In principle, keeping the EU common agricultural policy and regional cohesion policy - but revising them to make them more efficient - is agreed upon. In the last issue of this publication, this column provided a report on the vision of cohesion policy expressed by Danuta Hübner, president of the Parliamentary committee in charge of this dossier. Although she clearly and effectively supports this policy, she has, at the same time, acknowledged the fact that its shortcomings need to be corrected. She has explicitly called for, as a political imperative, “strengthening the link between member states' obligations and the results” - an allusion to the abuses committed in the application of European funding, denounced by the European Court of Auditors. Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner for regional policy, has already said that he is an “advocate of zero tolerance”.
Support of Parliament as a whole. Towards the end of December, the Parliament had already held a specific debate on the draft document, “Reforming budgets, changing Europe”. Its spokesperson that day, Pawe³ Samecki, who was at the time the European commissioner for regional policy, firmly asserted: “There is no doubt - cohesion policy will be integrated into the future EU strategy”. Danuta Hübner used the occasion to affirm that cohesion is “a notion which excludes exclusion; it must be the policy of all” and she called for “the eligibility of all European regions” (EUROPE 10044). The debate was part of the plenary session; and we were already able to conclude that support for cohesion policy and its funding is not simply about the position of the Parliamentary committee in charge of the dossier but also about the Parliament as a whole. The debate and support expanded further during the informal session of the Council last week in Zaragoza, in which Commissioner Johannes Hahn and new President of the Committee for the Regions Mercedes Bresso also took part (EUROPE 10082).
Saving the budget of the CAP but reforms are indispensable. Maintaining budget funding for the agricultural policy (CAP) is considered as a principle acceptable to all. MEPs, led by the president of the agriculture committee, Paolo De Castro, Commissioner for Agriculture Dacian Cioloº, and the president of the Agriculture Council, Elena Espinosa, are all on the same wavelength on this point, which proves that there is ultimately some awareness over the importance of agricultural activity for the EU: millions of jobs; food self-sufficiency (which was previously scoffed at), protecting the environment and regional balance, as well as the fight against world hunger .
This column has often discussed all of these aspects and I am not going to repeat myself in this context. The dossier, however, is so vast and complex that recognition of the principle of the common policy and its Community funding (“the budget as it stands allows the CAP to exist and function”, explained Mr Cioloº, and it would appear that it has been understood that spending would not just be governed by national budgets) is just a first step. Demands made by the agricultural community should not be taken as read. Farmers want the maximum, especially with regard to subsidies, and we know to what extent the export- import business and the large-scale distribution companies benefit from the CAP, in sometimes abusive ways. Organising markets and reforms are objectively very complex and we can understand why Mr Cioloº has requested a reflection period before announcing his intentions. His three-phase roadmap was discussed in our previous bulletin: in April, it launches a vast debate with the different stakeholders involved in the sector, as well as with civil society on the question of the post-2013 CAP; a large conference in July and a Commission document, with reform proposals for the end of the year. The Council is currently discussing the matter and our publication will look at some of the first results tomorrow.
The conundrum of international trade. Relations with third countries pose problems that are as complex as those of the internal reforms themselves. In this connection, the EU is imposing high standards on European producers, who are increasingly demanding with regard to quality, animal welfare and labelling etc. At the same time, there is a strong pressure to open up European borders to third countries that do not apply the same rules. If world sugar prices increase and the EU decides that additional exports will get no subsidies, other exporting countries will take the EU to task at the WTO in Geneva, which will indirectly lead to a hike in world prices and speculation. The mechanisms that allow speculation over basic food products should be radically dismantled but they still exist and resist efforts to overcome hunger in the world. All these different aspects should be taken into consideration when defining the common agricultural policy for the future. Tomorrow, this column will discuss crucial aspects related to this question regarding world agricultural trade.
Nonetheless, certain internal measures are urgent and linked to the question of CAP management on a daily basis, as well as the very survival of certain crops. Producer organisations are fighting to remain, in principle, the real beneficiaries of direct Community assistance. Farming in certain member states, with Greece at the head of them, is in need of immediate support. Some sectors are experiencing difficulties in countries where they are usually the most efficient producers (grain production in France). An initial debate on the future took place at the European Parliament agriculture committee, and Elena Espinosa referred to a “stronger CAP for the future” and a budget that is sufficient to meet the “new demands from society” (particularly food quality). She did not rule out a certain acceptance of the possibility of co-funding spending. She also mentioned research mechanisms to facilitate import and export inspections, and pointed out that the agricultural concessions made by the EU in the Doha round should be taken into account when calculating the changes already made to the way the CAP works. See the report on this initial overall debate in EUROPE 10068.
The relationship between the urgent measures required for market management, in addition to Geneva negotiations and reflections regarding the post-2013 CAP, are complicating the situation. The principle of maintaining the CAP and its funding appeared to be accepted but all or almost all the contents of this policy, as well as the details, still remain to be worked out.
Further accession must safeguard viability of cohesion policy and cap
One common aspect in the future of cohesion policy and the future of the CAP, which appears to have been totally ignored in the ongoing debates, does need to be discussed: the repercussions of third country accession (such as Turkey and Ukraine) will be considerable on Community policies. This column has attempted to draw attention to this aspect but has not been successful. The European Parliament creates the impression that it is totally on the sidelines of such a reflection process. Sometimes it behaves as if the resolutions it makes are nothing but words and the positions taken are often contradictory because they seek to please the given rapporteur or guest invited to speak that day. When accession is discussed, most member states say they support it, and if misgivings are formulated in this connection they focus on the situation of the candidate countries: shortcomings regarding human rights or freedom of the press and respect for minorities. The element regarding the repercussions on Community policies is never mentioned and no one is concerned about it.
To my recollection, only British Conservative Charles Tannock has been explicit on the question. He supports further EU enlargement, including Turkey, with the intention of diluting federalist ambitions in the European Union. The other member states remain silent on the question. Moreover, it is obvious, but according to current rules, a significant part of funding for cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy would go to the people in the countries mentioned. Criteria for calculating eligibility for cohesion policy subsidies (as a priority they target regions whose GDP is less than 75% of the Community average) would lead to the elimination of the vast majority of EU regions from the list of those eligible for most aid. Requirements for funding the common agricultural policy and guaranteed prices would lead to funding for farmers in Anatolia and certain regions of the Ukraine.
It is true that during previous enlargements, farmers and regions lagging behind EU member states in Eastern Europe did initially receive aid and subsidies less than those for older member states, but the difference is gradually becoming less and the demand for equality becoming increasingly more pressing. This will also apply to future member states. The burden on Community funding will not be heavy with regard to modest size Balkan countries but it would be completely different with regard to the Ukraine and, above all, Turkey. The question does at least require some exploration if the problem is to be prevented. The institutions must assume their responsibilities.
Two lessons. In my opinion, there are two lessons to learn with regard to what happened before but which may appear to be mismatched or even unrelated: a) The declassification of cohesion policy and the CAP appears to have been ruled out, but their contents and the way in which they will work in the future remain pending questions. Most of the work in this connection still needs to be done;
b) Any future enlargement, especially in the case of a country which, from a geographical point of view, is 90% Asian, must be compatible with the consolidation and deepening of European construction. This is the priority criterion to be considered by all those whose objective is genuine European integration bringing people and countries together.
(F.R./transl.fl)