2013 : French position on CAP project

1. 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

2. 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

3. Introduction General aspects: • Total area: 55 millions ha • Use land area: 32 millions ha • 62 % for crops production • 34 % for grassland • 2 % of vineyard

4. 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

5. Farms structures • 348 000 farms • Average of 73,3 hectares/ farm • 3 people for 100 ha

6. Different productions • Crops • Vegetables • Wine • Livestock • Dairy production • Beef • Pork • Poultry

7. I. The CAP in France

8. A. Aid distribution Source: DG Agri

9. EU Budget & Used land

10. French CAP Subsidies Source: Agreste

11. B. Production cost France vs Mercorsur Source: Office-Elevage / EMBRAPA / INTA

12. II. Analysis of CAP impacts In which field can the CAP impact on?

13. 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

14. SOCIAL / ECONOMICS

15. 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.

16. Environmental

17. C. What we expect about CAP? • Food security (quantity) • Food safety (quality) • Preservation of biodiversity • Landscape maintenance • Food price stabilisation • Profitable agriculture for farmers

18. 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

19. III. Possibles scenarios post 2013 A. Keeping the same level of CAP subsidies B. Decreasing the level of CAP subsidies

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Thank you for your attention !!! Don’t worry man!!! Good things will never disappear!!! Did’u see what they want to do with our agriculture?!