`Calif. Olive Farmers Should Blame Their Government for Inability to Compete with Spain, Not the E.U. - Olive Oil Times

Calif. Olive Farmers Should Blame Their Government for Inability to Compete with Spain, Not the E.U.

Dec. 8, 2021
Daniel Dawson

Recent News

The Olive Growers Council of California (OGCC) has called on the United States gov­ern­ment to keep tar­iffs on table olive imports from Spain in place, despite the lat­est rul­ing from the World Trade Organization.

The OGCC is unhappy after the WTO decided that the European Union is enti­tled to sub­si­dize its farm­ers, argu­ing that it gives them an unfair advan­tage.

The vast major­ity of farm­ers do not ben­e­fit from fed­eral farm sub­sidy pro­grams and most of the sub­si­dies go to the largest and most finan­cially secure farm oper­a­tions.- Farm Subsidy Database, Environmental Working Group

Make no mis­take, the enor­mous olive sub­si­dies being pro­vided by the European Union and Spain, and the delib­er­ate efforts to dump ripe olives from Spain into the U.S. mar­ket, have allowed the Spanish indus­try to take almost all our U.S. food­ser­vice busi­ness and put our retail busi­ness at risk,” said Michael Silveira, the OGCC chair­man.

See Also:Trade News

Today, the anti-dump­ing and coun­ter­vail­ing [anti-sub­sidy] duties imposed by the U.S. gov­ern­ment have given our fam­ily olive farm­ers and thou­sands of allied work­ers hope for the future and time to revive the indus­try,” he added.

The OGCC chair­man fur­ther accused the E.U. and Spain of facil­i­tat­ing the country’s unfair rock-bot­tom prices in the U.S. mar­ket” by using com­pli­cated and non­trans­par­ent farm pay­ments.”

However, the WTO ruled that the U.S. anti-sub­sidy tar­iffs imposed on black Spanish table olive imports in 2018 were ille­gal, with the WTO adding that the argu­ment in sup­port of the tar­iffs was based on a fun­da­men­tal mis­un­der­stand­ing of how Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy works.

In fact, the U.S. pro­vides its own farm­ers with tens of bil­lions of dol­lars of sub­si­dies each year. The gov­ern­ment could make sim­i­lar pay­ments to California olive farm­ers but chooses not to.

According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), direct gov­ern­ment aid (sub­si­dies) accounted for 39 per­cent of net farm income in 2020, with farm­ers receiv­ing a record-high $46.5 bil­lion from the gov­ern­ment.

Chris Edwards, the direc­tor of tax pol­icy stud­ies at the Cato Insitute, a lib­er­tar­ian think tank, and a for­mer man­ager at PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the four largest account­ing firms in the world, said the U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tects farm­ers against fluc­tu­a­tions in prices, rev­enues and yields,” and sub­si­dizes their con­ser­va­tion efforts, insur­ance cov­er­age, mar­ket­ing, export sales, research and other activ­i­ties.”

However, the major bene­fac­tors of these sub­si­dies are large indus­trial farm­ers who grow corn, soy­beans, wheat, cot­ton and rice in the Midwest. Small olive farm­ers in California tend to miss out, but were still eli­gi­ble for direct pay­ments of up to $250,000 to make up for lost pro­duc­tiv­ity dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­demic.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) farm sub­sidy data­base, California is home to 3.4 per­cent of U.S. farms and received just 2.2 per­cent of all fed­eral farm sub­si­dies released in 2019, the last year for which a com­plete data set are avail­able. By com­par­i­son, Iowa, which is home to 4.2 per­cent of U.S. farms, received 8.7 per­cent of all fed­eral aid.

Of the $591 mil­lion ear­marked for California farm­ers in 2019 (the USDA spent $26.9 bil­lion on sub­si­dies that year), 92 per­cent did not col­lect sub­si­dies and those who did were mostly grow­ing cot­ton, rice, wheat, corn and bar­ley or rais­ing live­stock.

Despite the rhetoric of pre­serv­ing the fam­ily farm,’ the vast major­ity of farm­ers do not ben­e­fit from fed­eral farm sub­sidy pro­grams and most of the sub­si­dies go to the largest and most finan­cially secure farm oper­a­tions,” the EWG said. Small com­mod­ity farm­ers qual­ify for a mere pit­tance, while pro­duc­ers of meat, fruits, and veg­eta­bles are almost com­pletely left out of the sub­sidy game.”

By com­par­i­son, Spain will receive about €6.8 bil­lion ($7.7 bil­lion) each year for the next seven years from the European Union as part of the lat­est CAP.

While 75 per­cent of the money from the CAP will be awarded to the coun­try’s 695,000 farm­ers in the form of direct pay­ments, these sub­si­dies are capped at €60,000 ($68,000) per farm or €100,000 ($113,000) per com­pany with mul­ti­ple farms.

Furthermore, an inves­ti­ga­tion by the European Data Journalism Network found that small European farm­ers were largely in the same boat as their U.S. coun­ter­parts.

During the pre­vi­ous iter­a­tion of the CAP, 76 per­cent of the E.U.‘s 6.5 mil­lion farm­ers received 15 per­cent of avail­able funds. At the time, money was largely allo­cated per hectare, so larger farm­ers enjoyed more ben­e­fits. Sound famil­iar?

The prob­lem for California olive farm­ers is not an overzeal­ous European Union try­ing to com­pete them out of exis­tence.

Instead, they need to focus their ener­gies on con­vinc­ing an indif­fer­ent gov­ern­ment that grow­ing olives in California is a bet­ter invest­ment for pub­lic health and the cli­mate than sub­si­diz­ing corn in Iowa.

President Joe Biden will sign the next Farm Bill in 2023, which will deter­mine where the sub­si­dies go for the next five years. California olive farm­ers, start lob­by­ing.


Related Articles

Feedback / Suggestions