

The need for a better relationship between agriculture and the environment was seen as of little importance in 1992 but became particularly important in 2003. The need to find more funds for rural development also became important in 1999 and 2003. Ensuring the international competitiveness of agriculture also showed an increasing importance over the three reforms. Consumer concerns about food safety also became more important over time, but the importance of the 'European Model of Agriculture' seems to have peaked in the Agenda 2000 discussions when it was first presented.

A disappointing interview

I realise that opposition politicians have to say all things to all persons and jump on any bandgwagon that's going on, but I must say that I found an interview with Nick Herbert, the shadow Defra secretary, in Farmers Weekly a bit disappointing.

It remains to be seen whether the MP for Arundel and South Downs will be Defra secretary in Dave Cameron's government, or even whether Defra will remain in his present form. However, if his thinking is typical of that in the shadow cabinet on agriculture and food matters, it's a bit worrying. It looks as if we could be lurching back towards productionism.

Perhaps that is not entirely surprising as there has always been quite a close informal relationship between large-scale farmers and the Conservative Party. Unlike smaller farmers (who often vote for the Lib Dems or the Nationalists or even Labour), they are overwhelmingly Conservative voters. Many of them hold office in local Conservative associations.

Herbert thus goes for a badger cull, even though the scientific evidence is contradictory and culling can actually spread Bovine TB by disturbing social groups of badgers. It is also unlikely to win the Conservatives friends among the well-organised badger lobby. I would not rule out culling in any circumstances, and it will be interesting to see whether the proposed policy experiment in Wales goes ahead and, if it does, what its effects are. Herbert is chair of the all-party group on badger TB and one would have hoped that he could have been a bit more cautious before trying to score a few partisan points over Hilary Benn, whatever the latter's shortcomings.

What really concerns me is the following set of statements: 'We need to re-address the balance of food production. Total self-sufficiency isn't the right objective, but we do need increased production on the foods we can grow and rear domestically. We are a trading nation with important export markets and, while I'm not a protectionist, it's madness to import food we could be producing ... We should be maximising food production in a sustainable manner.'

Let's try and deconstruct these statements:
1. Addressing the balance of food production. This is part of the current fashion for re-balancing the economy, but I am far from sure that governments should set targets for the share of the economy undertaken by particular sectors.
2. Autarchy is impossible (good), but we should maximise domestic production. How? At a cost to the taxpayer or to the environment?
3. It's madness to import food we could be producing. Supposing that food is cheaper and of an equivalent quality or offers a better price/quality mix. The only way to keep that food out of the UK market is through protectionism which is what the CAP does at the moment.
4. How does one maximise food production in a sustainable manner? Of course, there are policies like Integrated Pest Management that need to be pursued, but there is something of a contradiction in this statement.

On the CAP, Herbert says, 'I would rather make decisions here. There's too much nonsense coming out of Europe and we need to minimise here.' Of course, the Conservatives are Eurosceptic, but I have never heard them advocating withdrawal from the CAP (unlike the CFP).

To be fair, there is a possibility of greater co-responsibility in the post-2013 CAP. Member states might be able to vary the level of subsidy provided. The problem with that approach is that it undermines the internal market which is one of the major achievements of the EU. Herbert's own answer is to have greater scrutiny of regulations in the Commons. There's nothing wrong in that, but I don't think it's the answer.

More thinking needs to be done between now and the election.

Spending money to pay it out

One of the many drawbacks of the CAP is that it costs a lot of money to run which reduces the sums that reach the supposed beneficiaries.

It has now emerged in response to a parliamentary question that each claim for the Single Farm Payment (SFP), irrespective of its value costs £742 to process. Junior Defra minister Jane Kennedy said that the figure was obtained by considering the direct processing costs and the total number of claims received.

A significabt number of SFP claims are worth around half of what it costs to process them, although this should change after the implementation of the Health Check reforms which are intended to cut very small payments to, for example, 'hobby farmers'. There were 14,465 payments under £400 in 2007 and 636 under £50. There were five payments made under £5.

It's a classic example of deadweight loss at the expense of the taxpayer. And it isn't helping farmers.

Vision for the future of the CAP

The influential Land Use Policy Group will be launching their vision for the future of the CAP after 2013 in Brussels on March 30th. This will be an important event in the long-term effort to clarify thinking about future policy so that it delivers benefits to the environment and rural communities.

The Group wants to progressively transform the CAP so that it is focused more clearly on rewarding the environmental services arising from land management where the market fails to do so. These rewards should reflect the services provided and the costs incurred. The new policy should in the Group's view:

• Have a clear role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, addressing water and biodiversity management and ensuring that farming and forestry have the capacity to deliver environmental security and sustainable production in the long term.

• Promote the sustainable use of the natural resources on which all production depends through the use of good practice guidance together with agreed environmental standards, enforced by risk-based regulation which is binding on all land managers.

• Reward the positive management of existing biodiversity, cultural landscapes, carbon and water resources whilst securing improvements in the environmental quality of all rural land.

• Help reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture and forestry, by targeting capital investment on environmentally beneficial technology and infrastructure.

• Integrate sustainable land management with economic and social policy in order to encourage integrated land use that enables rural communities to benefit from the economic potential of their environment.

• Ensure that progress towards environmental, social and economic objectives is monitored, evaluated and regularly reported on.

The group admits that, 'Transforming the CAP in this way will take time. Any income support retained in the short term should be targeted, with conditions, on those farming systems making the greatest contribution to the management of environmental services for the benefit of society. Research and development should be focused on the challenge of enhancing long-term productivity in ways that reduce environmental impacts and help adapt to climate change.'

The Group states, 'We see our proposals as providing a sustainable justification for a “new contract” between predominantly urban taxpayers and those who manage rural land.' It will be interesting to learn more about the proposals when they become available. The principles are good ones, but to an extent the devil is in detail.

There is also the political problem of overcoming the resurgence of support for productionist solutions, the argument being advanced that protecting the environment is a luxury good that can be set aside in a recession. As evidence accumulates about the effects of climate change and their possible acceleration, future agriculture and rural policy must embed measures to mitigate climate change as a key priority.

The future of the CAP

An excellent new site on the future of the CAP is now available organised around the theme of '2020: debating the future of the CAP': CAP 2020 . It has a particular emphasis on environmental issues, but has a broader focus than that.

Backed by the knowledge and expertise of the Institute for European Environmental Policy, this is going to be a key resource for analysts of the CAP. Indeed, it is going to eclipse anything that can be offerd on this blog or even what Jack Thurston has been able to achieve on CAP HealthCheck. He has been reorienting his interests in any case: Health Check

This blog will be kept going as from time to time I may be able to draw on my experience and contribute something to the debate. However, the debate is clearly moving on.

A document I saw recently suggested that the UK Government now has the ambition of phasing out the CAP as a protectionist and subsidy providing policy package by the year 2020. Even before the recession, I would have been sceptical about that ambition, given the strength of the political constellation that defends the CAP.

However, we now face a long and deep recession that it is going to have profound implications for the future role of government. Although the 'regulatory state' will probably be strengthened as a result, whatever government is in power in a particular country, it is going to have to cut public expenditure and raise taxes to pay off debt.

This might seem a golden opportunity to reduce the large sums that are spent on subsidising agriculture. However, even though the debate on the CAP has become more transparent, and significant changes have been achieved in the way in which it is delivered, the politics of bringing about change in the CAP remain challenging and complex. The policy will probably outlive me.

Do subsidies keep the cost of food down?

Canberra, ACT: Jack Thurston over at the CAP Health Check blog recently set me a challenge. An argument that is increasingly heard is that farm subsidies are a good thing because they keep the cost of food down at a time of economic recession.

First, it's an inefficient way of delivering the subsidy to those most in need. In so far as the cost is reduced, the benefit reaches the rich as well as the poor. It would be better to ensure that the least well off members of the population had enough money for a balanced and nutritious diet.

Second, the protectionist aspects of the CAP mean that consumers in the EU do not have unhindered access to agricultural goods at world market prices. The EU price is generally above the world price.

What about the single farm payment? Much of the money spent on the CAP does not reach the farmer, but is absorbed by administrative costs (pushed up by the complexity of the system), traders and food processors (just look at how much Tate & Lyle has received) and by criminal organisations.

As a rational decision-maker, the farmer is not going to use the subsidy to lower prices. He may invest in the farm, thereby benefiting suppliers of agricultural equipment which is why they favour the CAP so much. Or he may decide to use the money for personal consumption - or more likely some mixture of both.

Some of my colleagues at Warwick HRI think that food is too cheap. By that they mean that it costs so little that people do not value it enough and the emphasis is on low cost production, regardless of some of the negative externalities. There is something in this, but one has to consider the impact of higher food prices on the constrained budget of the typical family.

You can go to hell

Perth, WA: Coming to Australia always gives you a fresh perspective on matter agricultural. This is the prominent headline in The Countryman weekly which refers to a 66-year old Danish woman who is going to knock the guts out of the Australian dairy industry.

Quite what her age, nationality or gender has got to do with it is another matter, but the message about the restoration of export refunds and the actions of farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is crystal clear. It is backed up by an interview with an indignant Australian farmer.

One good point that the articles does make is that the EU cares little about the health of the global dairy industry and perhaps in time of food security concerns it should.

Can the old policy instruments have any effect?

The resort to intervention buying and export refunds in the dairy sector has been predictably bad PR for the EU, especially in the southern hemisphere. But a more fundamental question is, can these tired old policy instruments work any magic in a deep economic crisis?

What is likely to happen, judging by past experience, is that exporting countries like New Zealand will lower their prices in response in order to retain global market share. The net effect is that world prices are depressed even further and this does not help EU producers or certainly not the more efficient ones who are seeking to compete on the world market.

Wheeling out the old policy instruments may give partial satisfaction to farm lobbyists, but it is not really going to help prices or farm incomes. The unpalatable fact is that an internationally competitive EU dairy industry might have a better chance of bringing prosperity to EU dairy farmers. But that would mean marginal farmers in politically sensitive areas like Bavaria and Britanny going out of production. And that is too high a price to pay for a net efficiency gain.

Return of the butter mountain

It was the recession of the 1930s that ushered in agricultural protectionism and subsidies, not least in the United States. Now the European Union has reverted to two of its old favourite policy instruments: intervention buying and export subsidies in the dairy sector just when we thought we had seen the last of them. Stocks of butter disappeared completely in 2007.

Faced with a drastic drop in dairy prices, the EU is to buy 30,000 tons of butter at a guaranteed price. Over three times as much skimmed milk powder is to be purchased - 109,000 tons. In addition, export subsidies will be given to skimmed milk powder, butter, butter oil and cheese. These subsidies are, of course, particularly damaging to developing countries where they undermine the viability of local farmers. As Oxfam has pointed out, once the EU starts using them, other countries may follow suit.

Officials argue that, by historical standards, the amount being bought is more of a butter molehill than a mountain. In 1986, the EU bought 1.23 million tons of unwanted butter. However, farm organisations have argued that more intervention may be required. The fall of the rouble has dented one important export market. The price of a ton of skimmed milk powder has roughly halved since the summer of 2007.

As far as other intervention stocks are concerned, the EU has 717,810 tons of cereals in the grain mountain and 41,422 tons of sugar, while the wine lake has 2.3m hectolitres of wine in it.

Let's hope it's not back to the future.

Defra wants set aside back

The UK rural affairs ministry, Defra, is to press for the reintroduction of compulsory set aside, most likely at a range of 2 to 4 per cent. The motivation is that the department failed to reach all its biodiversity targets in 2008 and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) figures showed that farmland bird numbers were in decline.

A link could be made between set-aside and the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme (ELS). One proposal under consideration is to allow farmers to include set aside in the ELS area of a farm. Farmers who are in the scheme would then effectively receive payments for their set aside.

The NFU has argued for set aside to remain at zero per cent, predictably citing food security grounds. A more subtle argument is that it is a very blunt policy instrument, not just for restraining production, but also for achieving biodiversity targets.

The key point here is the reliance on farmland bird populations as a measure of environmental stress. That certainly reflects the agenda setting power of the RSPB, but it is not necessarily the best measure. Moreover, even if one targets farmland bird population, set aside is a crude way of maintaining their numbers.

Budget pressure on CAP

With the Health Check out of the way, it looks as if the medium-term future of the CAP is going to be strongly influenced by discussions of how the EU budget should be spent. This always raises the awkward question of the opportunity cost of spending large sums of money on subsidising farmers.

One external study has concluded that the CAP could just as well be paid from national budgets as the EU budget in terms of its European added-value. (For the study go here: Budget This study seems to have influenced the viewpoint of EU Budget Commissioner Dalia Grybauskaité. She told Agra Focus that there will be massive poltical pressure for the EU to concentrate its policy spending after 2013 on areas where there is a genuine added-value at EU level, e.g., a common policy on energy or climate change.

The Commissioner described 1st pillar CAP funding as 'generally the largest and most costly EU policy which, under each reform has got more and more expensive and less and less efficient'. She also questioned whether agriculture policy is still a 'common policy'. When the EU was created there were questions of hunger. But that has changed and 'we are now fighting with over production and with price crises for food and agricultural products'.

Another argument for co-funding - which already happens in the new member states - is the casual attitude she has witnessed from some member states to various EU-funded projects - as demonstrated by poor controls and the likely increase in sums received under the 'clearance of accounts' procedure. As soon as national/regional funds are involved, the relevant authorities are more focussed and responsible for an efficient use of public money, she argued.

Dairy quota row highlights industry divisions

Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel's proposal for five annual dairy quota increases of 1 per cent each, adopted unchanged by farm ministers, is under attack from two sides. The Commission believes that this is a sure sign that it has negotiated a fair middle path through a morass of conflicting objectives. A less charitable interpretation would be that the needs of an internationally competitive industry have been partially sacrificed to those of marginal farmers with political clout.

What is at stake here is a deeoply divided industry. Parts of the European milk sector, largely found in Northern Europe (although also in Italy's Po Valley) is an efficient, hi tech branch of the food industry that is well capable of competing on the international market and has a strong export orientation. But there are also a lot of marginal dairy farmers who are conservative in outlook and manage to 'get by' economically with the help of political protection. This is given to them by groupings like the CSU in Bavaria.

Member states in the north and west of Europe, especially the UK and Denmark, have criticised the Health Check accord as a missed opportunity to set the EU dairy industry on the road to a prosperous and expansionist future. Member states to the south and east have lamented the prospect of more milk coming on to the market at a time when dairy farmers' incomes are coming under sustained pressure.

Kirsten Holm Svendsen, policy director of the Danish Dairy Board, commented, 'Restricting milk production in Europe will only generate higher support volumes from non-European dairy nations. Thus, by refusing to liberalise dairy production, the EU gives up the expanding European dairy market to the Brazilians.'

The Danes are also concerned that the new support mechanisms available to dairy producers under 'Article 68' of the Single Farm Payment regulation will allow member states to effectively re-introduce coupled support of the dairy sector, with a consequent distorting impact on competition.

The possibility of creating a new coupled dairy cow premium from 2010 is regarded as a negotiating victory for Austria. Outgoing Austrian farm minister Josef Proll said that the biennial reviews of the milk market would allow the Commission to put the planned quota increases in hold if there were to be any risk of exceptional market disturbances - or even to cut quotas. Thus, even modest steps in the direction of market liberalisation could be threatened.

Auditors roast cross-compliance policy

The European Court of Auditors has published a strong critique of the way that cross-compliance policy, a key element in the reformed CAP, is executed by the Commission and the member states.

The Court carried out an audit in 2008 of the cross-compliance policy at the Commission and in seven Member States representing the diversity of agriculture across Europe. In the report which it recently adopted, the Court concludes that the objectives of this policy have not been defined in a specific, measurable, relevant, and realistic way, and that at farm level many obligations are still only for form’s sake and therefore have little chance of leading to the expected changes, whether reducing the size of payments or modifying farming practices.

More precisely, the Court finds that:
􀂃 the Member States have not translated all the cross-compliance standards into obligations applicable at farm level.
􀂃 monitoring whether these obligations are being respected is weak and in some cases non-existent. One of the reasons for this is that the checks are largely carried out during the summer months and a significant number of obligations relating to agricultural practices which occur during other seasons and cannot therefore be properly checked.
􀂃 the minimal reduction in direct payments seen to date stems both from monitoring weaknesses and an inadequate system of sanctions. For example, the audit found no breach of cross-compliance after carrying out 11 633 checks of the Birds Directive and 14 896 checks of the Habitats Directive over two years in four Member States.
􀂃 the introduction of cross-compliance has weakened key elements of the control and sanction system for rural development. In addition, the separation between cross-compliance and agri-environmental measures is not always clear.
􀂃 the data sent by the Member States to the Commission are unreliable and overestimate both the rate of monitoring of farmers and the farmers’ compliance rates. The Commission’s system for monitoring these data is incomplete and suffers in particular from the absence of performance indicators and baseline levels.

Overall, the Court considers that cross-compliance is a vital element of the CAP but concludes that it is not effective as currently managed by the Commission and implemented by the Member States. It states, 'If the public authorities wish cross-compliance to achieve its full effect, they must define specific and measurable objectives which can be translated into obligations that are controllable at farm level. The Court therefore recommends that the applicable rules should be simplified, clarified and prioritised.'

The Estonian vision

A charming young Estonian woman greeted me at the European Parliament yesterday when I went to give evidence to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (of which more in due course). Of broader significance Estonia is orobably the only new member state with a clear concept of how the CAP should evolve. This is outlined in an Agra Focus interview with farm minister Helir-Valdor Seeder.

Estonia's view is that reform has not gone far enough and believes that we need a significantly reformed CAP. Seeder's view is that 'the system of direct aid today is innovative in its form ... but in practice it is the factual continuation of the 1992 MacSharry reform where farmers were compensated for the internal market price drop.' He argues there should be a continuing base payment to farmers to compensate for the EU standards they are obliged to follow.

However, more payments should be targeted. He sees the future in terms of a Common Rural Policy which should be open to entrepreneurs in rural areas, but 'should not be a cartel for the farmers club.'

He argues that price volatility requires a single intervention mechanism that would enable the EU to offset the negative effects of extreme temporary price drops. However, why not deal with this through some kind of insurance mechanism that had EU backing? It would be less market distoring.

More bids to grub up vineyards than expected

The scale of bids to permanently dig up vineyards under the first year of the grubbing-up scheme set up under the wine reform has surprised the Commission. They have been obliged to reduce each application by 54.1 per cent as a result. Bids across the EU for just under 160,000 hectares have been reduced to just over 73,000. The total budget for the first year of the grubbing up scheme was €464m.

The applications cover 4.2 per cent of the European Union wine area. but as mich as 12.7 per cent in Cyprus and 8.9 per cent in Spain. These countries perhaps have relatively high proportions of lower quality wines while Cyprus is a recent entrant to the EU and will have not been able to take advantage of earlier schemes. 91 per cent of the funds have been allocated to Spain, Italy and France.

Europe continues to face a challenge from the new wine producers of Australia, Chile, New Zealand and South Africa, particularly in relation to medium quality 'drinkable' wines.

CAP Health Check deal

An outline of the compromise deal brokered by the French presidency to complete the CAP health check can be found here: Euractiv . There is also extensive coverage on the CAP Health Check blog that we work with: see Health Check. Even if the name of the blog eventually changes, the need for its campaigning stance remains.

Further progress has been made in the direction of strengthening Pillar 2 payments which emphasise environmental protection. Indeed, this move has upset the NFU: NFU . However, this is not a fundamental reform of the CAP, but nor was it meant to be. For that we will have to wait at least until 2013.

In any case with economic crisis hitting Europe the attentions of its leaders is focused elsewhere. Industrial policy is making a comeback, particularly in France and Italy. In so far as payments to bail out firms in difficulty become fashionable once again, aid to farmers looks less exceptional and less open to criticism. A quote from Silvio Berlusconi about says it all: 'State aid, which until yesterday was considered a sin, is now absolutely essential.' So much for the internal market.

Industrial policy was, of course, as big a disaster as farm policy: it just didn't last as long. The least efficient firms went out of business eventually and those that were left were able to compete in normal economic conditions.

We will provide more analysis over the coming weeks.

The methane menace and hamburgers

A paper on the contribution to climate change of livestock methane emissions has found that the problem is likely to get worse as global demand for meat and dairy products increases. Dr Andy Thorpe, an economist at Portsmouth University, found that a single herd of 200 cows can produce annual emissions of methane roughly equivalent in energy terms to driving a family car 180,000 km.

Whereas carbon dioxide emissions have increased 31 per cent over the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer atmosphere lifetime than carbon dioxide has increased by 149 per cent over that time. Dr Thorpe commented that 'Methane emission growth ... has been increasing exponentially in the developing world due to a rise in incomes leading to an increased demand for meat and the "hamburger connection" where developing countries make a lucrative profit supplying meat to developed countries.'

Attempts to curb animal methane emissions have included feeding grazing animals on cottonseed and alfalfa, using food additives, and vacinnating animals with drugs, but it is not clear if they will work on a large scale. A reduction in the amount of livestock kept for meat and milk would only put pressure on other food sources, such as cereals.

Animal methane emissions from developing countries have increased to 75 per cent of the global total, with India and Brazil in the lead. It is thought that atmospheric methane is responsible for one-fifth of the global warming since 1750.

Cows, sheep, goats and camels have an additional stomach and produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food. A dairy cow in New Zealand will typically produce around 80kg of methane a year, just through burping.

The policy pressures this produces is shown by complaints from the Irish Dairy Industries Association that the Republic's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is piling further economic pressure on the country's beleaguered dairy industry. It was argued that because Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)were closely linked to methane from cattle, a 20 per cent cut in GHG emissions would result in a 20 per cent cut in Ireland's dairy herd.

The association complained that there is no international standard for measurement of emissions from enetric fermentation in cattle. The background to these concerns is a sharp drop in prices from 40 cents a litre in 2007 to around 24 now.

Vegetarians would no doubt argue that the GHG emissions of cattle reinforce the case for not eating meat. In practice, it is difficult to see how the problem can be tackled given that the livestock sector is under heavy economic pressure.

Auditors' report makes for sobering reading

The very complexity of the CAP opens it to scams of various kinds. These may not be fraudulent in the criminal sense of the term (although such instances have occurred) but they do represent a use of loopholes to divert public money to line the pockets of individuals.

In this respect the report from the EU Court of Auditors for 2007 makes for sobering reading. The EU spent 51 billion euros in 2007 on agriculture and natural resources of which all but 2 per cent was on agriculture and rural development. The Court's press release states, 'the estimated overall error rate is still material. [Translated out of bureaucratic code, a lot of public money is being wasted]. Rural development, with its often complex rules, accounts for a disproportionately large part of this error rate.'

Of 196 transactions examined, 61 were affected by error and some two-thirds of the errors (40) were classified as 'serious'. In its response, the Commission finds reassurance in the fact 'that the most likely overall error rate is not significantly different from last year's'. So that's all right then.

Once again olive oil in Southern Europe is a particular culprit. In its 2006 report, the Court pointed out that in Greece, Spain and Italy the olive cultivation data were neither complete not reliable. 'These weaknesses persist in Italy and Greece, where four out of five transactions audited contained errors, some of which led to significant overpayments.'

Significant overpayments were found in relation to nuts and dried grapes in Spain and Greece. In one case in Spain a farmer appeared to have far fewer sheep than the number that had been claimed for.

Northern European states were far from blameless. In relation to the Single Payments Scheme which now accounts for 55 per cent of all payments, 'in England the four entitlements audited were erroneously calculated mainly due to failure to take account of changes in land parcels; while these errors did not have a significant impact on the 2007 payments since England applies the "dynamic" model, these initial entitlements, unless corrected, will result in significant over/underpayments in future years.'

In England the same parcel of land can be claimed by two 'farmers' under different area related and EU schemes. In nine out of 12 on-the-spot visits to 'new beneficiaries' of EU direct aid, 'the area declared for SPS was not eligible in whole or in part either because it was not in good agricultural condition, its main use was not agricultural or the beneficiary was not eligible because he did not carry out any agricultural activity on the land.' [This is sometimes referred to as 'sofa farming']

More generally, the Court states that 'the administrative controls in England do not provide assurance that EU aid is paid out correctly. England [does] not avail of the option to use aerial or spatial orthoimagery'. As the Commission points out in its response, this is not legally required, but it is still good practice.

Portugal has paid out €3.5m on 'balido' land. This land is usually public land of very poor pasture and mainly covered by bushes and trees. In Greece quantities of rice were missing from public storage.

In nine out of 13 agri-environmental schemes audited in France and Ireland farmers had not met the eligibility conditions. Even the Commission admitted that many of these errors had 'an important financial impact' in relation to records about nitrate reduction. The Commission also conceded that it was following up with French authorities the lack of an adequate audit trail in relation to interest rate subsidies.

One is left with the impression that public funds will contunue to be misallocated or wasted.

Farmers and the credit crunch

Over ten years ago I was involved in an international project on farm finance as part of which I interviewed the agricultural finance specialists in all the banks in Britain and Ireland. One thing that came across was that banks competed to lend to farmers because it was seen as a lucrative market with very secure assets.

Figures from the Bank of England show that agricultural borrowing in the UK is at an all time high, £11bn at the end of September, compared with £9.94bn at the end of 1997. The debt burden was, however, offset by an increase in farm incomes. According to Defra, the average income was about £48,000 in 2007-8, about 40 per cent higher than the previous year, owing largely to higher prices for cereals and milk.

The falling exchange rate may also benefit farmers, given that subsidies are denominated in euros (the notorious 'green pound' which was one of the most complex aspects of the CAP is no longer with us). The estimated €3.8bn (£3.1bn) in subsidies this year should be worth more. Sterling's weakness may make exports more attractive. In 2006, the last year for which figures are available, the UK exported £10.5bn of farm products.

Agricultural land is still fetching historically high prices, giving farmers an equity cushion. Borrowing is much lower than in other sectors. The total value of farming assets in the UK is estimated at around £150bn, giving a gearing ratio of less than 10 per cent, far less than the rates other industries have come to see as normal.

Buckwell expresses doubts about SFP and pillars

Allan Buckwell expresses doubts about the efficacy of the Single Farm Payment in his interview with Agra Focus (see below). He comments, 'It is a very simplistic stablization measure and the distribution of the payments is a big odd.'

Later in the interview, he explains, 'I was never really a big fan of the Single Farm Payment. It was an absolutely necessary step to unhook support from prices ... When you look at the payments per head or per hectare or per annual work unit by Member State, there is a variation of about 3-50 fold from the highest to the lowest.'

He also expresses doubts about the two pillar distinction which has been regarded, perhaps too uncritically, as a central plank of the recent development of the CAP in order to increase spending on the 'multifunctional' or public goods aspects of agriculture. He notes, 'The distinction between the two pillars served a purpose. If it's creating an obstacle to the development of a better policy, then let's scrap it.'

He comments, 'There is little doubt that Pillar 2 is becoming unpopular. It is unpopular with farmers: many farmers in many countries say they cannot access the schemes that are available. They see it as bureaucratic, and also complain that money is leaking away to others. The bureaucrats and the administration say that it is a complex system with very high administrative costs and co-financing puts off Member States from doing more of it.'

He argues that co-financing is the key issue. If co-financing rules are stopping sensible reform, they should be changed. It might be better to co-finance everything with the member state contribution related to the national income per head. What is needed, he argues, is an explicit debate about the underlying principle rather than about 'funny little new programmes.'

Interview with Allan Buckwell

Agra Focus has been conducting a series of interviews on EU farm policy and one of the longest and most interesting to date is with Allan Buckwell. He is currently policy director with the (England and Wales) Country and Land Business Association, but is also chair of the policy committee run by the European Landowners Association. He was for many years a respected agricultural economics and policy academic at the now sadly diminished Wye College. Perhaps his most interesting role in policy terms was when he spent a year in DG Agri in 1995-6 and chaired a group which wrote a report on a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe.

The whole interview is well worth reading as is Agra Focus for those who wish to keep up to date with developments in the CAP debate. Over the next few days we shall publish some highlights from the interview.

Allan Buckwell said that in the 1990s there was a consensus that policy had to change and the direction in which it had to move was liberalisation. That meant moving away from distorting commodity markets. Now there is not the consensus on what direction to take the CAP.

Moreover, the broader European debate, which in 2005-6 seemed to be moving away from the accumulated outcome of 40 years of incrementalism was now replaced by very little strategic thinking at all. There was retrenchment all over Europe and a shift to Euroscepticism rather than taking a clean sheet of paper and thinking about what a new Europe could look like.

Allan Buckwell suggested that policy faced two challenges, a food challenge and an environmental challenge. Recent events suggested that there might also be a risk management challenge as well.

He reiterated his belief that the CAP should evolve to become a Food and Environmental Security Policy. There was no difficult in convincing people that environmental security was a big issue. 'Unfortunately, coming from where I do, if you mention the words food security you are immediately accused of being a farmer protectionist and wanting higher prices.'

Buckwell insisted, 'I am arguing that food and the environment are inter-related and there are such big market failures surrounding the environmental impacts of agricultural production, that this justifies a policy.' What was needed was not the agricultural policy we have had for the last 40 years, but there was a clear job to be done.

Part of what he has in mind is stimulating agricultural development in the new member states and modernising infrastructure and marketing there. He also emphasises the need for research and development work on how one maintains the productivity of agriculture and yet reduce its environmental impact. These are worthwhile aims for public action.

Farmers divided over DECC

Farm organisations in the UK have divergent opinions on the consequences of the formation of a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) which takes over responsibility for the key environmental issue of climate change from DEFRA.

NFU vice-president Paul Temple said he hoped the separation of energy and climate change would leave DEFRA with a sharper focus on food and farming. That would echo the days of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)that was focused on food production.

To echo the language of the film The Graduate I have one word to say to that: BSE. MAFF was a hopelessly clientilistic ministry that was in a symbiotic relationship with the NFU and almost always put productionist values first.

Because the Country Land and Business Association represents a lot of large landed estates (ok, I know that it has farmers like my brother-in-law in membership as well - a 7th generation Welsh farmer) it tends to be more interested in conservation. Actually, I also think there is a bit of self-selection in who becomes a member.

A CLA spokesman said that unless the two departments retained cohesion, the role of landowners in environmental management could be marginalised. 'Ed Miliband [the new DECC minister] will need to appease many groups in his new post and many campaigners who had relationships with DEFRA will have to introduce themselves to him afresh,' said the CLA.

Farmers Weekly blogger David Richardson, an unreconstructed productionist who is a very effective spokesman for large-scale arable farmers, said that until Hilary Been was removed, food production would never regain prominence, whatever the reshuffle. He accused Mr Benn of thinking of himself as an 'overseas development minister', presumably because he has expressed concern about the impact of the CAB on the Global South.

You can read David Richardson's views here: Farmer . When I looked the Defra story was second, as he was on to badgers.

It will be interesting to know what the new DEFRA Council of Food Policy Advisers will do, or more particularly whether it will take a balanced stance:
Defra

At the moment, I do not know who is on it which would indicate whether it was a nest of productionists or a body that tried to take account of a range of viewpoints.

Is MAFF back in the UK?

Details are still sketchy and yet to be confirmed but it looks as if the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to lose its climate change function as part of the Cabinet reshuffle. Defra would retain its agriculture, food and rural affairs roles, thus looking more like than a MAFF Mark II. Let's hope it isn't as clientilist and productionist as the old department.

Wait a minute

The Scottish farm minister Richard Lochead has firmly ruled out a demand from NFU Scotland for the early payment of £61m of less favoured area support. He pointed out that early payment would jeopardise the Single Farm Payment as EU rules state that SFP must be paid ahead of LFA support.

The Scottish NFU argued that early payment would provide some respite to farmers escalating feed, fertiliser and fuel payment. Many families are constrained by rising food, energy and petrol prices. Perhaps on the same logic child benefit should be paid out early?

In an editorial Farmers' Weekly calls for a 'coherent, joined-up plan ... from DEFRA, which encourages a scaling-up of UK food production'. It doesn't get much to get the farming community to fall back on a call for Stalinist five-year plans. Machine Tractor Stations anyone?

Those in farming tend to see the world rather differently from the rest of us. To be fair, there are progressive farmers who see the need to engage in a dialogue with consumers and respond to market opportunities. But all too often they are not the public voice of the industry.

Food security and CAP reform

A short overview article I have written on this subject can be read here:
Reform

New book recommendation

Whilst I have some reservations about plugging a book in which I wrote the concluding chapter (on 'Implications for Future Reforms'), I do recommend Johan Swinnen (edited) The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy published by the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. You can now download it for free here:
Book

It was based on an excellent workshop in Brussels which involved some of the Fischler insiders as well as academics. The result is, I think, one of the most informed and authoritative accounts of the Fischler reforms that we have available to us.

An exercise in decoding

France has produced a paper on the future of the CAP which is designed to stimulate discussion at the informal farm council to be held there in the Rhone-Alps region on 21-23 September. The paper is very vague, no doubt deliberately so, and interpreting has to be an exercise in decoding.

The paper argues that in the 'new context' of rising food and fuel prices, the future of the CAP should centre around four areas. The first of these is assuring food security in the EU. No suprises there, as France has been a vigorous adopter and champion of the revived food security discourse which provides a new underpinning for subsidy and protection.

New content can be placed in it, however, as is evident from a discussion on economic patriotism I participated at Science Po in Paris last week. The argument there was that even new market approaches could be brought under the economic patriotism umbrella.

The second objective is contributing to sustainable and balanced food supplies in the world. A laudable aim, but the EU has frustrated it by dumping surplus produce on the world market and undermining local suppliers, as well as frustrating the development of commercial agriculture in the Global South by placing barriers to entry around the European market. Hopefully, some of the worst of these practices are coming to an end.

The third aim is preserving the rural fabric and ensuring territorial cohesion, an objective close to French hearts with its emphasis on the cultural dimension of the CAP. The paper argues that the uniformity of Pillar 1 is in danger of stifling the diversity of the French agricultural landscape. Vulnerable areas, of which no doubt there are many in France, should get some sort of 'top up'.

The fourth objective is participating in the mitigation of climate change, which everyone is in favour of, but the challenge is how you actually do it, particularly in an economic downturn.

The most specific the paper gets is a call for less static support tools which a decoding suggests are favoured in part because they may be a way of getting around international trade rules. As well as providing support for integrated enviromental measures, these tools (whatever they might be) would be a means of dealing with increased market volatility.

This leads me to suppose that one might be talking about some modernised verision of deficiency payments, as used in Britain before it joined the common market. It may be, and this is just surmise, that the French think they cannot keep the SFP going beyond 2013, but they may be able to sell a subsidy that is linked to climate change and environmental benefits and also gives farmers some protection in hard times.

Whether such a vague document will lead to a structured or useful discussion at the informal Farm Council remains to be seen, but somehow I doubt it.

More information on the meeting is at Council

Credit crunch hits organic food sales

Sales of organic foods to leading supermarkets in Britain are struggling, suggesting that when recessionary conditions hit shoppers are ready to sacrifice their green credentials in favour of cheaper food. According to TNS World-panel data, sales of organic produce at Sainsbury's fell by 3.8 per cent and at Tesco by 1.3 per cent in the three months to early August. Spending on organic produce in the whole market has fallen by 19 per cent from £100m to £81m this year.

Organic agriculture is inherently more expensive than intensive agriculture. However, the Soil Association insisted that what was happening was a plateau rather than a reversal. Year-on-year average growth over the last decade has been 25 per cent.

It is interesting that organic egg sales have taken a particular hit, falling by 18 per cent in the four weeks to end of August. Consumers think that they can still be ethical by buying free range eggs.

These market developments could offer an opening for Integrated Crop Management which offers a route to more environmentally friendly farming without going organic. It is, of course, remarkable how tolerant consumers are of the use of so-called 'traditional' compounds by organic farmers, but they may not be aware of their use. 'Organic' has certainly embedded itself in the public consciousness with a very favourable image.