What is the international role of the CAP and how does it affect its future?

Résumé du document

Since the creation of the European Community and the single European market by the Treaties of Rome, the modalities of a common market of foodstuffs had been a central concern in European affairs. As Robert Ackrill points out, "the CAP is one of the most pervasive of all EU policies, one of the most infamous and perhaps one of the most misunderstood" (Ackrill, 2000, p. 16). First designed in order to avoid future food shortages that had been known during the Second World War, and to protect an agricultural sector vital for the well functioning of European States, the Common Agricultural Policy eventually came to surpass its initials objectives. Thus by the 1970s, Europe had transformed its status of net importer of foodstuffs to become a net exporter toward third world countries (Hennis, 2008, p.331). Since then, market protectionism, production of surpluses and export of subsidized agricultural products started affecting the global food chain. In a increasingly globalized world, the effects of CAP's instruments prevented market access by the use of import tariffs barriers and distorted global trade by the use of export subsidies, became unbearable for other countries.

Extraits

[...] Even if during the past fifteen years, the CAP had seen numerous reforms that contributed to a less trade-disturbing scheme, it is still criticized by developing countries and non-governmental organizations for its unfairness under the WTO rule (Oxfam, 2002). Thus, the 1992 MacSharry reform, the 1999 agenda 2000 reform and the 2003 Luxembourg agreement on the midterm review of the CAP brought significant changes to the policy. As Allan Matthews points out: “While (these) figures indicate that the CAP continues to distort trade, it does so to a considerably smaller extent than two decades (Matthews p. 384). [...]

[...] The first remark to be made in that regards is that the Common Agricultural Policy does not affect all countries to the same level. As a matter of fact, one may considers that there is some losers and even some winners among third countries. To begin with, it appears that countries that are net exporters in CAP products are undoubtedly disadvantaged in two main ways. First the existence of high import tariffs within the European Union prevent developing countries' producers from a lucrative access to European markets that could help them develop their agricultural infrastructures and productions. [...]

[...] The same kind of approach with a particular focus on the effect of the international level on internal negotiations will be used to analyse the 1992 and the 2003 CAP reforms. Uruguay Round and the 1992 reform The Uruguay Round of the GATT started in 1986 with, for the first time, ambitions over liberalisation of agricultural trade. The two main players in those negotiations were the two main trading blocks, as known as the United States and the European Community. [...]

[...] The phenomenon was further reinforced with the apparition of an intervention price that was able to deal with surpluses. The intervention price is set usually between 10 and 30 per cent under the target price and constitutes the price for which governmental agencies will pay producers in exchange of their surpluses. Surpluses were thereafter to be stocked and sold either on the European market once price had risen or as exports on the world market with the help of export subsidies that allowed them to compete with prices of the global chain. [...]

[...] Following the steps forward achieved in 1999 under the ‘Agenda 2000 reform' that introduced the two pillars model differentiating production support and rural development, EU farm Commissioner Franz Fischler launched the new set of negotiations in July 2002. The main objectives of the 2003 reform were the decoupling of agricultural subsidies toward less price and income supports and the allocation of more funding for rural development. Thus an important shift regarding the budgeting of the CAP from pillar 1 to pillar 2 was achieved by the implementation of the Single Farm Payment (SFP). [...]