On november 29th, President Sarkozy, along with Farm Minister Bruno Le Maire and Minister of sustainable development Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, has made his eighth travel this year about agriculture. He went in the South-West of France to meet cereal, cattle and duck for foie gras producers. Adressing the farmers, Nicolas Sarkozy and Bruno Le Maire have talked about the CAP post 2013, with this thunderous statement: “your CAP budget is maintained after 2013“! One way to force the destiny with the approach of elections next spring? [more]

In his Communication on the CAP towards 2020 launched on November 18 2010, Dacian Cioloş proposed: “…to establish an upper limit for payments made to large farms, so as to share out the payments better between farmers.”

Applying a ceiling on the subsidies for the largest farms is a sensitive subject for the EU’s farm ministers. In previous CAP reforms, a majority of them always opposed the Commission on this question, be it in 1992, 1998 or 2002.

Not surprisingly, last March several of them – Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, the UK and Slovakia – resolutely refused any ceiling on subsidies, arguing that holdings need to be competitive. [more]

The contribution of the French environment ministry (MEEDDM) to the debate on the post 2013 CAP has sparked a torrent of reactions from the agricultural world. Most of them are hostile.

In an authoritarian manner, the national farmers’ unions and cooperatives representatives rejected “…a split in institutional conduct…” (FNSEA); denounced the lack of “…any realistic economic vision” (Coop de France); wondered “…Who speaks on behalf of France?” (APCA) or criticised a “parisian piece of thinking” (national Young Farmers’ association JA).

In this chorus of criticism, only the peasant organisation Conféderation paysanne greeted “…a brilliant advance [to] link public subsidies to the worker and employment.” Which really is something.

Should the CAP in France really be the exclusive preserve of the agricultural ministry and the agricultural world? In the eyes of the FNSEA or APCA, environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo and secretary of state Chantal Jouanno are not the right people to express their views on the future of the CAP in public. In France, the CAP is a very sensitive subject in the eyes of the deeply conservative agricultural world and one which is not compatible with the Grenelle environmental charter [which the MEEDDM ministerial is in charge of implementing].

Proposals for a strong and ambitious CAP…

However, these two members of the government argue in favour of a strong and ambitious CAP in the letter that accompanies their proposals:

“In our country, agriculture plays a fundamental rôle in the areas of the economy, social policy, environmental policy, health policy and cultural policy. The sustainable development of France as well as Europe, is closely linked to the future of our agriculture.

In particular, major disruption in the environment is a threat to the sustainability of agriculture, whether one considers climate change, the loss of biodiversity, increasingly lifeless soils or low level background pollution. Certain agricultural systems are capable of contributing to this threat.

Agriculture, because it is an activity which has the greatest potential impact on terrestrial ecosystems – it occupies 60% of the national territory – can play a part in setting right the ecological challenges that we face. This rôle would, moreover, be one of the justifications for a strong and ambitious CAP.”

…removed from the environment ministry’s website!

The mounting pressure put on the environment ministry finally led to these proposals being taken down from the MEEDDM website, just one week after they went live.

Several associations responded with a statement (in French) to welcome: “…proposals which set the foundations for a renewed and re-legitimised CAP…” and to denounce the fact that, “…after the FNSEA press release, the proposals should have been taken down from the MEEDDM website,” regretting strongly “…the disappearance which harms public knowledge of a document that is necessary to inform the public.”

These associations underlined the interest in the following proposals:

“to put in place the objective of an agriculture and food policy that would make Europe more autonomous and which would respect the food security [autonomy] of other countries: « The vocation of the European Union is not to feed the world » but to meet its own needs as a priority, notably in the matter of animal feedstuffs, where it has a deep deficit;”

“to make agricultural policy fairer, by establishing criterial for sharing [agricultural] subsidies that are genuinely social and environmental: the end of historic reference prices, the strengthening of good environmental practices, the weighting of aids through employment and proper funding for general environmental benefits (eg organic agriculture, certification of “Haute Valeur Environnementale” (HVE), permanent pasturelands…) and territorial support (eg less favoured regions, farming with high natural value (HNV))

The environment ministry contribution to the debate on the CAP after 2013 remains available to the public [in French] on our website.

MEEDDM (Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer) is the French environment ministry. It is responsible for the environment, sustainable development and the sea.

The French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDDM) has recently published a document with its proposals for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Entitled For A Sustainable Agricultural Policy In 2013, Principles, Architecture And Financial Elements, the proposals bring a new impetus to the CAP debate in France.

Since the 2008 French EU presidency, politicians and agricultural decisionmakers have been in the habit of saying that the political debate of the post-2013 CAP should precede any discussion of its budget. MEEDDM brings the two back together.

MEEDDM justifiably reckons that: “...keeping a strong CAP is justified when it contributes to establishing sustainable agriculture at a European level.” With this view in mind, it proposes new financial measures and balances to:

(1) an equitable CAP allowing all those working in agriculture to earn a decent revenue in all production systems;
(2) a coherent CAP that will pay for the environmental services that agriculture provides, while limiting its impact on the environment and their on-costs.
(3) a dynamic CAP that allows a transition to an ecologically productive agriculture promoting projects at territorial and sectorial (chains) levels.

A new CAP architecture

MEEDDM suggests a new architecture, reckoning that: “the two pillar configuration is inherited from a period during which the markets were at the heart of the CAP, while a secondary source of funding – the second pillar – was intended to correct a certain number of impacts on the environment and the land.” In this way, the policy tools would be organised into three levels of payments:

(1) the guarantee of a stable revenue base for those living and farming with sustainable resources,based on a twin justification of social and environmental grounds (first level);
(2) the payment of environmental services that are rendered by agricultural production systems that are put in place (second level);
(3) support for the agricultural and ecological transition of businesses by farmers, with the help of other actors in the production chains and territorial organisations (third level).

A new key to financial shares

The added value of the document rests on its proposals to finance the CAP: MEEDDM does not hesitate to put forward a new key to sharing the financing according to the three levels:

(1) Three billion euros a year on the first level, which would be topped up with variable sumes of additional national co-funding;
(2) Four billion euros a year on the second level, which would pay for environmental services in the public interest and be 100% funded by the EU;
(3) Two billion euros on the third level which would be cofinanced by different stakeholders (national, regional and private) and in which EU funding would act as a lever;
(4) Half a billion euros on the food section and a further half billion on the safety nets and market management.

If the absence of a proposal concerning the market management mechanisms, the thinking behind the document remains nevertheless genuinely new and bold in its targeting of direct payments and supporting the agri-environmental transition. The environment ministry’s contribution also illustrates in a detailed way certain aspects of the European Commission’s own policy thinking for the CAP after 2013.

MEEDDM (Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer) is the French environment ministry. It is responsible for the environment, sustainable development and the sea.

Le point de vue de Nicolas-Jean Bréhon “Une PAC sans cap” publié dans le quotidien économique Les Echos, rappelle une série de constats que les ONG françaises du groupe PAC 2013 partagent assez largement sur le contenu de l’accord du bilan de santé conclu le 20 novembre.

Tout d’abord, le renforcement du développement rural dit le second pilier de la PAC, ne s’accomplira que par l’augmentation du transfert des aides directes du 1er pilier (modulation). A priori cela n’est pas une mauvaise chose en soi si cela permet un meilleur ciblage des aides vers l’agriculture durable. Mais à bien y regarder de près on constate que le diable se cache dans le détail.

Ainsi au titre des “nouveaux défis” relevant du développement rural, le secteur laitier serait doté de crédits supplémentaires issus de la modulation additionnelle pour accompagner la sortie des quotas laitiers d’ici 2015 : aides à la modernisation des exploitations laitières et aides à l’innovation. Quels modèles de productions sont ainsi sous-tendus par le 2nd pilier de la PAC ? Dans le cas du lait, le développement rural pourrait servir (entre autres) à soutenir la restructuration du secteur afin de renforcer la compétitivité des plus grands élevages, et ainsi compenser partiellement certains impacts négatifs dans les zones de faible densité laitière comme la montagne dus à l’abandon de la maîtrise de l’offre. Cet exemple illustre le caractère schizophrène de la PAC qui retire d’une main ce qu’elle donne de l’autre.

Deuxième constat, depuis 2003 la PAC tend à devenir une politique de soutien des revenus agricoles par les aides directes, au détriment d’une politique de stabilisation des prix par l’organisation des marchés. Il est vrai de dire que les agriculteurs se sentent humiliés parce qu’assistés de la sorte par la puissance publique, alors qu’ils demandent surtout d’intervenir sur les prix agricoles. Le soutien par le contribuable (impôts) se substitue au soutien par le consommateur (prix). Mais ce que Nicolas-Jean Bréhon ne dit pas, c’est que le monde agricole subit une double humililation avec la transparence des aides qui oblige les Etats à rendre public la liste des bénéficiaires des aides de la PAC, lesquelles sont inégalement distribuées comme chacun sait. La Commission Européenne mentionnait dans son étude d’impact du bilan de santé que la distribution des aides était tout sauf équitable quand 80% des aides vont à 20% des bénéficiaires, et quand près de la moitié des fermes Européennes reçoit des aides qui ne dépassent pas 500 €.

C’est dans ce contexte que la pression sur les aides risque de s’accentuer à l’approche de la révision budgétaire des politiques Européennes. D’un côté les Etats qui plaident pour une PAC “low cost” à l’instar du Royaume-Uni ou de la République Tchèque le font tout simplement parce qu’il ne possèdent aucune vision, aucun projet d’avenir pour l’agriculture et les zones rurales. L’agriculture ne fait pas partie de leurs priorités. En France, Michel Barnier a appelé à maintenir une PAC forte et ambitieuse après 2013 au nom du défi alimentaire mondial pour conserver le niveau d’aides que Bruxelles donne à nos agriculteurs. De fait, la France a esquivé la question du ciblage des aides sur la scène Européenne -alors que Michel Barnier avait relancé le débat en France-, ce qui a profité aux Pays-Bas et au Danemark qui ont pu confortablement étayer leur vision d’une PAC sans aides directes.

Certes le débat budgétaire sera difficile pour la PAC, surtout dans la période de crise que nous continuerons à traverser en 2009. Mais ça n’est pas par ce que ce sera difficile qu’il faut se faire à l’idée que la PAC sera abandonnée. Le statu quo étant de toute manière impossible, il est urgent de proposer une vision positive de l’agriculture après 2013. Sans doute y-aura-t-il moins d’argent pour la PAC si l’on se réfère à sa structure actuelle. Mais en qualifiant autrement ses domaines d’intervention et en ciblant mieux ses dépenses vers les domaines prioritaires, une nouvelle politique européenne de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du développement rural bénéficierait d’une justification et d’une légitimité renouvelées.

De toutes les manières, la politique agricole Européenne ne fera pas l’économie d’une refondation sur des principes écologiques qui garantissent la durabilité de la production agricole et de l’approvisionnement alimentaire. C’est en ces termes d’ailleurs qu’outre-Atlantique, Wes Jackson et Wendell Berry plaident dans le New-York Times pour une politique agricole de long terme, a 50-Year Farm Bill basé sur l’agronomie, les énergies renouvelables, et la conservation de sols afin de s’émanciper d’une insoutenable dépendance à l’égard des énergies non-renouvelables.