the development interest in reform of the european union's common agricultural policy

8/8/2019 The Development Interest in Reform of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy

1/20

The Development Interest in

Reform of the European Unions

Common Agricultural Policy

Alan Matthews

Dublin, Ireland


2/20

2007 The German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission

in writing rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

The German Marshall Fund o the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

T 1 202 745 3950

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

This publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/publications/index.cm. Limited print

copies are also available. To request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].

GMF Paper Series

The GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by sta, ellows, and partners o the

German Marshall Fund o the United States. The views expressed here are those o the author and do not neces-

sarily represent the view o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by

e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

The German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States

and Europe.

GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders

to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can

address a variety o global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthen

democracies.

Founded in 1972 through a git rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF

maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,

GMF has seven ofces in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.


3/20

he Development Interest in Reorm othe European Unions Common Agricultural Policy

A Report o he German Marshall Fund O he United States*

October 2007

A Mw

C

D, I

Hw CAP w k 3

E CAP 6

D CAP 1C 14

R 15

* T w I R C A P (CAP) P 8?, z G M F W F Hw F B, B, O 3-4,


4/20


5/20

he Development Interest in Reorm o

the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy3

How the CAP now looks

to developing countries1D 15 , E UC A P (CAP)

x ,

MS (199),

A (1999) Lx

A M- Rw CAP

(3) A

M ,

, , w 4,

C Mk Oz (CMO) w

6

CAP I 45

, x A

, w w

,

w x

w k w q

A w, ,

x k

x P O

x P w

D E

U CAP

w k

x k

w

NGO,

w

CAP

x

w x w q

k 1

1 S, x, Ox : Te Great EUsugar scam: how Europes sugar regime is devastating livelihoods inthe developing world();Milking the CAP: How Europes dairyregime is devastating livelihoods in the developing world();Stop the Dumping! How EU agricultural subsidies are damaginglivelihoods in the developing world(); Dumping on the World:how EU sugar policies hurt poor countries (4)

W CAP , w w ,

w

w k w CAP

w,

, z

E

x, w

EU q

,

,

w CAP F

w, CAP k

x I EU

,

k- w

B w CAP

,

Export subsidies

,

x

: W A; k J I Hw,

q

A w

, w

w EU x z

A, EU x

CAP w

w w x

Ex 4 6,

, 1

199 4 x

-Ax 1 , w

x

The new CAP is

a rather differen

animal to the

traditional policy

widely, and

rightly, criticized

by developing

countries.


6/20

he German Marshall Fund o the United States4

EU w ( ) EU

w k

Hw, market access E U

M EU -

O MFN

- 3

U R, w

13 (G , 1) A

w,

, k , ,

5 w x

ad valorem q F,

EU q

w w ( w-

q w )

MFN -q

E U

w, , w

W Oz (WO) F x,

, , ,

F w

( A

L A )

(

j )

F ,

preferential access A

x E

U w GzS P (GSP) Hw,

Ax 1 (,k, w, , , ) N-Ax 1 - w A-x 1 I , () Ax 1

GSP , ,

L

, w

(GSP+) L D C

(LDC) x

q

GSP, E B A (w

9)

A, C, P (ACP)

x -

, C , w z

S , ,

C A w

- q

w

EU O

w

E U

(M , S A,

C, Mx) M , E

U x - q-

- ACP

E P A (EPA)

F, EU

direct support w

I, w k

()

k

, j

O j

j 3 w ; w

w w

, q

,

q


7/20



, , w, w k

j j w

P O

CAP (

) P w (

j, -,

) kw

A , P w

CAP 8,

W E C

3 w w

, 9

w

w

w

k CAP,

k

k

Hw,

, k q,

q -

,

P w

k ; w

, -

w

w w

wCAP

E U

policy coherence

for development

wk j

w ,

j w w

M

q C k j [ EU

] w

k

E C D

E C,

w C,

E P, C

E U k

(EC, 5) C

j E U

z

,

I

w Bx 1 w

z CAP

The new system

is clearly much

less distorting...

although it is

highly unlikely

that the paymen

of such large

sums to farmers

makes absolutely

no difference to

their production

decisions.


8/20


EU5 w w x( U S) -

( WO w

x ) I,

x 6,

w $6 (C,

) A ,

CAP

199 x

EU k

,

w x x w w

CAP , w

w

EU

k ,

U S, J, C, A,

Nw Z w- EU

,

-

(C, )

EU , ,

A q

-

EU

W w

w x w

CAP

N w- 115

, w

j (1) A x,

CAP

, w

A x

,

w k

x k- ,

w k w

x

k EU k A

EU

,

,

,

w

CAP , w

-

w

A

O E C-

D (OECD) w k

(A M,

6; A Vz, 6; B,

6; H K, 6; Pk, 6)

wk

q (CGE)

w ,

GAP 3 O

3 T G A Pj (GAP) CGE w CGE w A GAP , f GAP T V 6, w w 1 T - , w f B w - , w EU OECD z (B H, )

Effect of the CAP

on developing countries2

The EU is a

particularly

important market

for developing

countries,

importing more

than the United

States, Japan,

Canada, Australia,

and New Zealand

together.


9/20



q k

z

w k

(, Ak B, 5)

z x D R,

kw w ( OECD)

z

z, w kw

, w

CAP

, w w

CAP

w 4

O w

x EU

W (5) H

4 O x USDA D (1) w E U - f w T EU - f f 1996 GAP 5 , EU w

Table 1: Agricultural Trade Positions in Developing Countries

CategoryLow-income countries

(44)

Lower-middle-income

countries (45)

Upper-middle-income

countries (26)

N

C 4 38 4

O 6 5 15

8 19

A

w 1 34 1

A

4 3

N x

C 4

O 18 11

16 18

A

w 3 11 5

A

13 6

Ex S: E, 6, UNCAD RAINS


10/20


Box 1: EU policy coherence for development commitments in agriculture

3.4.1. Common Agricultural Policy

The reorms o the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) agreed in 2003 and 2004 make a strong contribution to reducing trade-

distorting eects o EU support to agriculture and enhancing positive social and environmental eects. In order to sustain

progress in that direction and in relation to development concerns:

The European Commission will complete the CAP reorm, notably in the sugar sector, with a view to achieving domesti-

cally an across-sector implementation o reorm and improving CAP coherence with the Doha development agenda. The

European Union will implement an Action Plan with accompanying measures or Sugar Protocol ACP countries, aimed at

supporting these countries in their adaptation to the reorm o the EU sugar regime.

In accordance with the Johannesburg Plan o Implementation, CAP is being increasingly adapted to sustainability goals.

CAP objectives include helping agriculture to ull its multiunctional role in society: producing sae and healthy ood,

contributing to sustainable development o rural areas, and protecting and enhancing the status o the armed environ-

ment and its biodiversity.

All CAP measures are regularly evaluated on the basis o a rolling plan and CAP reorm proposals are subject to exten-

sive impact assessments. The Commission is also committed to establish a monitoring system o the policy reorm in

the cotton sector, with a view to analyzing its impact on production and trade, with a report in 2009.

In the context o the DDA commitment on parallel elimination o all orms o export subsidies, the European Commision

envisages eliminating export reunds on agricultural and ood products.

3.4.2. Food aid

The European Union believes that ood aid should not be used as a tool or agricultural surplus disposal, with the eect o de-

pressing local production and normal commercial transactions. This is ully refected in its ood aid policy, which aims at sustain-

ing agricultural development in developing countries, promoting regional trade and solving ood crises without disrupting markets.

To attain developmental goals and to make development policy more ecient, the European Union is in avour o estab-

lishing WTO disciplines on ood aid. It has succeeded in including disciplines on ood aid as a subject or discussion at

the DDA (export competition).

The European Union also succeeded in opening the re-negotiation o the Food Aid Convention, with a view to den-

ing clear and coherent commitments on the part o its members. The European Union will take all necessary steps to

ensure that the new Agreement includes a code o conduct on ood aid policies, which would include practices with

benecial aspects in relation to development goals.

3.4.3. Sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures

The European Union will actively assist developing countries in order to acilitate them meeting the Sanitary and Phytosanitary

(SPS) standards, so as to increase their exports o agricultural and sheries products (including processed products).

The Commission will consider a systematic evaluation o the impact o its SPS measures on developing countries and

possible assistance. This will in turn be used to actively identiy appropriate measures or actions targeted at developing

countries.

Because o the perishable nature o ood and eed products and the short- term supply rigidity, a rapid intervention acil-

ity to deal with SPS problems should be developed and the appropriate resources should be identied.

Source: Commission, 2005b.


11/20



CAP w w 3

w

w, L A

x S A

q ,

S A, N A, S-S

A , /

LDC

, w

( q!) w w

w

,

GAP-AGR , w

EU w

x

F G () w w,

wk, E

U 81

w

OECD , J

3 US F B

z

w

w E U

j [ ]

k w

k

Hw,

w

GAP w CAP

wk5 U wk,

CAP

5 T kw f w

$5 w $143 ; w j

( j

, k

q, w

),

CAP

$4

w $5 k

;

k w

O CGE w

w

, -

A

w w

-- O ,

wk

w CAP

,

w

F, w

CAP

w w

-

,

w-

w w w

j w

CAP w

W CAP

w

,

j

j

The winners

and losers from

CAP reform are

different groups

of countries,

with the winners

concentrated

among the more

competitive

middle-income

developing

countries and

the losers

among the more

vulnerable, low-

income developin

countries.


12/20


, w

W

,

q

Market access (cereals, dairy, and meats).I D R WO,

E U

G- 5

, w

- k

(NAMA)

5

5 EU w

O 5 w k 5-6

9 S

w w U R

k

x, L A Hw

E U

8

, w

( w

) w A

k

w , w w E

U

x ,

q (RQ) w

E U w

(SSM) k

B w

EU k

x Hw,

E U x

Hw w

EU

?

Market access (Mediterranean products and sugar).

E U

, ,

w N,

( W A ) , , , w

,

x F ,

,

w

S

G

E U w

13 ( k ),

w

EU ?

Elimination of export subsidies. WO H

K M C

x

x w

q

13 w

, ,

z

C F

5

1, w

Developing country interests

in further CAP reform3


13/20



q x

13 A

q w

q

U R [

w

q

U ]

EU x

, , , w

-Ax 1 ( ) A -

x ,

Domestic subsidies. A S F

P w w CAP H

Ck, w

,

,

P O P w,

w z

mlange , ,

S A P S w

S F P S w

1 F w ,

k -13

w w

w 8 O

(

) -

W

w EU 13

EU

x WO ,

w

,

q

Ax U R A

A G

Bx W z

-

,

k 13?

Free Trade Agreements and Preferential Agreements.

E U

(FA) w

U WO ,

, Hw,

z w

j q

q I EPA w

ACP , E U

- q-

, w , , , w x S

A I

w M,

, , z

q S ,

,

EM W

- x EU P

A?

Cereals policy. C , w w

k k

A , EU C w

CAP H

Ck w w w

w EU

What seems clea

at this stage is

that there will

be no additional

EU money after

2013 for direct

payments. The

EUs scheme may

also be vulnerab

to challenge und

existing WTO rule


14/20


1

, w

W

?

Biofuels policy. EU

,

, k

,

, EU,

A

CAP ,

W

CAP ,

k

, x

,

x?

Attitudes to regulating the Production and Process

Method (PPM) characteristics of agri-food products.

S F P j, ,

- q

, , ,

w P z

w

w

q EU [w

,

w

] EU q

A

x j

w- EU ? I EU x

?

F, w q

CAP w

per se

Preference erosion. CAP

EU

k, x, w

P j

N,

x w j k

EU qk

(G, )

W

q xz

?

Food aid policy issues. F

D R

I w , w

k, w

q

x

EU k

w CAP ,

D

CAP ? W F

P

w x

Food standards. S

- w x

x EU k D

x

The EU is

considering

requirements

that imported

biofuels should be

accompanied by

an environmental

certificate

indicating the

sustainability of

their production

in developing

countries.


15/20



- , , w

I ,

w q

k

P

E

, z

EU H

x

w , ,

E U

,

q ?

Aid for trade. F, w k

k

P

k

q , , k

k O

wk ,

, k w

H

-z k

w

A

, w

ww D CAP

z

EU

w-

k w k ?


16/20


k CAP

I

CAP

15 , w

w, w k-

-

I

CAP k

, w

w Sw z

CAP

D w

, , ,

N, CAP w

, Bz

Bz k

G-

WO k

OECD k,

, ,

6

6 P (5)

k

CAP

I, CAP

,

w E w

w w

k

w A

D D R

j Hw,CAP k

w

wk

CAP

w k, w , w

M ,

w-

k k w q

-

Conclusions

4

Europes

unwillingness

to lower its

own farm trade

barriers is

the strongest

argument

developing

countries have to

keep their own

barriers in place.


17/20



A, K M, W, 6 A R D D A,

Nw Yk, W Bk, P M

A, K M, W, 6 A

R D D A,

Nw Yk, P M, W Bk

A, K Vz, 6 D

?,

W Bk P R Wk P 391,

A 6, W, DC

Ak, MA B, J, 5 GA D C,

W Bk, W, DC

B, B H, L, G

EU C A P,

Economic Affairs, , , 18-6

B, A, 6 W C P Ex

Lz? O Bk Bx

M, MID D P N

93, W, DC, I F P

R I

C E C,

5 J S C

R G M

S M W C, E

P C E

C O D, B

C E C, 5

P C D: A

w M

D G, COM(5)134, B

C E C,

C F EU A ,

M A- P N -, DG

A R D, B

D, X, Sw A R, , 1 A

WO , M B ,

A R WO: R A,

A E R N 8, E

R S, US D A

E, K, 6 D D: F

P, I I E,

W, DC

F, F G, A,

:

E U ? P

E S G ,

A, S 13-15 ( )

G, P, W, J, W, J B,

M, 1 P G A

Mk, A E R N 96,

Mk E D, E

R S, US D A

G, P, ACP Ex

P E B S

S P P R A Aj C, G, I

C S D

H, K, R, 6

w , k

x : w

? C A, K M,

W , A R D

D A, Nw Yk, W Bk

P M

P, A, 5 A

: x , he

World Economy, 1-199

References

5


18/20


Pk, S, 6 W L: I D R D C,

W, C Ew

I P

W, A, 5 E

, European Review of

Agricultural Economics , 3, 3, 319-346


19/20


20/20

www.gmfus.org

Off i c e s

Washington Berlin Bratislava ParisBrussels Belgrade Ankara Bucharest

www.gmu.org

the development interest in reform of the european union's common agricultural policy

Documents