Positive because it exists. The European Commission's operational proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) are an example of a positive Community initiative which is even indispensable for Europe's future. Immediately after this project's publication last week, it was submerged by criticism and vilification, that was of course contradictory, from the different interested parties: farmers, food industries, ecologists and the different political forces. The project was subject to criticism for anything and everything, with each of the interested parties fighting their own corner or defending their own convictions. This is just another example of a trend (mentioned in this column yesterday) to criticise any initiative by the Community institutions, almost out of principle - great efforts are made to scupper orientations that might be controversial while of course avoiding any mention of the scope and general significance of the project in question. I will therefore attempt, to begin with, to rectify this shortcoming at the outset and indicate how and why Dacian Ciolos' plan is positive simply because it exists. Let's not forget that the CAP also has enemies - both within the EU and outside. Within the Commission itself there used to be (and perhaps this still partly persists) a tendency that considered allocating a significant part of the Community budget to an activity the EU really did not need as being absurd. According to this position, food self-sufficiency is not an absolute imperative for guaranteeing Europe's food safety in the event of an emergency or a vital necessity for protecting regional balance, European traditions and civilisation.
Significance and importance of the project. The Ciolos document means that: (a) the CAP will be extended until 2020, with a budget that is almost the same as it is today (around €1040 billion over seven years). The EU will not be abandoning its agriculture or farmers, with everything that this commitment implies for Europe's regional balance, the food safety of its population and the fight against hunger in the world; (b) the Commission text is a proposal. The decision will be made by the Council and European Parliament, because the EP is for the first time co-legislator on an equal footing with the Council; (c) the new legislation will enter into force in 2014; the Parliament and the Council will therefore have appropriate deadlines set for a thorough examination of the project and for working out compromises that the respective political authorities consider pertinent; (d) all the different opinions and tendencies will be able to be expressed hemselves at length and, ultimately, democratic principles will be applied, including decisions made by majority voting.
Contradictory demands. Any definition of the future CAP is rendered difficult because all the different demands that are put forward seem justified but also partly contradictory. Should the priority be given to fighting starvation in the world and therefore focusing on the volume of production, or rather ecological requirements and subsequent environmental protection? To what extent should the positions and wishes of farmers be taken into consideration? The respective positions diverge and each party is fighting tooth and nail to defend its own interests. If the factor of rebalancing funding between the older and newer member states is added to this equation, some countries regard this rebalancing, as defined in the project, as being excessive, whilst others regard it as insufficient.
It is obvious that all the different demands mentioned above must be taken into consideration, together with a list of priorities that it is difficult to define and which involves a reasonable level of mutual understanding. Nonetheless, those who give the impression that they would like to strike a balance, appear to be a rare breed. The tone adopted is consistently highly polemical and often insulting. A form of conceptual fanaticism appears to dominate, as if the Commission draft were not the result of a series of thorough analyses and an initial attempt to thrash out a compromise which can be reviewed at the European Parliament and Council level, while taking into account the different respective positions.
Defence of national or local interests. The positions taken are not always based on principles or convictions - far from it. A vast swathe of reactions are based on the calculation made by a given country or region or form of production as to what they would lose from current subsidies, given the fundamental changes that aim to base aid on the land surface area that is effectively cultivated, and not on the productivity and value of the production. This is why reactions often diverge from one member state to another. More recent member states support getting rid of “the heritage of the past” (in Poland's opinion, the Ciolos project is simply a step in this direction), whilst other member states consider that the first things that should be taken into consideration are the environment and product quality. Each party comes up with its own calculations, whether this is the national authorities or the producers themselves.
In addition to assessments based on financial repercussions, there are also aspects that I would describe as doctrinal: the ecologists do not simply denounce the Commission's scant attention paid to their own concerns but also affirm that what is being proposed is an inadmissible crime against nature and the health of our planet. There are also a number of other disagreeable insinuations, such as that which suggests that as Dacian Ciolos is of Romanian nationality, his country is one of the member states that benefits financially from the reform. At the same time, however, in his presentation of the project to the appropriate European Parliament committee, Mr Ciolos emphasised that he had reduced his goals for further rebalancing…
Some of the vocabulary in the reactions is at times picturesque. José Bové, the vice chair of the EP agriculture committee said that the Commission had capitulated to the fertiliser and pesticides manufacturers, and he received the full support of the Greens for his position.
Balanced efforts and restrictive orientations. Nonetheless, a number of more balanced reactions were observed, which also underline the positive aspects of the project. Certain commentators pointed out that the reform may compel beneficiaries of the CAP to rationalise the use of European aid, which is partly wasted or misused. It was also pointed out that judgments that are made too swiftly have not been sufficiently thought through for a very simple reason - the regulations proposed include 600 complex pages that require thorough examination and it is doubtful that this exercise has always been carried out. It was indicated, for example, that aid should be exclusively used for farming and not directed to landowners who have transformed their land into golf courses.
It should not be forgotten either that the CAP budget for 2014-2020 will depend on the EU's financial perspectives for the same period, which obviously cover all Community policies and go beyond the domain of agriculture. Negotiation of these perspectives is still in a preparatory phase and some member states (and not just a few) have already said that they intend to introduce restrictions. The United Kingdom says that if it is expected to abandon its claim for a rebate for a significant part of agricultural spending, it will adopt a seriously restrictive line towards the future funding of the CAP.
A partnership and what this means. The presentation of draft regulations by Mr Ciolos to the appropriate European Parliament committee was covered at length in EUROPE 10472. I would like to recall that the commissioner spoke about “a partnership between society, which provides the financial resources of a public policy, and the farmers, who keep the rural areas alive and who are in contact with the ecosystems and produce our food”. He described this partnership as a kind of “moral contract”. In my opinion, this sentence means:
(a) scrapping direct aid to agriculture would lead in the EU to a lot of campaigns being abandoned and the subsequent disappearance of several aspects of European civilisation, in addition to the monstrous expansion of enormous cities and their unmanageable peripheries;
(b) the huge reduction in farming would kill Europe's food self-sufficiency and lead to disastrous dependency, as witnessed with the purchase of African land by countries experiencing land scarcity such as China and the Gulf states, etc;
(c) it would prevent Europe's participation in the fight against hunger in the world.
I believe that these are three valid reasons for a correct evaluation of the scope and significance of the Commission plan. This plan is in danger of being perceived as a battleground between diverging interests and convictions. Fighting for one's convictions and interests is understandable, on the condition that one is aware of what maintaining and developing the CAP really means. Mr Ciolos explicitly stated what this would mean - that 30% of direct aid to farmers would have to respect environmental standards.
(FR/transl.fl)