Chirac or optimism. French President Jacques Chirac has partially disputed the direction of the reforms of the common agricultural policy (those of 1992, 1999 and the one to come), stating that a reduction in guarantee prices is to a great extent responsible for the mad cow crisis and other disasters which, for some months now, have dramatically perturbed Europe. His reasoning is simple: the drop in guarantee prices has led to a fall in agricultural revenue and which has only been partially compensated by direct aid; to maintain their living standards, farmers have had no choice but to increase productivity by reducing costs; whence the use of animal meal, cheaper than traditional fodder, and other measures after the same objective, with the repercussions we know on the environment, product quality and safety, and animal wellbeing. And the President hinted that France would reject any reform of the Cap that reduced guarantees for farmers and jeopardize the EU's ability to export.
This "Chiracian" interpretation is too optimisitc regarding human nature; it presupposes that if prices had been sufficiently remunerative, farmers would have produced less, without trying to take as a much advantage as possible of export subsidies and intervention. Facts have proven that this is not the case.
Undrinkable tap water. The historic surpluses which, in their time, led the Cap to the verge of bankruptcy were especially caused by the automatic intervention mechanism, by which the EU "withdrew surpluses from the market" to store or destroy them. Some farmers chose not to listen to the wishes of the consumers, abandoned the less profitable varieties and produced directly for intervention, beefing up production without concern for quality or outlets, nor for harm caused to the environment. That was the scandal. The sudden fall in prices were almost always caused by the weight of the surpluses. Quality products have never suffered from over-production and have always sold for prices well in excess of the "guarantee prices". What needs doing, is to abolish the automatic character of the intervention mechanisms, so as to get farmers to produce for the market, in harmony with nature and following consumer demand. Public intervention must only be a safety-net, as was devised by Sicco Mansholt, to be used in special circumstances (like now in the beef sector), and have as rigorous counterpart that farmers respect environmental standards. We're far from that; suffice it to read, in our bulletin of 17 March, p.11, the ruling of the Court of Justice on nitrate pollution in Brittany (French region, which President Chirac doubtless does not ignore) to observe that intensive farming is at times more polluting than the chemicals industry: tap water has become undrinkable in several areas of the region, and the first victims are the inhabitants.
Franz Fischler's extra step. What is said above bears no relation with the events that are now perturbing the farming world and which demands European solidarity towards livestock farmers (the Heads of Government acknowledged that in Stockholm), and which certainly does not lessen the need to reform the Cap along the lines set out; on the contrary, they strengthen it. The Commissioner for agriculture, Franz Fischler, sees things that way; he considers that "this major crisis could even prove to be an opportunity", if it arouses and provokes the necessary changes, which he summarizes a follows: we must act in harmony with nature and not against it ("We must not turn cows into cannibals"), we must agree to pay a fair price for safe and quality products, we must know how to use farming and forestry to produce energy and other non-food usage, we must direct the Pac in relation to consumers, we must reconstruct the natural cycles that we have broken, we have a social responsibility towards our farmers. Fischler even added a new colour to the canvas of the new farming he is painting: the overall responsibility of each towards European farming as a whole. He said: "every country must bear its share of responsibility for the whole". Which means the end, within the Agriculture Council, of the mentality by which each national delegation defends "their" farming. The same interest and a similar level of protection must apply be it to beef or fruit and vegetables, citrus fruit or rice, cereals or milk. In other words, it's the notion of a "European" agriculture that is required.
Mr. Fischler has a last step to take: recognise that the expansion of world trade is not a priority as far as farming its concerned. …/..
On the contrary, a non-negligible part of international agricultural trade is unnecessary, harmful even.. Genuine assistance for developing countries does not reside in pushing them towards developing a single crop for exports, but, on the contrary, to farm to feed their own population, gradually severing dependence on imports, which is the worst type of dependence. And the transport of live animals is all too often a shame on humanity. But there are too many interests at stake for this truth to be acknowledged.
Bad news… the European Commission's ad hoc report proves that the possibility of replacing animal meal (now banned) by intensifying the production of plant protein is, at least for now, purely theoretical, as economically absurd. To cover the shortage in animal feed, what is needed rather is to increase soya meal from third countries (see our bulletin of 19/20 March, p.12). This is bad news that needs noting. The Commission analysed four options for the expansion of European plant protein production, and the result is more or less: the "European" solution would in one case cost some 1,270 euro a tonne, in another 970 euro, a little less if a third option were chosen, but the quantities would be very limited. Whereas the cost of importing a tonne of soja meal would come to some 220 to 230 euro, and there is an abundant supply of soya in the world! The EU's additional requirements to replace animal meal lies between one million and one and a half million tonnes of meal; work out the cost of the "European solution", and you'll see that it would be folly. In addition: a) the additional imports of soya meal required to cover the deficit would only correspond to some 5% of current imports (which exceed 28 million tonnes a year); b) developing European production of animal protein could create difficulties in relation to undertakings the EU has made in the context of the WTO and in relation to the Blair House Agreement.
…but not definitive. Has the cause thus been heard? Was not the great hopes of rekindling the production of plant proteins in Europe to eliminate once and for all animal meal that led to the mad cow disease and struck a blow to European civilization but an illusion? It is possible to abolish "set-aside" as it is known today and replace it with crop rotation, as known to and practiced by our ancestors. Let's take it easy. In its report, the Commission acknowledges that, should world prices for soya meal increase, the nature of the problems would change. And especially, I believe that any calculation based solely on financial cost neglects too many other factors: a) expansion of rape, sunflower, peas, and field beans, lucerne and soya farming would play in favour of diversity; b) increasing the import of soya meal would take the European deficit in matters rich in protein for animal feed to 75%; c) pea farming is positive for the environment; they have no need of nitrogen, consume little water and need little chemical treatment; d) field beans also have many advantages; e) world prices of oilseed is on the rise.
Certainly, we must not allow the operation to transform itself into a chase for subsidies. A few years ago, when Europe was trying to develop soya farming, colossal frauds were organised, based on declarations of non-existent production, in fact replaced by soya imported from the Americas. But if controls are tight, a viable medium-term plan could probably be drawn up. Europe cannot resign itself to remaining 75% dependent, whereas appropriate products grow on our soil, are known and have been grown for centuries.
Essential consistency. This week the European Commission approved three action plans to stem the dramatic collapse in bio-diversity in Europe (half of Europe's species of butterflies have already disappeared). The specific plan for farming calls for the agricultural activity to cover the whole territory, and that this activity be "economically viable and socially acceptable", and calls for the preservation of local and traditional varieties and races. A particular remark concerns the extent of "wetlands", which has been reduced by 60% (impressive percentage). We have no doubt that, in adopting these "plans", the Commission has on the whole taken on board the need for consistency between its different policies: foremost agricultural policy, but also trade policy. We always come back to that: a total opening to external imports is totally incompatible with safeguarding bio-diversity in Europe. For example, safeguarding what remains of the wetlands closely depends on maintaining European rice production. Speaking of full free competition with producers on other continents whose living standards are not comparable to that in our countries, or who have unlimited extents of land, or that do not bother with environmental or product safety standards, amounts to stupidity, or naivety, or bad faith. Or all three together. (F.R.)