Ireland’s voting allies not as clear as they once used to be
In crude terms, the common financing of the CAP was originally put in place to ensure a net transfer to France as a quid pro quo for opening its market to German industrial products, says CAP expert Alan Matthews.
But he questions if France will continue to defend the CAP so strongly in the future, because it has become a net contributor to the agriculture policy, after decades of being a net beneficiary.
Several times during the complete reshaping of the Common Agricultural Policy since 1992, French Prime Ministers played starring roles in summits which were needed to get reform over the line.
Then, they were on the same side as Ireland, insofar as both countries were net beneficiaries from the EU’s agriculture policy.
Generally, what was good for France was good for Ireland, from the MacSharry reform in 1992 through to the Franz Fischler and Mariann Fischer Boel eras.
In his latest analysis for the capreform.eu blog, Alan Matthews, Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy in the Department of Economics in Trinity College, reveals that it is no longer straightforward for an Irish Agriculture Minister to find allies around the negotiating table, when momentous decisions for Irish farmers are being made.
He goes back to 2008, for example, when Denmark (home country of former Commmissioner Mariann Fischer Boel), Austria (home country of former Commmissioner Fischler) and France were still net winners in the share-out of CAP funds.
The other EU-15 member states with net gains then were Greece (the biggest beneficiary of all), Ireland, Portugal, and Spain.
On the other side, putting in more money to EU agriculture than they were getting out were (in the order of their financial burden relative to their national income) Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Italy, the UK, and Finland.
Ireland therefore had a common cause with Denmark, Austria, France, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, to continue as net winners in EU agriculture subsidisation.
Fast forward six years to 2014, and it becomes harder to see voting alliances in big upcoming negotiations, which could include a CAP mid-term review in 2017.
In 2014, France and Austria have gone over to the CAP losers’ side. Denmark was only barely on the credit side.
The burden of paying in more than they get out of the CAP has been evened out better, but the Netherlands is still a big contributor, compared to national income.
From 2008 to 2014, Ireland’s net gain compared to national income has fallen from nearly 0.6% to about 0.3%.
In these more recessionary times, with several member states in precarious financial positions, many agriculture ministers in the next big CAP negotiations will be under strict instructions from their prime ministers not to worsen their net position as a CAP expenditure contributor or beneficiary.
Countries are more likely to defend a high level of CAP expenditure if they are likely to benefit from it.
In this camp are Bulgaria (now the biggest beneficiary, relative to national income), Hungary, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Poland, Estonia, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Cyprus and Denmark.
There’s a lot of money at stake.
In 2014, the amount of CAP expenditure redistributed or reallocated between member states was €13.6 billion.
Although 12 member states were net contributors, 43% of the net contribution was paid by Germany alone (only about 0.2% of German national income), with significant amounts paid by the Netherlands, the UK and Italy.
France was a net contributor despite being the single largest beneficiary.
Before the next negotiations, you can expect the Irish Agriculture Minister tospend less time in Paris, instead clocking up a lot of air miles to Budapest, Vilnius, Athens, Bucharest, Warsaw, Tallinn, Lisbon, Prague, Riga, Bratislava, Ljubljana, and Madrid, seeking new alliances.
