Why EU agricultural policy can only be a common policy. The common agricultural policy (CAP) will be duly protected under the EU's Financial Perspectives for 2014-2020. The European Commission and a very large majority of the European Parliament, as well as almost all member states, agree on this point (see this column yesterday). The CAP is by far the oldest Community policy. It was set up as an emergency measure in the 1950s because at the time we still had children who went hungry in our countries and its chief objective was quite simply to relaunch food production. The reasons for European funding (or, in other words, common funding) for this policy were quite simple and are still valid. If funding had been shared between the Community and member states, some countries would have been excluded, due to insufficient national resources. The relaunch of production would have experienced unacceptable imbalances, incompatible with the objectives being pursued. The motives and objectives underpinning the CAP remain fundamentally unchanged. This is why its existence has never come into question, except by one member state (the United Kingdom, which wanted to continue to supply itself from the Commonwealth) and a few other political forces opposing European unity. The latter have never understood what farming in Europe really means in connection with the protection of its natural environment, landscapes, traditions and its food self-sufficiency.
In addition to the original CAP goals, there are also other new requirements: monitoring scientific and technological progress (intensive farming, abusive use of chemicals, genetically modified products, et.); protecting denominations of controlled origin; taking into account subtle legal differences, which sometimes have a strange effect on support to the poorest and most destitute sections of society. In a borderless area it is imperative that policy covering all the different aspects is a common policy and that it is managed and monitored by independent and supranational authorities, together with member states. Furthermore, the objectives are increasing all the time. For example, waste is at scandalous proportions and every day in the EU there is an avalanche of edible foodstuffs that is treated as waste. European legislation is needed and is currently being examined (EUROPE 10416).
International responsibility. Europe's responsibility is not restricted to domestic matters alone, it has a global responsibility. The foibles of international scheduling meant that Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency of the G20 and the French president included the agricultural dossier among the priorities of this international body. The objective highlighted in the name of the EU is regulation of global markets which would help: (a) control and reduce volatility (often due to speculation) in prices for agricultural materials, by introducing an obligatory deposit for guarantees for buyers and other binding rules; (b) introduce transparency of harvests and stocks; (c) set up a permanent dialogue between producers and consumers, with an obligation to announce in advance any export blockages (if this happens today, the FAO meets around a fortnight later at a civil servant level) and prevent this affecting poor countries; (d) create security stocks of food. These guidelines have already been discussed by G20 agriculture ministers and putting them into practice will help to fight efficiently against world starvation.
Politics and nature. The essential objective, however, involves production in poor countries. These countries should first of all be helped and encouraged to eradicate the disastrous monoculture farming for export established in their countries. This kind of farming benefits multinationals, which organise it, as well as the big distributors. Traditional farming is destroyed and the local people become dependent on imports to feed themselves. There is now the additional scourge of large-scale purchase of agricultural land (together with future production of this land) by countries with abundant currency reserves, such as China and some of the oil producing countries. The people in poor countries become victims of these developments which enrich, above all, their own corrupt leaders.
The different aspects cited above are above all political, but the aspects linked to the environment are also just as crucial to poor countries: the increasingly painful problem of water shortages; the relaunch of traditional farming production techniques in an effort to increase food self-sufficiency; eradication of export barriers for their own specific products; the right to protect themselves against speculative imports that destroy local agriculture. In this area, total liberalisation of trade is not at all the right objective to pursue. It could, on the contrary, prove disastrous for importer countries (whose own production would be compromised) as well as for major exporters (which could be tempted to expand their production to the detriment of the environment).
Europe's role in this context is essential. It must play this role to the full. (F.R./transl;fl)