By hosting an informal meeting of European agriculture ministers in Annecy on September 22 and 23, Michel Barnier, French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, wished to prepare the CAP for the post-2013 years before the 2010 budget is voted on.
The discussions conducted during the two days focused on two major themes: budgetary rationalization on one hand and improving of the CAP effectiveness and its adaptation to the challenges of the 21st century on the other.
The Annecy meeting brought to light the member States’ genuine strategic divergences on how to achieve CAP reforms. This situation, however, must not prevent the EU to reform its sole integrated policy. There is a way out, which would also be the first step to resolve the seven problems facing the international community while reconciling “budgeters” and “defenders of the current CAP”,.
Fundamental divergences that current proposals cannot reconcile
The Annecy meeting allowed member States to highlight their differences on structuring priorities between budgetary requirements and demands for effectiveness and regulation of European agriculture. Summarily put, two opposing camps emerged.
On one side, we have members for whom agriculture is a traditional economic activity. Hilary Benn, the British minister, echoed some of their positions when he stated that “agriculture has to face the same risks as other economic sectors”, adding that we must let “the market operate to its full extent”. They consider that CAP expenditures aiming to support markets and protect farmers from potential risks are not justified.
On the other side, we have members for whom agriculture is a strategic and specific activity among all other economic sectors, in particular in terms of risk exposure. They defend the preservation of regulating mechanisms–i.e. support adapted to the strategic goals of food security and economic effectiveness–that allowed the EU to become the first economic powerhouse worldwide.
Consequently, we cannot be overly surprised that the Annecy meeting did not generate any concrete proposal. We are now facing a situation identical to that of the game of the rope, in which each party tries to be in possession of the greatest length, knowing perfectly well that it can only be achieved at the expense of the other.
As a result, any proposal that will not break down this stalemate will lead to the same conclusion: a status quo that could lead to a slow neutralization of the CAP. As long as CAP reforms are conducted with an approach that is “European-centered” and dictated by budgetary factors, we will confront internal and external standoffs.
Is there a solution to this dilemma?
Coming back to the comparison to the game of the rope, three policy strategies can be formulated to exit the impasse.
The first would consist in declaring one of the two parties as the “winner”. We could thus impose a budget inferior to that of the CAP, while maintaining the current CPA logic. As we have seen from the Annecy debate, such a proposal is not pragmatic since a decline in CAP budget would necessarily have an effect on the European market support and regulation, and more generally the European agriculture competitiveness.
The second strategy could follow of the United States approach. The CAP budget would then be boosted to improve existing support and regulating mechanisms effectiveness. There again, this proposition cannot be considered since it would go against the CAP reforms undertaken since 2000.
Must we then wait for 2013 to observe the emergence of a new factor enabling us to solve the current dilemma? Or worse, to have the decision made for us?
In fact, there is a third option that differs from the two others and whose principles would be as follows: if support and regulating mechanisms of agricultural markets breed divergent viewpoints among “budgeters” and “defenders of the existing CAP”, let’s shift the debate topics and devise a new system allowing to better regulate markets without a matching increase in the European budget.
To that end, we are proposing that CAP reform be part of a framework that stretches beyond EU borders, so that this new model can then be exported in various areas of the world.
Indeed, the time has passed when policies implemented in a country were based solely on local considerations. The CAP reform fits in the framework of a new context that implies the four following issues:
> The world is concerned by two major crises: a financial crisis and a food crisis, both underlining the imperative need for international regulation and cooperation;
> The stalemate of the Doha Round brings to light WTO’s failure to implement an international trade system that meets these crises requirements;
> On the political side, Europe has come to a standstill and we do not have, at this time, a unifying project. Failing this, when a financial disaster may ruin European communities, a last minute “survival agreement” is finally drawn up;
> We live in a globalized world and its economies are inter-connected.
We should note that the agricultural debate is the focal point of concerns for each of these issues and that none of the proposals put forward today is convincing.
So the CAP reform can only be thought out in terms of global scale and of a new international cooperation initiative. The EU could thus achieve seven major goals and, as a result, solve the dilemma in which it has gotten bogged down:
1. Share agricultural risks on a worldwide scale. This would allow to overcome the current budgetary deadlock in the CAP debates while better defending European farmers. Additionally, it would entail the creation of a World Organization for Agriculture.
2. Stimulate international cooperation through a unifying project––agriculture––just as was previously done by Europe with the CAP.
3. Encourage growth in less developed nations. Indeed, let’s not forget that, with the exception of oil-producing States, no country has progressed without the preliminary development of its agricultural activities.
4. Recommend an exit strategy to WTO by way of a better coordination of the various national agricultural policies.
5. Motivate Europe around its historical policies.
6. Introduce better protection measures to farmers throughout the world.
7. Recommend better prevention against food crises at the national and global levels.
Worldwide outlook and economic globalization are bringing out unprecedented opportunities to the international community. However, these vibrant prospects also represent major threats due to the development of systemic risks, whose fierce urgency and scope can undermine our economies. The example of the recent financial crisis is indeed a reminder.
We are currently facing a new stage of globalization: after launching tariff unions and forming free-trade regional coalitions during the second half of the 20th century, international organizations are now seeking to pull together these diverse coalitions into a tighter approach.
Such a goal, however, demands that national or regional policies be devised to react to transnational concerns. It is was not long ago when Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman undertook that somewhat far-fetched dream to build a European Community based on agriculture, rightly considering that “1+1=3”. Today, maybe the time has come to extend this movement and broaden its perimeter to an international scope. |