Reasons for priority. In the lengthy and difficult negotiations which have just begun on the financial perspectives for 2014-2020 in the EU (see this column in the previous two publications) there does seem to be agreement on one point: funding for the common agricultural policy (CAP) will continue at more or less its current level. This orientation recognises that agriculture is not the same economic activity as all the others, due to its importance in the domain of quality food, environmental protection and the fight against hunger in the world. The role of agriculture in the history and future of humanity is unique. It is therefore necessary to go beyond the usual criteria of economic evaluation like the development of production and the breadth of international trade.
I have already developed these general considerations on a number of occasions. What counts now is the way in which the political community progresses in this direction, as well as, quite broadly, public opinion. It is true that a number of misunderstandings and opposing positions persist. Industry will put its positions forward, as will trade, and it is quite normal that both sides are listened to. For example, the pressure by industrial organisations for EU-Mercosur free trade is logical from their point of view, but political leaders must consider the situation very carefully before opening up the borders to all Brazilian agricultural products. A high degree of food self-sufficiency is indispensable for Europe; it has to look after its natural environment, its traditions and its landscapes, as well as tackle its global responsibilities.
A dossier that is making progress. From a “timetable” point of view, the agricultural question has made the most progress of all the other dossiers covered by the new Financial Perspectives. In its plenary on 23 June the European Parliament gave its opinion on reform of the CAP and the Commission announced for next October its legislative proposals on this subject, with a view to the proposals' application as from 2014. The report by Albert Dess MEP (EPP, Germany) was quite significantly revised during the discussion at the agriculture committee. The text adopted was summarised at length in EUROPE 10404 on 24 June. I would advise my readers to read it and will only point out that Parliament called for two principles to be respected: (a) annual funding for the future CAP should be based at least at the same level as today (adjourned until 2013); (b) division of European funding between member states and farmers must be fair. This second point can seem astonishing: isn't it evident? Do I really have to put it in writing? The reason for doing so becomes clear if we remember that for the time being new member states do not benefit from the same treatment as member states that have been in the Community longer. Differentiation was understandable when the level of salaries and the cost-of-living was very different in the older and newer member states but it would now smack of discrimination. The Parliament, however, has demonstrated caution by calling for the “gradual withdrawal of historic but now-defunct references, which should be replaced, over a transition period, with aid that is better distributed”.
Acceptance by the people. The possibility of a cap on direct payments from the CAP has also been raised. The EP is not explicitly asking for this but is “taking note” of the favourable orientation of the Commission for this, the aim being to “overcome reservations regarding the legitimacy of the CAP, as well as its acceptance by the people”. This indicates that certain member states or certain layers of the population still contest this legitimacy. Prejudice persists and there is still a long way to go. Farmers must contribute to this by correcting certain abuses, which brings us on to the following point.
For more ecological farming. The Parliament has effectively insisted on several occasions on the need for the CAP to be far more oriented towards attaining ecological objectives. The targets in this case are the farmers themselves. Intensive farming in some production zones, the sometimes abusive use of pesticides and other behaviour dictated by the lure of profits have sometimes had negative effects on the environment. Some CAP subsidies should therefore be geared to supporting ecological development such as lower carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emission reductions, moderate energy consumption, energy savings, permanent pasture land use, rotation and diversity in crops. The EP resolution therefore explicitly denounces the abuses created by chemical products and certain excesses committed in the domain of intensive farming.
Tomorrow, this column will examine a number of other aspects such as the war on waste, support for production on poorer continents and the fight against hunger in the world. (F.R./transl.fl)