You must not think that I have chosen to speak about the book jointly written by Professor Mahé (from the Ecole supérieure d'agronomie de Rennes) and Professor Ortalo-Magné (holder of the Jean Monnet chair at the London School of Economics) because it reflects a number of ideas on farming long defended in our editorials [Louis-Pascal Mahé and François Ortalo-Magné: "Politique agricole, un modèle European" - Presses de Science Po, Paris - January 2001]. The matter is too important to allow it to be mixed up with self-satisfaction. My only aim is to stress that scientific and academic approval now gives greater authority and weight to a course that is vital for Europe: not only for its farming, but also for its nature and its landscapes, for its territorial balance, and for the quality and safety of its food for the citizens.
Aberrations of CAP. At the present time, it seems almost banal to bring this up as - because of mad cow, dioxin and other pleasures of life caused by the obsession of agricultural productivity - everyone is giving lessons and improvising as a precursor to CAP reform. But the authors of this book were not prompted to write because it was a fashionable thing to do. The work is in answer to a 1997 order from the "world economy group" of the French "political science" academia. It was mainly drafted during the early months of 1998. Quite irrespective of topical issues, Mr Mahé and Mr Ortalo-Magné felt that the "specific and inescapable nature of agriculture, its link with the rural area and with natural resources" required a new approach. During the forties and fifties, European farming came nowhere near meeting the food needs of the population, and it was indispensable to increase and modernise production. The CAP, however, proved to be the source of grave distortion and "products such as oilseeds or sheep farming have often suffered on account of political decisions giving excessive priority to cereals". Zero duties on imported seeds and oilseed cakes (already cited under this heading as one of the causes of the current difficulties in European agriculture) were decided, say Mr Mahé and Mr Ortalo-Magné, "in order to maintain a strong protection for cereals to offset this". With such aid, the CAP emphasised the specialisation of farms in the production of basic foods, putting a brake on the conquest of profitable niches based on diversified products. The support of high prices and public storage of surplus production has been a handicap to the development of the processing industries. The CAP instruments, based on price guarantees and the withdrawal of surpluses, have intensified the use of chemical inputs and machines, which has had adverse effects not only on the environment but also on the trade balance, by increasing imports of machines, cattle feeds, etc. It has also made the European industries for phytosanitary products, seeds and machines inordinately large. The result has been the fall in the quality of water resources, the decline in ground water, the erosion of soil in catchment areas and the degradation of rural landscapes.
Decision-making process brought into question. Given the above analysis, how can one justify resistance to real reform? In France emphasis has often been placed on the contribution that agriculture makes to the macro-economic balance of the country, mainly its trade balance. But the authors stress that the French agricultural trade advantage is largely due to quality products (fine wines in particular), and note that certain aspects of CAP swell imports (this has mainly been seen for animal feed). There is a "mine of opportunities for agri-food products that are developed, diversified and of quality", but some choices made under CAP, such as the intervention mechanisms for butter and milk powder, put a brake on commercial incentives to develop processed products …
In order to explain why a mistaken direction was taken for so long, the process of decision-making in Brussels is brought into question. The process results in "arbitration in favour of producers and, above all, in favour of those who are already privileged"' (as aid and compensation are more or less proportionate to the size of the farms). The result is ensuing "windfall profits for certain farmers" and production choices which multiply the over-capacity of already abundant, but highly subsidised, products instead of encouraging production that could replace imports. If the decision-making method is not reviewed, the EU could run the risk during upcoming WTO talks of reducing still further, if not abolishing altogether, the customs duties on products already ill protected, in order to maintain export subsidies for products whose over-production is artificially encouraged by the CAP. Production "with positive environmental effect, such as the Mediterranean products, sheep farming and pasture cattle" could disappear because they "will be in excessive competition with imports of products that are perhaps banal or from intensive production technologies". The conclusion is obvious: "priorities today must be
refocused, by putting a stop to encouraging exports (at a loss) of base products and by giving preference to the development of agri-food exports, the intellectual protection of typical European products and the preservation of certain kinds of farm production that make the European rural model unique".
After the analysis with comments, the essay seeks to base a series of "concrete proposals" on the above-mentioned conclusions. Proposals pertain to: a) the end of export subsidies; b) transparency and the controlled used of fertilisers, phytosanitary treatments and the spreading of sludge, with compulsory "green registers"; c) the definition of three categories of rural areas, according to how they are used; the creation of green stars (duly remunerated) for services that preserve the physical or aesthetic quality of a rural environment; and d) the "refocusing" of the international agricultural trade policy. The authors are aware that these projects will encounter opposition and that "blocking will mainly come from the resistance of the current generation of farmers". They consider, however, that "agricultural pressure groups are less monolithic than in the past: today, there is no longer consensus on the grounds justifying the traditional CAP even within the farming profession". The existence of a Common Agricultural Policy in itself is no way brought into question.
Havoc wreaked by over-specialisation. The thirteen "concrete proposals" for reform are justified and set out in detail. As I went through the pages, I was pleased to rediscover the following considerations: "A classic example of CAP distortion was the inconsistency between support for the price of cereals, which was high before 1992, and the lack of price support for cereal substitutes for animal feed, because of concessions made during the earlier GATT negotiations. The strong reduction in this gap since 1992 has increased the use of European cereals in animal feed by over 10 million tonnes". What a shame this essential remark had to be written in a scarcely visible footnote. It highlights an element too often neglected - the essential impact that import policy has on farmers' choice. More generally, these choices are determined by political decisions. M r Mahé and Mr Ortalo-Magné stress that price support at a high and stable price level has long encouraged and almost determined the hyper-specialisation of farms. This excessive specialisation brings with it requests for compensation and financial assistance that are particularly expensive as soon as a crisis hits the product concerned, because producers of just one crop cannot offset problems with other products. At the same time, it has "repercussions on the degradation of land, on the intensification of chemical treatments and on the re-absorption of livestock sludge". High guaranteed prices also reduce any incentive to seek new outlets, new products and activities of diversification. For example, the effect of growing maize as the only crop is devastating: soil erosion on slopes, the washing away of nitrates and pesticides, the loss of biodiversity, the loss of all specific nature of landscapes, and a regression in the number of natural prairies.
Resisting those who profit from the current CAP. The analysis by Mr Mahé and Mr Ortalo-Magné cites technical and economic elements of great value to support reforms that everyone is talking about today but which could be forgotten or toned down as soon as the urgency of the situation has passed and when the current CAP beneficiaries get their breathe back and make their means of pressure felt (has one forgotten the alarming over-compensation cereal producers managed to enjoy just a few years ago?). Today, the time is right not just at international level (at the WTO, the Chinese Trade Minister was opposed to dismantling protection for agriculture because the "stability of agriculture is of the highest importance for the social stability of China") but also at European level. In Germany and Italy, the Agriculture Ministers are "green". In France, Minister Jean Glavany took a stance against excess production ("I do not challenge the need for good productivity but rather that of productivism, that is, seeking productivity at any cost. There has been enough social, environmental and security damage for lessons to be drawn"). He affirms the importance of non-commercial aspects: "the precautionary principle, food safety, and arbitration will be at the heart of WTO negotiations"[Jean Glavany's interview was published in the paper Les Echos of 8 March]. The president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, declared that the Europeans can without difficulty pay a little more for their food, in exchange for quality and safety. This should finally bring the EU to grant some studies by the OECD or other bodies the attention they deserve - that is, none, as such studies assess agricultural policies exclusively from the point of view of the influence they have on the permanent expansion of world agricultural trade and their cost for consumers, ignoring with sovereign disdain the essential reasons that call for serious agricultural policies and world food policies [See this heading in EUROPE of 12/13 February, pp.3/4].
(F.R.)