Phase out subsidies by 2020 says Miliband

Britain's Defra secretary told the Oxford Farming Conference is committed to a system by 2020 where 'public funds are only used for public goods, in particular environmental benefits.' This would mean the effective end of Pillar 1 and of restraints on trade. 'I see an inevitable process of trade liberalisation, with huge pressure on subsidies and restraints on trade.' Contrary to the views of the farm commissioner, the 2008 CAP health check should be used to pursue a 'further fundamental reform'.

Conservative leader Dave Cameron also called for further reform of the CAP. Exporst subidies should be phased out. 'We also need to start to shift the costs of the CAP onto the countries that spend the most by phasing in compulsory co-financing.'


Mary Coughlan

Irish farm minister Mary Coughlan made the case for providing a reasonable degree of policy stability, arguing that one could not introduce major policy reforms every three or four years. She declared her support for the 'continuation of market supports and direct payments. EU production should be protected from cheap imports', the corollary of which is that EU consumers cannot benefit from them.

She declared, 'The average farm size in the EU could not provide a living for a family at present world prices.' But this is the key question: should public funds be used to sustain commercial enterprises that are not viable, unless they are providing public goods.

Seasonal greetings to our readers

This picture of a somewhat post modernist Christmas tree that I took in Vilnius, Lithuania recently is suitably bleak for a CAP blog

It's been a pretty mixed year for those of us who would like to see a reformed Common Rural Policy delivering real economic benefits to deprived areas in the countryside and promoting environmental goals. The Pillar 2 budget is much smaller than we would have hoped for.

The Doha Round is suspended and it is uncertain whether an agreement can be reached. The EU may then pull back from its commitment to phase out export subsidies which would deliver real benefits to farmers in the Global South. It would also remove what has been the most powerful pressure for CAP reform. In the States, it looks as if we are going to get another Farm Bill that will ensure that most of the benefits go to corporate farmers growing particular commodities.

Some hope that the new transparency about who gets what from the CAP will exert pressure for reform as the public becomes aware that most of the money goes to large-scale commercial farmers. However, Britain and Germany are likely to resist any cap on subsidies. Public pressure on these matters tend to not to be maintained and is confused by the complexity of the CAP and misleading public messages.

In this respect it was alarming to see the BBC's respected environmental correspondent, Sarah Mukherjee, for whom I have a great deal of time, making a broadcast on Radio 5 recently which contained a number of basic errors about the dairy sector and appeared to be an unquestioning acceptance of a NFU press release. The dairy sector in the UK does have real problems, but the broadcast gave a soft treatment to the retailers and their market power.

Our friends at the farmsubsidy.org network are organising a conference on transparency in the CAP in Budapest at the end of January which unfortunately conflicts with other commitments that I have. However, it looks very interesting and further information can be found here:
Budapest

Sustainable farming and food

The highly regarded Food Ethics Council has published an interesting and well informed paper on 'Sustainable Farming and Food'. You can download it at: Sustainable . There is also an oppprtunity to participate in an online discussion on the paper.

I'm not sure that I agree with all the paper, as I think that at one point it does fall into a protectionist trap set by the industry. When time allows I will publish a summary and some comments here. In the meantime, readers of this blog may wish to take a look at the publication themselves.

Parliament throws out modulation plan

The European Parliament has thrown out a plan agreed at the 2005 summit of EU heads of government to allow the transfer of funds from Pillar 1 expenditure on farm subidies to Pillar 2 rural development to be increased up to a maximum of 20 per cent. Only the UK was planning to use the full amount, given that it receives low levels of rural development funding and wants to find money for its ambitious agri-environmental schemes. The Parliament can only delay the eventual decision, as it is not part of the co-decision procedure.

The motion was carried by 599 votes to 64. The Parliament believes that such a high rate of voluntary modulation would jeopardise subsidies to farmers and would also repersent a further step towards renationalisation of the CAP with farmers in different member states receiving differing amounts of cash. The Commission itself would prefer a higher rate of compulsory modulation to a range of voluntary rates.

Because of the summit deal the EU will receive on average 30 per cent less funding for rural development between 2007-13 compared with the current funding period. The Commission asked for €88.75m but this was cut by more than 20 per cent to €69.76m. This will be partly offeset by compulsory modulation, but this was intended to provide additional funds for rural development, not offset cuts made in a budget deal.

Spending more money on rural development compared with traditional farm subsidies is seen as a way of building a more diversified, dynamic and yet environmentally friendly rural economy in Europe.

UK to become net milk importer?

Two separate respected sources, Sir Stuart Hampson and Kite Consulting, have claimed that the UK could become a net milk importer within a few years. Such a story is manna to the supporters of farm subsidies on food security grounds. It also has a good populist feel, allowing papers to run stories about British tea being drunk with French milk if they so wish. But what is the substance behind these claims?

Sir Stuart Hampson, having just finished his year long stint as chair of the respected Royal Agricultural Society of England, argued that the UK could become a net importer of milk within five years if small dairy farmers continued to be forced out of business.

Sir Stuart made his remarks as Defra released figures showing that England lost on average one dairy farm a day in 2005. He argued that supermarkets had a responsibility to pay a 'fair' price for milk, pointing out that up market Waitrose (part of the John Lewis Partnership of which Sir Stuart is chairman) paid a 3p premium to all farmers.

He commented, 'The price paid to the farner is too low, it is not meeting the cost of he farming. I am trying to draw attention that this is a market that has a fair price. [I am not quite sure what such a price is other than a market clearing price]. The decline in incomes of dairy farmers does give me cause for concern.'

Kite Consulting's Milk Forecasts report warned that the UK is heading for its largest ever under quota position. The report's co-author John Allen said, 'The exodus from the dairy industry is running at 7% and accelerating. In the next three years one in five dairy farmers will quit.' With annual demand at 12.6bn litres if the decline continues supply will be as low as 12.68bn by 2011. That meant that by November of that year, when supply is seasonally at its lowest, the UK could see a real milk shortage.

The government and the processing industry hit back

The government was quick to point out that of the 13bn litres produced annually, only 7bn litres went into fresh milk. Robert Wiseman Dairies said the problem for the milk industry was not that it was producing too little milk, but that it was producing too much. 'Unfortunately the volume of milk produced by the dairy farming sector in the UK is such that three in every 10 litres is having to be sold in commodity markets.'

Arla chief executive Tim Smith said that importing liquid milk was unlikely. 'Anyone contemplating importing milk is committing financial suicide. The eye-watering costs of transporting milk from abroad make it unviable. The market price will be adjusted as we near the balance of supply and demand. But it is all down to market forces. We are still in a position of over supply.'

An overview

We should remember that this sector still receives substantial CAP subsidies, even if they are reducing. There is also a distinction between the number of farms going out of production and the volume of production. If smaller (and often unavoidably less efficient) farms mainly go out of production, the effect on volume will be muted, indeed other producers may expand if the price is sufficiently attractive. Of course, a decline in the industry in, say, western England could have landscape and social effects, but that is another matter.

The price UK dairy farmers receive is the lowest in Europe and this in part no doubt reflects the market power of retailers, but that same market power has led to falling food prices and hence a positive effect on the overall level of inflation. Dairy farmers sometimes claim that they are making a loss, but this may be after labour costs (mostly those of the family) have been paid out of the business.

There is no doubt that dairy farming is a particularly demanding type of farming and the rewards are not that great for smaller enterprises. But whatever is done we should not increase the level of subsidy. Production would have to fall a long way before fresh milk supplies are threatened.

New world wines continue their challenge

Santiago, Chile. Yestredya I visited a vineyard here in Chile´s central valley not far from Santiago. This vineyard was founded in 1880 and is currently producing 19 million litres a year. I have seen similar operations in Australia, although not on this scale.

A German in the party asked about the concept of terroir which is very much emphasised by European wine producers giving a wine its distinctiveness. However, this was clearly of no importance in Chile. As in Australia (now suffering from a glut of wine), Chilean vineyards produced drinkable and affordable wines for the world market. They then keep the best wines for themselves, as in Australia. At a reception at the presidential palace in Santiago, I had one of the best reds I have ever drunk.

There is no appellation system in Chile, only reserve wines finished in oak barrels and other wines. The New World wine countries have eight years to come up with a system, but this is proving difficult.

Our guide was less emphatic than those in Australia about the merits of screw top bottles or synthetic corks but pointed out that the rising price of natural cork meant that it could cost as much as the wine.

As the discussions about the reform of the European wine regime meander on, there is no sign here in Chile that the marketing challenge they present to European producers is going to diminish.

US election results not good for trade

Whatever other benefits they bring, the US election results are not good news for agricultural trade. Protectionist sentiment in the Congress has undoubtedly been strengthened and Trade Promotion Authority is likely to be renewed. This makes a Doha Round settlement less likely, removing a key pressure for CAP reform.

The next chair of the agriculture committee in the House is likely to be Minnesota congressman Collin Peterson. His constituency has a strong representation of corn and sugar beet farmers, two crops that have the most to lose under changes to the farm bill backed by agriculture secretary Mike Johanns. He is likely to oppose efforts to change American's generous farm subsidies, thereby weakening incentives for the EU to give ground.

Too many errors in CAP payments

In its annual report on the EU's farm accounts in 2005, the Court of Auditors 'found that CAP expenditure [€48.466 billion last year] was still affected by a material level of error which is not detected or prevented bt the supervisory and control systems.' It noted 'weak internal controls for the majority of EU expenditure, both within member states, and at the Commission, and a high incidence of errors in the underlying transactions.'

Greece was singled out as the worst offender. The Court declared that the quality of inspections in Greece was low and that the reporting of results was unreliable. Farmers' unions are responsible in Greece for inputting all data into the computer system, and can make changes whenever they want - without the changes being recorded. Not surprisingly, instances of farmers exaggerating the size of their land are not uncommon.

All of the olive oil subsidies examined in southern countries were found to contain either an overpayment and/or one of more formal errors. This led the Court to ask whether the Geographical Information System, the system of aerial photographs used to verify the existence of olive tree parcels was doing its job.

The Commission got quite humpy about the Court's findings complaining about its 'focus on finding individual errors in small smaples of transactions.' The Commission noted with apparent pride that it had clawed back €2.17 billion in ineligible payments in 2005. So that's all right then.

Gloomy prognosis on Doha Round

Recent conventional wisdom has been that the Doha Round talks will get under way once the US elections are out of the way with a window of opportunity between then and the spring. After then it would be too late to get an agreement through Congress using trade promotion authority (once known as fast track) although a few months' extension might be possible.

However, the chair of the agriculture negotiations, Crawford Falconer, has now said that he thinks the Doha Round will fail. He still thinks that both the US and the EU have room within their negotiating mandates to improve their offers on reducing farm support, but he suggested that the political will was missing on both sides. There was still the possibility of finding 'an outcome that would work and one that would make a difference', but time was running out.

Falconer's intervention could be a ploy to encourage a focus on the issues and to offset overly optimistic pronouncements by politicians. Nevertheless, it is easy to fall into the comforting belief that, as happened in the Uruguay Round, it will be 'all right on the night'. This time it may not be and the consequences for agricultural trade and further policy reform would be serious.

Green box does distort trade, claims Indian study

A report commissioned by the Indian Department of Commerce and carried out by UNCTAD's Indian team challenges the EU's argument that decoupled aid payments have only a minimal trade distorting effect. According to the researchers' model, EU farm exports would fall by a massive 45 per cent if Green Box subsidies were removed and production would fall by close to 6 per cent.

The EU, US and Canada would all see exports decline by upwards of 40 per cent in the absence of Green Box payments, while Swiss and Japanese exports would fall by over 60 per cent. However, most developing countries would see exports increase by around 20 per cent.

The Green Box issue remains open within the suspended Doha Round negotiations. However, given the EU's attachment to its decoupled Single Farm Payment system, the bulk of which falls into the Green Box, it is unlikely that any Doha Round settlement will lead to changes in the Green Box. However, there could be provision for further discussion of what can legitimately be placed in the box, putting a time bomb under the whole CAP.

Subsidy data to be made public

EU citizens in all member states should soon be able to find out who gets what in terms of farm subsidies, following a decision by Coreper. This may help to create further public pressure for CAP reform.

Ambassadors agreed 'in principle' to open national farm accounts to public scrutiny. However, the decision requires agreement from the European Parliament which hopefully can be obtained by the end of November. It remains unclear whether the Commission or member states will be responsible for publishing the subsidy data, the Commission being reluctant to take responsibility for publishing information it cannot verify.

France is continuing to demand that no subsidy disclosures are made before 2009 when the presidential elections will be safely out of the way. Jack Thuston from the transparency campaign farmsubsidy.org commented, 'It's great news that European governments are endorsing transparency. But it is quite wrong that we should be kept in the dark until 2009, as the French government is reported to be insisting upon. It now falls to elected Members of the European Parliament to stand up for the rights of those they represent. European citizens have a right to know who gets what from the EU and why. Secrecy is bad for European civil society and bad for the reputation of European institutions.'

Even if the public do become indignant at the size of the handouts given to already prosperous farmers, fundamental reform is likely to encounter continying resistance from the Commission. Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has dismissed Defra's reform document as 'incoherent' with 'a complete lack of analysis behind this paper' in an appearance before the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee. When I appeared before the committee, I argued that the paper was a strong one, but the problem was the lack of a political strategy to put it into effect.

Fischer Boel insisted, however, that many farmers would be unable to survive without the direct payments scheme and would start to abandon their land with adverse environmental consequences.

Visit farmsubsidy.org at Subsidies

Estonians to pay €35 a head sugar stockpile fine

Estonia will have to pay in full the €46 million fine imposed by the EU for stockpiling sugar in the months before accession in 2004, farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has insisted. The fine amounts to the equivalent of about €35 per person.

Estonia has contested the fine at the European Court of Justice, arguing that a large part of the sugar surplus of 91,464 tonnes have been hoarded by private households in preparation for a national frenzy of jam making. Making jam and syrup at home is a common practice in the Baltic state.

Sweden tops new CAP transparency index

On the day when the European Court of Auditors has for the twelfth year running refused sign off the European Union’s annual budget because of concerns about fraud and poor controls, farmsubsidy.org is launching a new Common Agricultural Policy transparency index. The index is based on a comprehensive scorecard that rates all member states according to whether they have released data on who gets what from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Sweden tops the index with a score of 95%, followed by Denmark (91%) and Slovenia (87%). So far twelve EU member states have released data to farmsubsidy.org.

Criticising poor controls in the EU budget, the Court of Auditors said that 'Beneficiaries — farmers, local authorities, project managers — claim more than they have the right to claim'. Most of the problems occur with payments made by member states not by Brussels, because 76% of EU payments are delegated to member states.

Jack Thurston, co-founder of farmsubsidy.org said:

'Transparency is a guard against fraud and maladministration and a way of reconnecting citizens with their governments. Transparency leads to more legimate and effective policy-making. We hope this scorecard will be used to praise the few EU member states who have embraced transparency and shame the many who continue to hide farm subsidies behind a veil of secrecy. All European citizens pay for farm subsidies, they should have a right to know who gets what - and why.'

Read the CAP Transparency Index report:
Transparency

Are CAP's natural predators awakening?

Farm subsidies campaigner Jack Thurston who runs the excellent website on farm subsidies has responded to the story below on the 'health check' on the CAP: 'As well as payment limits, the health check may also include a minimum farm size to qualify for any payments, i.e. a 'franchise'. The single farm payment has seen a big increase in the number of claimants, often it costs more for the government to administer the payments than the payments are worth. A lower limit on payments was specifically mentioned by Fischer Boel at a public meeting on 17 July 2006 in Brussels. See:

Report

Jack Thurston continues, 'It is currently not clear how the CAP health check will fit in with the review of the EU budget that is scheduled for 2009. What is certain is that we are in an era of fiscal restraint in the EU, so any new money for new projects will have to be found from within existing budgets, highlighting in sharp relief the "opportunity cost" of the CAP. The natural predators for the CAP may finally be awakening.'

Since Jack wrote these notes, Commission Fischer Boel clarified that she will not accept budget cuts to the CAP as part of the general EU budget review in 2009, but admitted that the same guarantees could not be made after 2013.

She also said that 'These are busy days in the kitchen - lots of pots are boiling at the same time. Rather than keeping the door to the kitchen sealed I have decidd at an early stage to give an impression of what is boiling under our lids.' A look at cross compliance was first of the menu, followed by the consequences of partial decoupling and the choice of model for implementing the SPS.

Hardly an inviting or daring menu and some of us would like to see the kitchen closed in its soup kitchen role for farmers.

Health check for CAP

Farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has said that what the CAP will face in 2008 is a health check, consciously avoiding the term 'mid-term review' used by her predecessor Franz Fischler. Her comments follow the recent informal meeting of farm ministers in Oulu, Finland.

One likely subject to arise will be decoupling with the ten pen cent of direct aid payments not paid in decoupled form likely to be targeted. Whether the sigle farm payment should be paid on an historical or flat-rate regional basis will also be examined. At present no EU-15 members are operating the same system and some have variations within their national borders.

The compulsory modulation rate may well rise above 5 per cent. The Commissioner is also keen on capping the amount that any individual farm would receive at €300,000. Such a move would be contentious with Britain and Germany who would claim it penalised efficiency and it is not clear that there is a legally watertight definition of a farm business. However, siphoning off money from large scale farmers and transferring them to the second pillar would create a pot of over €1 billion a year.

The future of intervention payments will also be up for examination with the possibility of it eventually being based by a private storage programme. The Commission is also talking about the abolition of dairy quotas by 2015.

Thus by the middle of the next decade be could have a CAP with very different objectives and policy instruments. It should be less market distorting, and hence WTO compatible, but it would probably leave as much money being spent on agricultural and rural policy. Reformers would thus only get partial satisfaction. They have objected to the objectives and instruments of the old style CAP but also to the opportunity cost represented by the €48 billion a year spent on it.

Co-op gets farm subsidies divi

The leading recipient of CAP direct aid in the UK in 2004 was Farmcare Ltd., the large scale farming group owned by the Co-op. It got a divi of £2.359m from CAP, down from about £2.6m in 2003. All of the top five English aid recipients were farm businesses or co-operatives, Strutt & Parker (farms) coming in second with £1.382m.

However, private landowners also feature in the list. Sir Richard Sutton's Settled Estates got £917,650.93p. Lord Rayleigh's farms got £571,808.88p. Grovesnor Farms, owned by the Duke of Westminster, reputedly one of the richest men in the UK, came 45th in the list taking £421,000.

Sugar and dairy sector companies dominated the list of non-CAP payments, accounting for all of the companies in the top ten. Sugar importers and refiners Tate and Lyle claimed a cool £125m with traders C. Cazrinkow Sugar coming in second with some £39.4m. Fairfield Foods Ireland got £18.3m while Nestlé had to be content with £5.16m. The agricultural division of multinational Cargill got a mere £1.478m.

The data revealed by Defra shows that farmers were paid a total of £1.4 billion in 2004/5. Non-farm payments totalled £431m, making the overall total over £1.84 billion.

More information on subsidies across the EU (at least for those countries that have released data) can be found at Jack Thurston's web page: Subsidies

Decoupling at risk after ECJ overturns cotton reform

A ruling from the European Court of Justice that the reformed EU cotton regime introduced in 2004 must be dismantled and replaced raises wider questions about decoupling, a centrepiece of the latest round of CAP reforms.

In the cotton regime reform the Commission decoupled 65 per cent of payments but left 35 per cent coupled which they claimed would be enough to maintain cotton production in all areas of the EU where it was important for the agricultural economy (principally Spain and Greece).

Spain, however, claimed that the reform did not provide enough subsidies to ensure that cotton production remained viable. They had a special legal argument because the maintenance of cotton production is enshrined in Spain's EU accession treaty.

The Court has required the Commission to make a fresh impact assessment. The current regime can continue until a new one is place, an outcome welcomed by the Commission which also emphasised that the basic principle of decoupling had not been challenged. Nevertheless, the ruling could re-open the issue in relation to other products where partial decoupling has been retained to protect production in [politically] sensitive areas.

It could also lead to trouble in the WTO where the 'cotton club' of Burkina Faso, Chand and Mali are upset about the collapse of the Doha Round and the prospect of better access to markets. They are considering a legal challenge over subsidies to cotton producers in rich countries. Although their principal target has been te US, any talk of recoupling payments could bring the EU into the frame.

Another tricky problem for the Commission to try and unravel.

Little change in Poland's farm structure

As Poland takes steps to reassure other member states that it is a good European, news comes from Eurostat that the modernisation of farm structures is proceeding at a snail's pace. Average farm size fell very slightly between 2002 and 2005. The average farm size in Poland was now 12.1 hectares compared with 12.2 hectares in 2002.

Some 2.67 million people are still employed in Polish agriculture, although more than half of these were family members working on a part-time basis. To qualify as a farm, an enterprise has to have an annual gross margin of €1200. By this definition there are some 1,082,700 farms in Poland. 35 per cent of farms have less than 5 hectares of farmland at their disposal, while only two per cent held more than 50 hectares. However, holdings in the latter category accounted for some 26 per cent of all Polish farmland.

Around one-fifth of farmers did not own a tractor. However, despite their small size, only 5.9 per cent of holdings engaged in any other gainful activity on farm. One would think that there was more scope for rural tourism. Meanwhile, the sums received from the EU, small though they are, are vital to the survival of such holdings. Historically, some of them were worked on a part-time basis as smallholdings by industrial workers who have now often lost their jobs in heavy industries.

Obesity subsidies for farmers?

Farmers' spokespersons have been trying hard to talk up the threat to food security from terrorists as a means of justifying the continuation of agricultural subsidies. However, the problem of obesity may give them a new basis for subsidy claims.

Australia has one of the worst obesity problems in the world and a call has been made for fruit and vegetables to receive subsidies to make prices more affordable. Research has shown that if apple prices were halved, sales would treble.

How the subsidy will be paid is yet to be decided. It does give farmers an opportunity to make use of discourses about health, although clearly some producers would benefit more than others.

Cows moo with a local accent

Cows in the south-west of England are mooing with an 'oo-arr' according to farmers in the West Country Farmhouse Cheesemakers Group. They believe that their own regional accent has influenced their cows' pitch and tone who have picked up the distinctive Somerset twang. Accent shifts have also been noticed in cows in Norfolk, Lancashire, the Midland and Essex, the latter presumably having an 'Estuary' moo.

John Wells, Professor of Phonetics at University College London, provided academic confirmation: 'This phenomenon is well attested in birds. You find distinct chirping accents in the same species around the country. This could also be true of cows.'

The farmers themselves believe that the quality time they spend with their cows has led to this distinctive accent. In the winter the West Country cows are wrapped up in cow coats and are played classical music to help them relax during milking.

Lloyd Green of Glastonbury explained, 'I spend a lot of time with my Freisians and they definitely moo with a Somerset drawl. I think it works the same as with dogs - the closer a farmer's bond is with the animals, the easier it is for them to pick up on the accent.'