Two particular sectors. After my general considerations (see this column in EUROPE 10721), the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the common fisheries policy (CFP) call for specific considerations in view of the European Council on 22-23 November. These two envelopes of the EU's financial perspectives for 2014-2020 have already been the subject of in-depth discussions at ministerial level and drafts have been developed. It is now up to the heads of state and government to have their say.
The question goes far beyond the budgetary aspect. European decisions relating to agriculture and fisheries are vital from several points of view. It is not only a matter of defining fairly generous financial envelopes, but also of determining the future of the European land and seas that surround it - with considerable implications at global level. The interests and positions of farmers and fishermen must of course be taken into consideration as a top priority - but not only. At the same time account needs to be taken of the significance of agriculture and fisheries for humanity in general and for the future of the world - safeguarding nature, the quality of human and animal food, EU relations with third countries… Let's begin with the "agriculture" aspect.
Agriculture goes beyond food production. I have always stressed the global significance of agriculture. Safeguarding the countryside and traditions, as well as the territorial balance and fight against world hunger, must be taken into consideration alongside the producers and their standard of living. Indeed, the balance between these different demands - which are sometimes conflicting - is not simple to define. After months of discussions, the divergences between member states on the CAP's budgetary envelope and how it should be shared out remain considerable.
The European Commission insists on the importance of the environmental aspect - agricultural activity must be adapted to this, Commissioner Dacian Ciolos insists. The chair of the agriculture committee at the European Parliament, Paolo De Castro, acknowledges the importance of this aspect but thinks that the European Commission has exaggerated in the priority it accords to it. Other demands have just as much importance - agricultural activity creates jobs, exports and wealth, which is especially what Europe needs right now. And De Castro recalls that respect for the environment is far from forgotten - the EU applies the highest standards in the world as regards the protection of nature and animal well-being. It will not be easy to define a fair balance for this aspect of the CAP.
More linked to budgetary questions, but just as delicate, is the section for the progressive elimination of the differences in European aid between the old and newer member states. In the beginning the unequal systems were justified because of the enormous imbalance between the respective standards of living - without the differentiation in aid, farmers in eastern Europe would have become the richest social class in their area. Everyone acknowledges that the differences must be progressively eliminated, but there is no agreement on how fast this must happen.
Consideration of the three elements mentioned above - balance between the well-being of farmers and the global significance of agriculture, the role of environmental requirements, and the progressive alignment of aid to producers - could help clarify both the divergences between national positions and the reactions of professional circles, on which EUROPE regularly reports in detail.
Fishing - inescapable discipline. Olivier De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, advocates getting rid of industrial fishing - only small scale fishing should continue in his opinion because the other limitations and disciplines that are envisaged would not be sufficient to avoid disaster. We can see the extent to which crisis is threatening this activity.
I am obviously not up to assessing if this radical position is justified or excessive - it is certainly meaningful given the experience and role of the man who proposed it. It proves that the question goes far beyond the economic value of maritime fishing - what's being discussed implies the very survival of the seas and oceans.
The interests of fishermen are only one of the elements to be taken into consideration. It is undeniable that the current system tolerates inadmissible behaviour, such as throwing back into the sea catches of another type of fish than the one aimed for - and this is only one example. What is more, the need for more restrictive rules in not contested - numerous mechanisms are already applied, limiting and disciplining the fishing of certain species. Quantitative limitations, calendars and other restrictions will doubtless be strengthened in order to avoid the depletion - and even the disappearance - of certain stocks.
But the rules are often complex and the checks are difficult and costly - be it with regard to deep-sea fishing, throwing fish back into the sea, the absence of clear physical borders between fishing zones or the size of the vessels. The task is tough to achieve and as in the agriculture file there is a balance between environmental demands and social and economic factors. Wide divergences persist, even if European fishing ministers reached a consensus by majority on 24 October (see EUROPE 10717) in spite of the disagreements that continue. These disagreements are numerous and it is not a given that heads of state or government will approve the results that are to a greater or lesser extent reached at the next summit.
Far be it from me to assess the respective positions and still less to point out choices regarding the divergences. Let me limit myself to stressing the complexity and the weight of what will have to be decided by the summit. The interests of fishermen are a significant element - but not an exclusive one.
In secular states religion is a personal affair. With regard both to agriculture and to fishing, I have left aside the specifically religious aspects of the decisions to take. Some of the aspects that exist are - forbidding certain foods, obligatory fasting on certain days or periods of the year, and ways of slaughtering animals. Our countries being secular by definition, the European mechanisms relating to the Community financing of policies on agriculture and fishing do not have to take the above mentioned aspects into consideration. Religious freedom is a very vast concept which influences several aspects of living together but it must, in my opinion, remain separate from specific European policies on agriculture and fishing - the subject of the next European Council.
Yet the fact remains that the EU must, in my view, require reciprocity of religious freedom from the Muslim countries that demand it for their nationals residing in Europe. But this is another problem, not to be mixed with Community policies on agriculture and fisheries.
Let me recall that, from a general point of view, all the observers consider that the European Council in November will not manage to complete the preparation of the financial perspectives for 2014-2020 - other summits will be needed too.
(FR/transl.fl)