| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Crucial talks on EU farm reforms |
| 2003-06-11 |
| Not exactly WoT, but seeing as the French are involved I think it must be relevant. European Union farm ministers are set for a showdown when they meet on Wednesday for crucial talks on reforming the controversial system of farm subsidies. The European Commission is putting forward proposals to stop paying farmers according to how much food they produce. But the plans are likely to meet resistance from France and Spain, the main beneficiaries of the current system. EU farm commissioner Franz Fischler said it was "decision time" and warned against "lame compromises" which could lead to more red tape and overproduction at taxpayers' expense. "The negotiations will be tough and we have a few days' and nights' hard work ahead of us. But an agreement can be reached," he said. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) takes up nearly half of all EU spending and is blamed for encouraging massive overproduction - creating notorious "food mountains" and exports at subsidised prices. The European Commission wants to abolish the subsidies, and replace them with a single payment which would reduce over time, leaving farmers to make decisions according to what consumers want, rather than how much subsidy they could earn. BBC environment correspondent Tim Hirsch says there is great pressure to reach agreement this week ahead of world trade talks in Mexico in September where farm subsidies will be a major issue. Under the proposed plan, the money saved from scrapping subsidies would be used to help boost rural development and environmental protection. Why not conscript redundant farmers into the much-vaunted EDF. Create a few Rapid Reaction Agricultural Divisions. Bet you can get quite a few tractor-mounted Jose Boves into an IL-76. Diplomats say France has hinted in recent weeks that it might accept a compromise that would mean keeping some of the subsidies |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #12 The US farm subsidy program has very different roots than the European version. One of the key contributors to the Great Depression in the US was agricultural overproduction. The deflationary effects of huge agricultural surpluses bankrupted farmers in large numbers and helped lead to the collapse of the banking system. The aim of US farm subsidies is to take productive land out of production or buy up excess crops rather than ensure minimum levels of production (except for some key military commodities like cashmere wool, but that's another story). Originally designed to help small family farms, they of course benefit agribusiness most (buy 100,000 acres, cultivate 60,000 acres, sell at cost and make your profit on the 40,000 acres that the Feds paid you to leave fallow). |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-11 20:42:40 |
| #11 I don't know a lot about U.S farm subsidies programs,but I was under the impresion it was mostly because American farmers are so good at rasing food that if they grew enough to show a profit they would flood the market with food destroying the market for everyone.By the way where do you think that millions of tons of grain the U.S. donates to the worlds poor and starving comes from. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-06-11 19:20:14 |
| #10 The subsidies are a remnant of the time when Europe decided never to suffer a famine again like winter 1946/47. The subsidies did make sense in the 50s, in the 60s they were already unnecessary. But indeed its very difficult to get rid of them. But you actually can buy bendy, not plastic wrapped cucumbers at the market (as I did today) along with (horribile dictu) juicy tasty French peaches (and German strawberries). They could be cheaper though. Unfortunately EU subsidies favor the big agricultural enterprises, not the small farmers. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-06-11 17:30:20 |
| #9 CC---you stole me thunder. Once you get an agricultural subsidy entrenched in the system, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. It would seem to me that a good compromise is a phaseout over X number of years, say 5 or even 10. Speaking of which, for example, we in Alaska have $23 billion in the bank of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was a State set-aside from oil revenues. Eligible certified residents get some every year (share the oil wealth with the public). The state is in a budget crunch, many people are looking at the dividend as an entitlement, the legislature won't take its responsibility and do the last cuts on a 5-year plan of budget reduction. Now they have dumped problem on the lap of the governor, who will do the line item vetos, which he says he will do to keep the plan going. Sounds familiar? It is universal. The EU or our country must have the national will to get its house in order, or we both will eventually economically collapse. Good luck to all of us... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-06-11 14:37:02 |
| #8 Actually the idea of a European Quick Agracultural Reaction Force is not all that bad of an idea. Would we see as many problems in Africa if the Africans had sufficient food stuffs available. With sufficient food perhaps the Jungle Meat trade would not be around and maybe AIDS wouldn't be as bad |
| Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-06-11 11:55:33 |
| #7 Agricultural subsidies in the EU -- and the US -- undermine agricultural production in Africa and other poor parts of the world, hence contribute greatly to global poverty. Farmers in Mali can produce cotton much cheaper than those in the US, but they can't compete against US subsidies. But while the US is bad on this issue, Europe is MUCH worse. Australia and New Zealand are much better. |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2003-06-11 11:49:18 |
| #6 Well, we in America shouldn't be throwing too many bricks about agricultural subsidies. Our farm policy is a disgrace from set-aside programs, to ethanol, to subsidized water projects to irrigate more land to grow more crops to provide more over-supply. It's disgusting. However, given that each farm state is guaranteed 2 senators, the ag sector will continue to be overrepresented in the Senate and both parties will continue to pander to the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowas etc. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-06-11 11:36:26 |
| #5 The major problem in Europe vis-a-vis farm subsidies is that they soak up so much of the government's expenditures. Farm subsidies have played a vital role in sucking money away from defense spending, and is one of several culprits in Europe's poor military capabilities. The old "Guns or butter" policies have always been decided in favor of "butter" in Europe. Today, the whole mess is coming home to roost as extremism of various sorts begin to rear their ugly heads, and there's not much there to behead the monsters. Many European countries can't even administer a decent "haircut" to terror, much less do anything truly protective. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-06-11 11:26:16 |
| #4 i guess if americans can discuss the minutaa of our partisan sniping, the euros can discuss the ins and outs of agric policy - its at least as relevant to the WOT. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-11 10:36:08 |
| #3 Bulldog, wouldn't that make it the Rabid Reactionary Agricultural Division. The US could stand to reacquaint it's Farm Based Policy with supply and demand also, but I doubt our politicians can garner the courage for Free Market Fries. |
| Posted by: Dick Saucer 2003-06-11 09:43:20 |
| #2 farm reforms? So will the EU now let me buy a bendy cucumber NOT wrapped in plastic in the UK now? run , britain, run while you still have time or it will be woody tasteless peaches all round |
| Posted by: Anon1 2003-06-11 08:01:52 |
| #1 leaving farmers to make decisions according to what consumers want Oh, something like the supply & demand concept, where in the long run supply = demand. Is this something new to the EUropeans? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-06-11 06:04:02 |