CAP must play its role in promoting biodiversity. In addition to the major issues discussed yesterday and the day before in this column, CAP reform involves other fundamental aspects and farmers are sometimes called on to make an effort. The most informative example is contained in the document approved by the European Commission last week. This advocates a European strategy for protecting biodiversity. The need to take action in this field is not contested because there is so much dramatic evidence that illustrates Europe's natural resources are disappearing extremely rapidly. The alarm bell has, for example, been sounded by the commissioner for the environment, Janez Potocnik, who has pointed out that a quarter of animal and plant species in the EU is threatened by extinction and that the pace of different species being lost is a thousand times faster than if this were occurring naturally (EUROPE 10370).
The objective in the proposed programme is to attempt to block the disappearance of living species and the degradation of the ecosystems over the next 10 years by restoring at least 15% of the ecosystems that have already been destroyed. The newly advocated strategy imposes new rules on farmers and even more on fishermen because the failure of the current strategy has been provoked by the fact that it does not include sectoral policies: agriculture, forests and fisheries. In isolation, defending biodiversity does not carry as much punch when it comes to deciding common policies. The CAP must become greener and include bonuses to farms that take action on this. It appears that the approval of this project by the Commission was not an easy task. The first draft of the document indicated clear objectives, such as increasing the percentage of cultivated land respecting biodiversity up to 60%. Certain commissioners, however, thought that 40% was a sufficient figure. Yet the main thrust of the initiative has been retained and subsequently provoked a number of reservations. Farmers are not refusing to make an effort on this but they do not want to have to shoulder the whole burden. This is one aspect that will have to be negotiated.
Brief explanations. Without wishing to review all the different aspects in the negotiations, the following is a rather cursory reminder of a number of the elements being discussed, in addition to some of the data relating to the current situation. This takes into account the basic principle, according to which the debate on the CAP involves (I repeat) the destiny of Europe and its territory, as well as the fight against hunger in the world and promoting environmentally friendly measures everywhere.
1. A general consideration from one of the negotiators: “Only sustainable farming that respects the environment can justify any Community preference that is acceptable to our international partners.”
2. Number one importer, number one exporter. Last year, the EU was both the biggest importer and exporter of food products in the world. The surplus reached €6 billion (€91 billion for exports and more than €84 billion for imports), whilst in 2009, liabilities stood at €2.5 billion. The rise in prices played a part in this but so did the expansion in volume. The EU has been the biggest importer in the world for a long time and figures demolish any accusations of protectionism.
3. Biofuels can be justified if… the main objective of farming is and remains the production of food. The production of biofuels can be allowed if the following conditions are met: use of non-cultivated land (this exists even in Europe); reduction in use of greenhouse gas; job creation in areas of high unemployment; sustainable choice for the region in which this development takes place; no negative impact on the farming of third countries. We should bear in mind that oilseed, sugar beets and grain grown to this end are not entirely transformed into energy. Most of their volume is still used for animal feed, which subsequently reduces to low prices European dependency and helps prevent the destruction of tropical forests.
4. Quality as a priority. An example - several member states are opposed to the project that advocates total liberalisation of vine planting rights because this would result in a damaging overproduction and inferior quality of wine and grapes. Quality must prevail.
5. Action at global level. The war against instability on the world market for basic agricultural products is an imperative and must be resolutely pursued because this artificial instability is the result of the most ignoble kinds of speculation, which impact on the world's hungry most of all. EU countries must be in the vanguard of this battle within the G20, in order to introduce mechanisms internationally such as transparency of basic foodstuffs stocks, a price monitoring system and the setting up of emergency reserves. It is common knowledge that work is being carried out on this issue.
We can only hope that negotiations on the new CAP will take into consideration these different aspects.
(F.R./transl.fl)