Farmers have their responsibilities… The crisis in the bovine sector has taken on such proportions that some commentators are announcing the end to the common agricultural policy. It's true that this crisis has unprecedented social, financial and ecological repercussions and, especially foremost involves consumers, thus the population as a whole. It is, however, obvious that the difficulties of the CAP do not find their origin in the crisis of the beef sector. They are much older, and responsibilities are shared between the political authorities and farmers themselves. The past conduct of some farmers is "co-responsible" for the current mistrust of consumers towards meat, as certain methods had, sooner or later, to have an effect on animal health. We are not only thinking of animal meal that has transformed gentle and peaceful herbivores into carnivores and often cannibals, but also the ignoble "landless breeding" situated near ports where animal feed arrives originating in other continents, or the bovine race (obtained through special treatment and cross-breeding) whose calves, too fat to be born naturally, can only be delivered through a cesarean. Each year, the cow's stomach is opened and then sewn back. Sweden wanted to oppose the import of this race, but this it was forbidden from doing in the name of the free movement of goods.
… But those of the authorities are damning. How many farmers have used the intervention mechanism as normal outlet, whereas it was devised as a safety-net! How many traders have played on exports refunds to unduly enrich themselves! But the past responsibilities of the political authorities are much more damning. One of the main causes of the difficulties of European farming resides - we can never say this often enough - in the inconsistency between the agricultural policy and the trade policy of the EU. The aforementioned infamy of landless breeding was encouraged by unlimited imports, at zero duty, of American soya, Asian manioc, low-price feed that caused pasturing to be abandoned (one of France's udders, we used to say) and the growing of grass that offers as many proteins as animal meal, paralyzing extensive breeding.
An unfortunate paradox. It is unfortunate and somewhat paradoxical that the most serious difficulties should emerge now, at a time when Europe has largely altered its aim, having finally recognised the real role of farming. Its "multifunctional purpose" has today been proclaimed (even though the order of priorities between the different functions has not yet been adequately established), and the EU will take due account of it in all future trade negotiations. The return of extensive farming is enshrined in the reform of the CAP (even though certain implementing measures will only take effect next year). The rural economy, which goes well beyond agricultural production, will be assisted and protected. Today, almost everything is going in the right direction, but there is a danger. What danger? That the enemies of European farming manage to dismantle the CAP precisely at a time when it is trying to rid itself of errors and aspects that - warranted at the time of food shortage - today represent a danger for ecological balance and biodiversity. The CAP deserves to be saved, but on condition that it manages to impose the principle by which farming in Europe is a single whole. Neither the European Commission nor the Agriculture Council have succeeded (have they tried?) to have the notion of "European" farming emerge, without distinction between Continental production, Mediterranean production, Nordic production. Ministers have always concerned themselves with defending their national products, indifferent to those of their neighbours. A political, economic, ecological and social failure to which we must put an end
Pay for the beef crisis, but on one condition. If we succeed, the effort at solidarity today necessary to overcome the crisis of the beef sector will be justified. But if it is to return tomorrow to indifference at the risk of the disappearance either of Scandinavian farming, Dutch flowers, Spanish or Italian rice, or even German, Belgian or French beet, then we may as well give up, and may each take what we want. The United Kingdom would be able to buy New Zealand dairy products, Italy import Argentinean meat, Spain seek provisions of corn and other cereals from the United States, and so on. And let's no longer speak of a common agricultural policy nor its European funding.
(F.R.)