Brussels outlines vision for 'fairer' EU farm policy

The United Kingdom has led calls for a cut in EU farm spending and refocusing the policy to address new challenges such as climate change. "Whilst recent reforms to the CAP reflect the right direction of travel, this needs to be accelerated, promoting greater competitiveness [and] efficient use of taxpayer resources," a British government spokesman said, cited by Reuters.

Britain is supported by other countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden, who want a smaller CAP and a leaner EU budget.

On the other side are France and Germany, who have recently issued a joint paper, saying they wanted to maintain "a strong farm policy". They did not however give details on the policy's future budget.

France's Farm Minister Bruno Le Maire reacted positively to the Commission proposal, saying many of the ideas floated by the Commission reflected the joint Franco-German paper.

German Farm Minister Ilse Aigner said the Commission proposal offered "a good basis for further negotiations on a national and European level". Le Maire said France would oppose any bid to weaken direct subsidies, while Germany's Aigner said any redistribution must be limited and phased, and was dependent on the overall size of the future EU budget, according to a Reuters report.

In the European Parliament, which will have full co-decision powers with EU member states on approving the new policy, reactions were broadly positive but critics focused on the paper's lack of detail.

"The Commission's paper is so widely drawn that nearly everyone will find something in it that appeals to them," Scottish liberal MEP George Lyon said.

The European People's Party (EPP), the largest political group in Parliament, said the Commission had identified the right questions but said the paper "provides few answers," notably on financing.

"Even after 2013, the European agricultural policy needs to be adequately funded in order to guarantee farmers a reasonable basis," said German MEP Albert Dess (CSU), EPP coordinator on farm policy. He also warned about placing new environmental obligations on farmers, saying they "must not lead to more bureaucracy".

The Socialists & Democrats (S&D), the Parliament's second biggest group, said they welcomed the Commission's proposal but said "a new system based on equity and promotion of activities of general interest is required".

Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos MEP (Portugal), S&D spokesperson on agriculture, said: "It is very important that the commissioner agreed to introduce criteria to reinforce environmental protection and to put ceilings on payments so that farms with higher employment can benefit."

However, he said employment "is not sufficiently considered" and called on the Commission to come forward with "a more concrete and innovative proposal" on market mechanisms to deal with price volatility. 

Capoulas also called on the Commission "to regulate international trading of agricultural commodities in the financial market to put an end to speculation on basic products and to guarantee proper functioning of the food supply chain".

The Greens said the Commission proposals broadly go in the right direction but warned that the "devil will be in the detail". José Bové MEP (France), vice-chair of the Parliament's agriculture committee, said the Commission had correctly identified the challenges ahead, including on climate change and soil management, but said its proposal lacked detail.

"The Commission mentions the prospect of a ceiling of payments per farm. This will be crucial to addressing the imbalances in the current system that lead to indefensibly high payments to big agro-businesses or landholders. Differentiated payments are envisaged by the Commission to support small farmers to produce sustainable food for local markets. This will require new measures to improve the infrastructure for short distance marketing."

Bové also said it was "regrettable that the Commission views international trade in agricultural products through the prism of a liberal free trade agenda". "As for the crucial issue of food security, the Commission seems to view this as some kind of opportunity for the EU to supply world markets through intensified production, rather than addressing the flaws in EU agricultural policy that exacerbate food insecurity problems."

The European Conservative and Reformists group (ECR), which hosts the UK Tories, accused the European Commission of "hedging their bets" by failing to provide clearer indications on how the CAP will be funded after 2013.

Jim Nicholson (Britain), ECR spokesman for agriculture, urged the Commission to start developing a vision for the future of farming, saying "this vision must focus on the market". Most important of all, he said the new policy "must allow farmers in Europe to grow more food and to compete in the global marketplace."

EU farmers lobby Copa-Cogeca said the Commission's focus on "greening" the CAP risked undermining EU food production by increasing farmers' costs. "The only concrete proposal in the paper is to add more costly [environmental] burdens onto EU farmers," said Copa President Padraig Walshe. "Increasing costs lowers incomes and will have a devastating effect on production," he told a news conference in Brussels.

"Farmers are already losing market shares because they meet the highest standards in the world to ensure traceability of food, environmental protection and animal welfare," Walshe argued. "They therefore have much higher costs than their competitors in non-EU countries. It is little wonder that the number of farmers in the EU has fallen by 25% over the past decade and farmers are so heavily dependent on CAP support for their income."

The European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) welcomed the Commission's pledge to address the specific needs of young farmers and new entrants in the future CAP.

CEJA President Joris Baecke stressed that "young farmers do have specific needs related to access to land and credit and are also faced with a momentous task to meet the environmental and economic challenges in the future. Targeted policies in both Pillar 1 and Pillar II of the CAP are needed to combat the generational decline in the sector".

The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU (CIAA) released a statement welcoming the Commission communication's emphasis on food security and "market orientation".

However, the CIAA said there needed to be "tools to address extreme price volatility" in future proposals. Whilst measures promoting "all three pillars of sustainability, agri-food research, innovation and promotion" were described as a step in the right direction, it also called for "a more holistic approach between policies driving supply".

European Coordination Via Campesina said the proposed improvements regarding the distribution of direct payments are positive, but their range is limited, "since the 'free'-trade framework and 'competitiveness' on the international markets remain the backbone of the CAP. Farmers will remain with neither fair prices, nor a fair income".

The group also regrets that the Commission is proposing to adapt to price volatility instead of fighting it - by managing supply and regulating markets.

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) welcomed the idea of a greener CAP, but stressed that "rural developmet plays a central role within the CAP".

"The No. 1 objective of the CAP must be sustainable development of dynamic and innovative rural areas; benchmark quality agriculture, economic diversification and real territorial cohesion should be the three incontrovertible pillars," said Claude Tremouille, vice-president of Limousin (France).

An effective CAP is a flexible CAP that can count on strengthened local actors and balances agricultural interests and sustainable regional development, the AER added.

Organic farmers, represented by the IFOAM EU group, welcomed the Commission's emphasis on farmers' economic and environmental performance. "This needs to be transformed into a legal requirement to measure all future CAP payments against the sustainability objective. Organic farming is an investment in long-term food security as it enhances soil quality, and it is an engine for rural economies and a pioneer of sustainable food systems; it should therefore be prioritised in all CAP axes and measures."

The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR), a regional group, approved the principles defended by the Commission, "particularly on food security, sustainable development and territorial balance". CPMR said these principles "should be included in the CAP in order to guarantee a decent income to farmers, including in the disadvantaged areas, particularly in island regions and those subject to particular climatic constraints".

In a statement, the WWF said it welcomed the Commission proposal. "WWF welcomes some clear improvements like the enhancement of the environmental commitments linked to the direct payments and the mention of Natura 2000 and High Nature Value systems as deserving specific support."

However, Tony Long, director of the WWF's European Policy Office, warned that "the proof of this apparent new green CAP commitment will be in the details," when the Commission proposals go before the member states for adoption. "The test of whether this is a breakthrough in farm subsidy support or mere window dressing will be whether environmental eligibility criteria are set at a higher level than what good agricultural practice says farmers should be doing anyway". 

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a federation of environmental organisations, welcomed the fact that the Commission had included in its proposal "the seeds for a greening" of the CAP.

Crucial new elements being explored in the paper are the greening of direct payments by introducing a green mandatory component, the focus on the delivery of public goods, High Nature Value Farming (HNV), organic farming, the Natura 2000 network and the integration of the Water Framework Directive into cross compliance, it said.

European development NGOs protested against the "narrow approach" to agricultural policy in the Commission's proposal, saying it fails to address food security in the developing world.

The European Commission's plan, they said, "is characterised by a complete lack of focus on the CAP's impact on the world's poorest," said Concord, a European group of relief and development NGOs.

"Global food security can only be achieved if poor countries are enabled to develop and safeguard their own sustainable domestic production," the group said, warning that "the objective of the CAP is not to 'feed the world'," but to feed Europe.

The group said subsidies to farmers should be limited to Europe's own food security and not be used as an excuse for export subsidies. "Concord considers it fundamental that all CAP payments should strictly match European market demand and that production is managed in such a way which prevents dumping exports to compete with local agricultural production of farmers in developing countries."