A still controversial reform. If the European Council reaches an agreement on the EU's 2014-2020 financial framework at the end of the week (see EUROPE 10778), the common agricultural policy reform will be launched immediately - it's just waiting for certainty of the financial contribution to be made to it. Yet this does not mean that an agreement already exists on the content of this reform. Quite the opposite - the differences of opinion are considerable, both within the European Parliament (despite the approval of a draft by the relevant parliamentary committee) and between the Parliament and European Commission. And the Council, of course, must also have its turn at deliberating. The Irish Presidency wants to define the CAP reform for the end of its six month presidency and has therefore planned monthly sessions up to and including June, plus an informal meeting in Dublin at the end of May. A vast amount of work has been achieved - but the content of the reform is far from being in the bag.
Do I really need to recall yet again the significance of the oldest common European policy? It was created to put an end to undernourishment in Europe (which was very real at that time), to guarantee the EU's self-sufficiency in food in case of need, to contribute to fighting famines in the world, and to safeguard nature, the countryside and traditions. These objectives for the mostpart seem to have been accomplished, but they have never been definitively in the bag - the defence of nature becomes ever more difficult and complicated due especially to technical progress and the repercussions of certain innovations on the balance of nature. The drama of the bees, the controversies of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) - who has not heard about these subjects? The globalisation of trade and the expansion of the world's population swell the needs for food and the interests at stake. As part of the CAP, each category defends the advantages and sometimes the privileges that is has, as well as its convictions. In particular, the priorities of producers and those of ecologists differ quite appreciably.
The differences. The result is that two tendencies are pitted against each other within the agriculture committee at the European Parliament. It could be said that majority and minority is the rule of democracy, and it's the majority that wins. Yet it is not as simple as that because it's up to the plenary session to determine the Parliament's position. It will do this next month. And it's also up to the Council to give its opinion (we have seen that it's preparing for this) because - for the first time on this issue - the Parliament and Council will be equal co-legislators. And the Commission will continue to play its role and to defend its proposals - which are closer to the arguments of the minority than those of the majority of the agriculture committee (see EUROPE 10771).
On behalf of the majority, Paolo de Castro - the chair of the Parliament's committee - has said that the environmental aspect of agriculture has been safeguarded in the text adopted, and relaunches at the same time the agricultural activity as the engine of economic growth and employment, protecting farmers against price instability. He recognises that the environmental aspect (greening) has been safeguarded and that the draft that has been retained is generally simpler for farmers.
This of course is not the opinion of the minority. José Bové has said that the majority position only represents the preservation of advantages already in the bag - in other words, industrial agriculture, support for pesticide and synthetic fertiliser manufacturers, the import of American soya, support for large farms which ignore family agriculture, the training of young people and the fight against global warming.
The challenges. The statements above, as well as many other positions, confirm that the differences of opinion are essentially about the level and the modalities: (1) of support for farmers, including large farms; (2) of measures aiming to avoid agricultural activity being harmful for the environment. The differences in opinion are sometimes very strongly expressed and mention mad cows, dioxine chickens, and blue mozzarella - and they cover other sensitive issues like product labelling, the indication of geographical origin and animal well-being.
What stakes there are behind the agricultural issue! Whatever the result of the debates, it can be taken that the new rules will not now be applied in 2013 and that a transitory period will have to be defined for 2014. This challenge is one of the essential aspects for the future of Europe. (FR/transl.fl)