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.

In a recent report, the European Group on Ethics asks European Commission to introduce more ethics in agricultural policies. Entrusted by President Barroso to give an opinion on the ethical implications of developments of modern agricultural technologies, the EGE has broadened its recommendations to food security and the participation of non-farm stakeholders in the definition of agricultural policies.

If the EGE develops a cautious approach on GMOs by proposing to strengthen the impact studies, he said that technology alone does not provide answers to food and agricultural challenges ahead. Beforehand, he stressed the goals that must be imposed on agricultural technology: the double food quantity and quality, and sustainability, recommending a more integrated approach to agriculture, which in addition to its technical aspects, be better balanced in ethical terms. In other words, it recommends to take into account the principles of human dignity and justice in the production and distribution of food. Indeed the starting point of an ethic of Agriculture remains the obligation of States and the international community to guarantee the right to food for all.

Given the strong environmental impact of agriculture, the report points the need to implement another model of agriculture in the future. According to the GEE, it is “a sustainable, multifunctional agriculture where outside food security for all, land management, conservation of resources, the health of agricultural workers, the preservation of micro - organisms that are rich in biodiversity, and the value of farmland would acquire a significant status. From an ethical, technologies for sustainable agriculture should help to maximize the use of natural resources while protecting them from depletion and thus allow their regeneration. “

Finally, the EGE calls on Member States to act in favor of more participation, public debate, awareness raising, on the impact of diet on sustainability (consumption of meat in particular) on the prevention of waste of food (reduce by half this waste would decrease greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter) and public information practices and agricultural technologies.