Moving on to phase two. Now the first phase of action to guarantee efficient and sustainable European agriculture appears to be underway, it is time to move on to the second stage: defining the main guidelines of the future CAP (common agricultural policy) with, of course, the necessary corrections. The success of the first phase was a priority because the risk of the progressive undermining of the CAP was sufficiently serious to justify demands to safeguard the principles underpinning it. Let's not forget that the European Commission's draft, “Reforming the budget, changing Europe”, explicitly called for a “significant shift of EU spending from traditional to new spending areas”. The CAP was the first “traditional area” targeted alongside cohesion policy. The draft document reflected an orientation shared by the industrial sector and by certain economists who sought to orientate EU resources “towards more productive objectives”.
Meeting new demands. The comprehensive debate proved positive because the draft document quoted above provoked a certain reflection regarding the real meaning of agricultural activity for Europe by definitively increasing the number of those who understood its importance, particularly at the European Parliament. The second phase is just as crucial. The CAP clearly has to be modified in order to meet new demands. If certain negative or doubtful aspects are not corrected, support for European agriculture risks being blunted and the support of the public is indispensable. The European Commission has not abandoned the reflection document on the budget review, which incorporates all aspects of spending and therefore the totality of Community activities, including revenues. Last November, President Barroso was wise enough to withdraw the first draft for a review and called on the new Commission to give its opinion on the matter. The new timetable announced to the competent parliamentary committee by Director General Hervé Jouanjean indicates that the College will not give its verdict on the revised text before July, most likely in September (EUROPE 10091). Negotiations will already begin next year on the post-2013 financial perspectives …
It is absolutely essential that the CAP review takes place beforehand.
An objective to be confirmed. The fundamental objective of the CAP is to ensure that the food supply for the European population remains valid; it should even be strengthened given the different developments occurring at a global level. When the CAP first came into being, political leaders were clearly aware of this objective because children were going hungry and these leaders had seen this at first hand in Europe itself. The situation subsequently evolved and the way in which the CAP functioned (even its very existence) came under fire from certain member states (primarily the United Kingdom, where the very concept of food self-sufficiency was incomprehensible because the Commonwealth was based on the opposite concept) and by some economic players (according to the industrialists, agricultural imports from Europe ought to be the counterpart of their exports) and even by some of the public, scandalised by certain CAP deviations: destruction of fruit and vegetables and excess wine in addition to the ludicrous accumulation of butter stocks that gradually went off. The segment represented by the CAP in the European budget was excessive. The majority of these aberrations have been eliminated. There are no longer any butter mountains; possible surpluses in fruit and vegetables are used to feed charity run restaurants - “restaurants du cœur” - (even though people are not aware of this) or are distributed to schools. At least part of the political class has understood that for Europe as a whole, substantial food self-sufficiency is ultimately the prerequisite for all autonomy.
New challenges. At the same time, however, there is increased awareness about the necessity of new reforms in order for the EU to meet new environmental challenges and contribute efficiently to fighting starvation in the world. The political class not only has to promote them but the agricultural community itself must understand and accept and even pro-actively participate in their implementation. Everything is being included in the discussion: the specific management of EU agriculture, including controversial aspects such as GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms); budgetary aspects (without forgetting that some of CAP spending goes to the general development of rural zones); international issues (including restrictions on the liberalisation of global agricultural trade).
This column will return to these different aspects tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)