Download France

2013 : French
position on CAP
project
ALVES Paulo Mateus
FURTADO Caio César
LABAQUE German
LE BELLEGUY Maxime
RAMBAUD Mathis
THIBAULT Benoït
ERASMUS IP Gödöllo
Summer School
Introduction
I. The CAP in France
• Aid distribution
• Production cost: France vs Mercosur
II. Analysis of CAP impacts
• Socioeconomic
• Environmental
• What we expect about CAP?
• Why to reform the CAP?
III. Possibles scenarios post 2013
• Keeping the same level of CAP subsidies
• Decreasing the level of CAP subsidies
IV. Conclusion
Introduction
General aspects:

Total area: 55 millions ha

Use land area: 32 millions ha
62 % for crops production
 34 % for grassland
 2 % of vineyard

Agro-food economy

3,5 % of the national GDP

66,8 billion of €

3,4 % of the employment

Half of the value come from cereals and wine
production
Farms structures

348 000 farms

Average of 73,3 hectares/ farm

3 people for 100 ha
Different productions
• Crops
• Vegetables
• Wine
• Livestock
•Dairy production
•Beef
•Pork
•Poultry
I. The CAP in France
A. Aid distribution
I Pillar (1000€)
II Pillar (1000€)
France
8946,9
959,4
Germany
5704
1186,9
Hungary
513,6
537,5
Source: DG Agri
EU Budget & Used land
French CAP
Subsidies
Source: Agreste
B. Production cost
France vs Mercorsur
France
MERCOSUR
WHEAT
1080€/Ha
330€/Ha
CORN
1207€/Ha
512€/Ha
PORK
1,53€/Kg
1,11€/Kg
POULTRY
1,44€/Kg
0,90€/Kg
MILK
0,29€/L
0,20€/L
Source: Office-Elevage / EMBRAPA /
INTA
II. Analysis of CAP
impacts
In which field can the CAP
impact on?
A. Socioeconomic
•
•
•
•
•
•
15,5 millions (25%) of French live in the countryside
770 000 employs (3,4% of active population)
French culture (countryside without farmers is not countryside)
Agriculture: 3,5% of GDP 66,8 billions Euros
Cereals:
•
70,2 million tons
Cattle:
•
•
•
•
bovins: 19,9 millions
Pork : 14,8 millions
Poultry: 182,9 millions
Tourism : Cheese, wine production, cattle, local products
SOCIAL / ECONOMICS
Strengths
Weaknesses
1st agriculture power in Europe
Strong agro indstry companies
Good agriculture knowledges
Good mecanisation of farm
Good management skills
Developped Agrotourism
Development of local products with strong added value
Strong agriculture culture in the countryside
Rural developement
Expensive labor force
Strict environmental legislation
Expensive land
Small average size of exploitations
Low R&D investments
Increasing of unemployment rate
Rural exod
Difficulties to innovate
Opportunities
Threats
Increasing of world food demand
Increasing of agrofood product prices
Increasing competitivness of Eastern European countries
Food security
Increasing of EU food demand
Increasing of EU purchasing power
Environment
• Cereals: 94460 km2 (51% of arable land)
• Cattle in mountains
• Rural development:
•
•
•
improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry;
improving the environment and countryside;
improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification
of the rural economy.
Environmental
Strengths
Weaknesses
Good environmental legislation
Intensive agriculture and environment together?
Landscape management
Opportunities
Threats
Environment supported by the EU
Increasing of CO2 emmission
Aids moving from the I pillar to II pillar
Degradation of biodiversity
Payment in Ecological services (carbon)
C. What we expect about CAP?
• Food security (quantity)
• Food safety (quality)
• Preservation of biodiversity
• Landscape maintenance
• Food price stabilisation
• Profitable agriculture for farmers
D. Why to reform the CAP?
• Take in account the environmental work
of farmers
• Reduce market food fluctuation prices
• Favorise label and regional products
• Favorise the competitiveness of farmers
• Good relation between retailers/farmers
• Invest more in R&D
III. Possibles
scenarios post 2013
A. Keeping the same level of CAP subsidies
B. Decreasing the level of CAP subsidies
A. Keeping the same level of
CAP subsidies
• To decrease the first pillar: 88 to 48%
• To increase the 2nd pillar: 12% to 26%
• To create a third pillar: 26%
•
•
To remunerate maintenance of public goods from farmers
To dynamise innovation
B. Decreasing the level of CAP subsidies
Catastrophic scenario
30%
2013 - 2020
104 400 farms
9,6 millions ha
231 000 farmers go to unemployment
4,65 millions of rural exod
20,04 billions € GDP
Conclusion
• Regarding the 2nd scenario we
conclude that the socioeconomics and
environmental problems generated by a
possible reduction of CAP is too huge
for France
• A consensus has to be taken in order to
keep food safety and food security in
Europe against the emergence of third
countries like Brazil & Argentina
Thank you for your attention !!!