Instruments must correspond to objectives. On a number of occasions, this column has welcomed developments in opinion with regard to agriculture in Europe. Agriculture is now acknowledged to be indispensable for environmental protection and safeguarding the landscape, regional balance, a reasonable degree of food self-sufficiency and contributing to the alleviation of starvation in the world. The recognition, however, of these four factors, is not enough in itself. Appropriate instruments for putting these objectives into practice are still required. The preliminary debates at the Council, whilst awaiting the documents announced by the European Commission, highlight many divergences. Waxing lyrical about biodiversity and food quality is not enough if action does not correspond to the objectives.
Our publication regularly reports on ministerial meetings and Parliamentary debates. Certain member states are particularly concerned about the budget, whilst others voice concerns about opening up to imported products or food quality. In general, this is a reflection of groups immediately concerned by these issues. With regard to the essential point of future funding for the common agricultural policy (CAP), it is difficult to ascertain whether their positions will prove decisive. Decisions regarding the EU's new financial perspectives will largely depend upon ministers for the economy and finance and, ultimately, the heads of state and government. These decisions will enter into force in 2014, when the current financial framework expires (2007-2013).
Concerns about direct aid co-funding. It appears likely that the CAP will keep its current two pillars: a) direct aid to farmers and market management; b) general development of rural zones, which even goes beyond what is strictly agricultural (EUROPE 10219). The distribution of funding between the two pillars has not yet been decided. The first currently covers around 70% of CAP spending and this distribution is sometimes contested. The possibility of sharing direct payments between the Community budget and national budgets appears to be gaining ground: this constitutes the thesis of co-funding. It is true that the joint Franco-German position (published in EUROPE 2539 of our EUROPE/Documents series) asserts that “France and Germany are opposed to any renationalisation of the CAP through the co-funding of direct payments to farmers”. This is, nonetheless, a document produced by the two respective ministers for agriculture, Bruno Le Maire and Ilse Aigner, and cannot be interpreted as a formal commitment by the two governments.
Certain observers are asking to what extent, in the global debate on future financial perspectives, France and Germany would be opposed to the co-funding as mentioned above. These two countries are the main net contributors to the Community budget and overall they pay in much more than they get back. The co-funding of direct agricultural aid obviously has the support of member states which only benefit from it moderately, such as the United Kingdom and Denmark, but it would not meet with any radical opposition from the other net contributor countries. If we consider that the future Community budget is likely to have similar dimensions to the current one (the majority of member states are opposed to its expansion at a time when they are being encouraged to reduce their national deficits), a decrease in agricultural aid would allow for funding other areas of Community activity, such as research, innovation, infrastructure - domains in which net contributor member states would be likely to benefit. On the other hand, co-funding would damage states that are less well off, notably those in Central and Eastern Europe. It would therefore be in their interest, in my opinion, not to overemphasise the demand for their farmers to be able to benefit immediately from the direct aid in exactly the same way as the older member states benefited. This demand could effectively strengthen the case of co-funding and could also result in creating a domestic economic imbalance in certain countries and, given the level of salaries in other categories, farmers would become a privileged group.
Given all these different elements, I believe that co-funding would be a mistake because certain member states would not have the ability to participate within it and the reduction of aid would lead to agricultural land being abandoned, to the detriment of the real objectives of agriculture in Europe: food production, protection of the environment and landscapes, and regional balance.
Tomorrow, this column will return to other controversial aspects in the CAP involving areas such as “international trade”, the environment and regulating global markets.
(F.R./transl.fl)