Reforming Europe's Common Agricultural Policy

Writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in Plant Science, scientists from Spain and the United Kingdom argue that the European Union will be unable to meet increased demand for food and crops in a sustainable and environmentally conscientious way without its changing policy with regard to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The authors criticise the ‘paradoxical’ approach to agricultural policy within the EU which has, they say, distorted the economic and regulatory harmony that was aimed for into a ‘fragmented, contradictory and unworkable legislative framework’.

Professor Christou and his colleagues recommend science-based regulation and the removal of a political component in the approval process of GM crops as a means of improving the situation. Innovation and widespread use of the best available and most appropriate technologies – not just biotechnology – will encourage productivity, sustainability and a better environment.

"Most GM crops counter some of the most damaging practices of conventional agriculture and it makes no sense for EU policy makers to preach environmental sustainability on the one hand while denying farmers the ability to implement the policies that are best suited to deliver this on the other."

This is the fourth in a series of US Trade Representative Office reports on SPS barriers facing US agricultural and food exports. It contains country chapters outlining the SPS barriers faced in various markets. The EU chapter provides a good summary of the SPS issues which will be centre-stage in the EU-US free trade area negotiations due to start later this year.

Only 7 percent or respectively 10 percent of all farmers in the European Union (conventional/organic) is below the age of 35 years! More than half of all farmers is above the age of 55 years. 

This story from euinside.eu summarises the debate at the February 2013 Agricultural Council meeting on transparency of CAP funding. The Commission proposal is that the member states have to ensure annual ex post publication of the beneficiaries of eurosubsidies from the two agricultural funds - the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agriculture Fund for Regional Development (EAFRD). The Commission is also introducing a threshold. If the agricultural aid is equal or less than 1000 euros then the information for the beneficiary might not be published. Disagreement centred on whether names of recipients should be published at all and whether there should be a minimum threshold and, if so, at what level.

Agra Europe presents an infographic on the most divisive issues and biggest hurdles to reaching a consensus among MEPs on the CAP.

This study has, for the first time, collected and analysed economic data on all Geographical Indications (GIs) produced in the European Union, over the 2005-2010 period. The study estimates the worldwide sales value of EU GIs at € 54.3 billionin 2010, at wholesale stage. The total value of GI products exported outside the EU is estimated at € 11.5 billion. This represents 15 % of the total EU food and drinks exports.

The study also included an analysis on the value premium of products bearing a GI. This value premium reflects the premium that a GI can expect from the market, compared to similar non-GI products. The study estimated that in average GI products were sold 2.23 times as high as a comparable non-GI products. This does, however, not mean that GI producers' margins are 2.23 higher, as GI producers often face additional costs due to compliance with the GI specification.

It is as yet a distant rumble, a sign the earth may be about to move rather than of any immediate seismic shift, but it seems a reasonable possibility that in two or three years' time North America and Europe could be joined in a free trade area.

The Chicago Tribune argues that the EU's regulatory regime for bioengineered crops damages poor countries.

"The result of Europe's politically motivated rejection of modern methods is not a hungry Europe. Even in its economic malaise, Europe can afford plenty of food. But its policies hurt the needy in poor nations that would benefit from scaled-up European farm production: Europe's failure to grow as much food as it could, and instead boost imports, puts upward pressure on prices. High commodity prices make life more costly for those who spend a large share of their income on food.

Europeans compound the damage they do to the poor by discouraging the developing world from adopting genetically modified crops. European opponents of modern practices claim that embracing them would put poor farmers at the mercy of big companies such as Monsanto that sell state-of-the-art seed, fertilizer and pesticide. They also falsely claim the jury's out on whether genetically modified crops can increase yields."

The EU’s rural land is essential for delivering all ecosystem services – food, energy, timber, as well as clean water, carbon sequestration and landscapes, underpinned by biodiversity. However, there are tensions about how to produce more crops, timber and, increasingly, energy alongside a healthy environment and rectifying the serious environmental deficit that already exists. These tensions are likely to become more pronounced over the coming decades and will mean that significant trade-offs between different land uses and the intensity of crop and animal production need to be faced. Where such conflicts occur, it tends to be the environment that loses out.

This report, for DG Environment, looks at some of the ways of addressing these tensions and trade-offs in a way that seeks to maintain and enhance the delivery of environmental services in the future so that the EU’s rural land is resilient to climate change and its long term productive capacity is protected without causing undue pressure elsewhere. It suggests some of the solutions that will need to be considered and where EU policy initiatives are needed. It highlights that more coherent approaches to land use are needed and that, although traditionally there have been considerable political sensitivities about EU policy initiatives on land use, this is an issue that can no longer be avoided.

This paper follows earlier annual studies which examined economic impacts on yields, key costs of production, direct farm income and effects and impacts on the production base of the four main crops of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops has continued to occur at a rapid rate, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2011. This annual updated analysis shows that there have been very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $19.8 billion in 2011 and $98.2 billion for the 16 year period (in nominal terms). The majority (51.2%) of these gains went to farmers in developing countries. GM technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the four main crops, having added 110 million tonnes and 195 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid-1990s.

Land ownership in Europe has become highly unequal reaching, in some countries, proportions similar to Brazil, Colombia and the Philippines – all notorious for their unequal distribution of land and land-based wealth. While in the EU there are some 12 million farms, the large farms (100 hectares and above) that only represent 3 percent of the total number of farms, control 50 percent of all farmed land.

The report, involving 25 authors from 11 countries, reveals the hidden scandal of how a few big private business entities have gained control of ever-greater areas of European land. It exposes how these land elites have been actively supported by a huge injection of public funds – at a time when all other public funding is being subjected to massive cuts. While some of these processes – in particular ever-increasing land concentration -- are not new, they have accelerated in recent decades in particular in Eastern Europe. They have also paved the way for a new sector of foreign and domestic actors to emerge on the European stage, many tied into increasingly global commodity chains, and all looking to profit from the increasingly speculative commodity of land.

European Commission Press Release 

Why, after the vote at the European Parliament and the last Council of EU Ministers of agriculture, is CAP reform not already adopted?

What is a trilogue?

When is an agreement foreseen?

Who participates to the trilogues?

What does it mean in legal terms for the CAP reform process?

What are the open issues to be discussed in the coming weeks?

With the forecast for expenditure on CAP Direct Payments & Market measures for 2014 higher than the provisional ceiling for 2014 agreed by EU heads of government, the European Commission has tabled a proposal for "Financial Discipline" to ensure that spending remains within budget limits. The concept, established in 2003 but never triggered until now, requires the Commission to make a proposal before the end of March introducing a linear cut in CAP Direct Payments in order to ensure that the ceiling for the CAP's first pillar in the forthcoming year is respected. The Commission proposal, which includes a threshold to exempt the first €5 000 of farmers' Direct Payments from any reduction, foresees a reduction of just under 5% (4.98%) in all Direct Payments – or an overall reduction of €1 471.4 million.

This briefing note from the European Parliament Library explains that the own resources system provides sufficient resources to cover planned expenditure, but is often criticised for its complexity and opacity.

Modification of the own resources system requires unanimity in the Council and ratification by each Member State (MS). For the Own Resources Decision, the European Parliament (EP) is only consulted.

The EP considers that the system has several shortcomings. For example, it says that the current arrangements do not follow the provisions of the Treaties since most EU revenue depends on resources that are perceived as national contributions, which MS wish to see minimised. Therefore, the EP has pushed for reforms.

In 2011, the European Commission put forward proposals with a view to reshaping the system and improving its functioning. The European Council has now reached a series of conclusions on these proposals as part of the complex negotiations on the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).

Biofuels were back in the spotlight in Brussels last week when the European Parliament and European Energy Ministers gathered to discuss a review of EU biofuels legislation.

The conference room in the European Parliament was packed for three hours of presentations from experts who have modeled the impact of Europe's insatiable thirst for biofuels on global land use, food prices and carbon emissions, and debate on what to do about it.

Two days later, European Energy Ministers met in Brussels for their own discussion of the new European biofuels policy. Listening to the speeches, it was clear that many of them had been listening to the lobbyists for the biofuel industry rather than reading the reports from the experts.

No decisions have yet been taken, and Oxfam's GROW campaign highlights the impact of these decisions for world hunger http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow

This scary story in the Guardian says that many farmers are quitting an industry hit by rain, disease and cheap imports – just as food security becomes a worldwide issue. And indeed many UK farmers have suffered greatly from the poor weather in 2012, as demonstrated by the story of Stephen Watkins who farms in Worcestershire, UK.