Agriculture ministers (as well as at the European Parliament agriculture committee) do not have much control as to what the future may hold for many important aspects of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Yesterday this column discussed the “funding” dimension, which will mainly depend upon ministers for the economy and finance, and ultimately the heads of state and government in the context of future financial perspectives. The situation is the same for trade, relations with third countries, the environment and regulating global agricultural markets. The Agriculture Council is dealing with this issue but the decisions go beyond its immediate remit. These decisions are vital for the future of agriculture and must be taken into consideration as part of an indispensable overview.
World trade: the real demands. Agriculture ministers are fairly cautious and are not opposed to the principle of free trade in agricultural products. We can understand why because Europe is just as much an exporter as it is an importer and it cannot afford to be protectionist. Nonetheless, in other bodies, the excesses of agricultural trade are being increasingly and more vigorously denounced: marine pollution, energy consumption, traffic jams and road accidents, as well as devastation of the natural landscape. According to one commentator, “the uninterrupted circulation of goods, which sometimes absurdly cross each other at sea, looks like madness”. The agricultural community is not calling for protectionism but it is increasingly urging that imported products be subject to the same rules that the EU imposes on European products from a point of view of quality, production methods and indications of origin. Sabine Laruelle, the president of the Agriculture Council, affirmed that the EU should stop being so naïve: “imported products must meet the same standards as ours” (EUROPE 10219). The French and German ministers' document discussed in this column yesterday affirms that “competition between EU producers and third countries must be on an equal footing. Any imported product must respect European standards”.
The objections are not unfamiliar: Europe must not hinder imports from poor countries. This is a groundless assertion because the greed of big business, aided and abetted by corruption in producer countries, leads poor countries to develop monoculture exports, with consequences we all now denounce: destruction of local subsistence production, the need for these countries to import products indispensable for feeding their population, food dependency because food cannot be produced in their countries. Obviously, Europe should stop subsidising exports to developing countries and maintain its imports from these countries but with regard to the emerging giants, it must remain firm on questions of quality, respect for indications of origin and protecting its own farming. The interests at stake are colossal and the decisions do not depend upon the agriculture ministers. The sectoral councils and the European Parliament must take the real situation into account.
From the environment to global price transparency. A second aspect, which is beyond the remit of agriculture ministers, involves the link between agricultural production and environmental protection, at both European and international levels. Taking agricultural interests into consideration should not only be compatible with environmental demands, but also facilitate respect for these demands, on the condition that farmers are subject to appropriate rules. Co-operation is necessary and the results can prove positive both for environmental protection and for the quality of agricultural production.
A third aspect involves regulating global markets for basic agricultural products. In this connection, ministers for agriculture do not have a lot of power or resources for taking action, but those responsible for financial supervision are beginning to reflect upon this question and we are aware to what extent the EU is currently active in these domains. At the beginning of July, international wheat prices were between €110 and €115, but the following month they reached €210 due to the fires in Russia. This global repercussion was due to the purest form of speculation. A regulatory system should therefore be advocated, which takes into account the specificity of agricultural markets, whose actors are at the same time operators, farmers and consumers. The first aim would be making international stocks transparent, together with an information exchange system. Could Community institutions take the initiative on this issue?
These different dossiers are totally or partly beyond the remit of agriculture ministers but the latter should not ignore them and should attempt to get their voices heard on the matter. The EP should do likewise.
(F.R./transl.fl)