Winning the intellectual argument but losing the political battle
We are moving towards a near-consensus among intellectually-minded reformers that the CAP should be fundamentally reshaped to promote European public goods. And we are getting more solid work on what these European public goods are and how we could support them efficiently. At the same time, defenders of the old-style CAP continue to dominate in the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. We have the chance for real change after 2013 – but if we continue on this trajectory, we will waste the opportunity.
A brief look at the political landscape. Dacian Cioloş, the Commissioner for Agriculture, considers himself a reformer but has taken clearly conservative positions – including in his recent invitation to a civil society dialogue. He appears to agree with his leading DG Agri bureaucrats that the CAP is primarily about helping farmers and not about delivering for society. This attitude is clearly visible in the DG Agri working paper on "Why do we need a common agricultural policy?“
What to expect from Manuel Barroso and the other Commissioners? They certainly would like to see a greener and leaner CAP. Are they willing to fight for it? The leaked draft for the budget review conclusions, with rather moderate proposals for CAP reform, quickly disappeared as Mariann Fischer-Boel, among others, railed against them. The EU2020 strategy is full of new spending initiatives, without admitting that they can only be financed by taking money out of the CAP. The desire is there, the will is uncertain.
In the Council, the Swedish Presidency could not gain much ground for CAP reform. Quite understandably, it did not dare rock the boat during the difficult period when the Lisbon Treaty had to be ratified and new EU leaders be appointed. Moreover, the Swedish had to wrestle with the paralyzing protests of the milk farmers. The Spanish Presidency pursues a program of resounding agricultural protectionism. Belgium, Hungary and Poland, who are next in line to assume the Presidency, are known for their CAP-friendly stance. In any case, they will preside over a Council with little appetite for reform, as evidenced by the rhetoric-heavy Paris Declaration agreed by 22 member states and the Polish-led we-want-more-CAP-money position paper from the new member states.
The EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (ComAgri) impresses with its stubborn defense of vested interests. The first draft of an own-initiative report being prepared by ComAgri confirms the worst expectations. Any serious reform will have to be driven through against the majority of the Committee. Regrettably, dissenting MEPs in other Committees – who care about the environment, global poverty, economic prosperity, free markets and a rational use of the EU budget – are glad to leave this thorny issue to ComAgri.
This means that tremendous pressure has to be exercised by civil society and the media to tilt the balance. The Expert Declaration by agricultural economists and the position paper by five environmentalist NGOs are welcome signs that reform promoters are joining forces. However, the dominating picture is disquieting. The reform-oriented stakeholders march off in different directions, with altermondialist/leftist organizations carrying others away into unreasonable and unrealistic demands. Those stakeholders that want to reduce wasteful CAP spending – the liberals, the business community, the tax payers, and all those who wish more EU money for their privileged causes – remain below the radar screen. All of them are far outspent by farmers, land owners and other interests from rural areas.
The choice is simple: Either reformers keep leaving the field to their opponents, and rely on environmental and budget pressures to make some limited improvements inevitable at the end of the day; or they get their act together and throw their weight behind a green and lean CAP.