EU farmers ‘out on a limb’
The test of farmers’ political strength in the EU was narrowly avoided, when India and the US held up the final stage of agreeing a deal. The proposal was to cut the EU’s trade-distorting payments to farmers by 80% and to lower its food import barriers by 54%; EU trade and agriculture ministers were happy for talks to continue; and negotiators made progress in 18 out of 20 areas of difference.
It seemed an outline deal was near agreement. EU farmers threatened by the deal would then have depended on EU heads of state to veto it. It was not to be. Developing countries shot down the talks on issue 18, out of 20 trade issues that had to be tidied up. Their argument, over safeguards to protect 1.2bn Indian and Chinese farmers from food import surges, spared EU heads of state from a difficult decision — to give an injection to their faltering economies by agreeing a trade deal, or go out on a limb for their farmers.
With eurozone business activity at its lowest since 2001, and consumer spending falling 3% per year, it could have been hard to say no to a trade deal that promised €100bn in new trade flows.
Only France, of the stronger member states, resists radical reform of the CAP. But even they were not able to fight off the reform of the sugar industry, which France first brought to Europe in the early 19th century.
Announcing the reform which cost Ireland its sugar business, Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel had said the days when European farmers could sit back and expect a fixed price from Brussels were over.
She wants EU farmers to aim, instead, for a supposedly growing global market in high-quality food that is produced with stringent environmental standards and concern for animal welfare.
In the trade talks at Geneva, Boel and trade commissioner Peter Mandelson were happy to give away 80% of payments linked to production and farm prices, and lower import barriers by more than 50%.
In prosperous Europe, where a loaf of bread costs only about 10 minutes’ work, even at the minimum wage, few outside of farming would have noticed if the trade deal was agreed — whereas its consequences could have sparked a rural revolution in India or China.
The US is prosperous, too, but their farm lobby is stronger, and the farmer has a better image in American culture. That’s why the US Congress and Senate overwhelmingly supported the $285bn Farm Bill this year, which includes $36bn to $40bn for farmers over 10 years.
The US politicians ignored the world trade talks and the many US groups, from Oxfam America to the National Black Farmers’ Association, which had united this year in a campaign to cut subsidies to US farmers.
EU farmers may need to study how US farmers have succeeded better at holding their political support. Even Barack Obama’s Democrats are thumbing their noses at their traditional urban constituencies, who pay for, but do not benefit from, agricultural subsidies. The Democrats didn’t want to lose their recent electoral gains in rural America by voting against the Farm Bill.
In a union of 27 countries with hundreds of political groups, EU farmers can’t swing that kind of political support — unless they unite across borders.
At least, Irish farmers are adding to their political muscle by sending IFA membership to a recent all-time high of more than 86,000. This is a key component in ensuring their united voice deals effectively with the issues that affect farmers at home, in Europe, and internationally, according to IFA president Padraig Walshe. But their stand-off with Taoiseach Brian Cowen before the Lisbon Treaty vote showed up their vulnerability when it comes to the big decisions.
