The smiling prophet. With his greying beard and his gaze both clear and piercing, Franz Fischler increasingly offers a picture of a smiling prophet of future European agriculture. What is important is obviously not the external appearance: what is important is that he is gradually taking on the role as protector. For many years, the inability of Europe to alter the CAP (common agricultural policy) as situations and challenges changed risked destroying not only the CAP but European agriculture itself. Two position clashed, both unacceptable and disastrous:
- that consisting in setting in stone a policy that was built-up with the aim of providing Europe with the ability and possibility to feed its population, whereas that goal was widely reached and that prolongation of intensive farming and the spread of mono-culture killed off the bio-diversity, harmony and balance of the European territory, the very quality of food;
- that consisting in demolishing the CAP and totally opening the borders to world competition, which would have had the result of eliminating a large part of farming activity in Europe, destroying the countryside and traditions and turning a population at a loose end towards the cities.
Franz Fischler was able to resist both dangers, which was not easy, as the farming lobby was defending acquired advantages even when they no longer had any justification (the terms "farming lobby" also covered, in certain periods, the European Parliament's "Agriculture" Committee and as far as the Agriculture Council), and on the other side those in favour of the globalisation of farming within several national governments and within the European Commission itself. Sure, Fischler found allies without whom nothing would have been possible, and it pleases me once more to cite the firm way be which Pascal Lamy inserted "non-commercial aspects" in farming in his position on the future negotiating round in the WTO. The convictions of the Commissioner for Agriculture and the Commissioner for Commerce were gradually consolidated, their language took on an assurance and their authority affirmed itself proportionately.
The eloquence of the texts. Why am I today conducting this exercise that summarises concepts often exposed in this section? Because in different recent addresses, and notably in an interview, Franz Fischler not only reaffirmed his guidelines and his determination, but also provided important details on what he intended to do. The tone was given in the first answer to a question by Stephane Marchand and Berengere Mathieu de Heaulne, of the "Figaro Magazine". The question was: Lionel Jospin and Jacques Chirac do not want a debate on the CAP. Will you initiate it in 2002?" Here is the answer: "Yes. I am determined to go further in re-directing the CAP; from next year already, we shall pursue the reform of Agenda 2000, through what is called the Mid Term review".
With the same frankness, Fischler set out his intentions and announced his projects. Here is a sample of some of them, the quotes being drawn from the aforementioned interview (published on 16 July) and some previous speeches (without citing the source of each word, so as not to be fastidious).
Results achieved. "Cereal and butter mountains are now a thing of the past.. Up to the end of October, the beef market was stable and there was not one kilo of meat in intervention. Compared to the early 1990s, cereal feed consumption in the Community has risen by about 25 million tonnes per year and fertiliser and plant protection product use has fallen to well below the level in the 1980s. Thus farmers are reacting to market signals. In 1991, as much as 90% of our agricultural budget went on export subsidies and market intervention. But from 2004 onwards, once Agenda 2000 has been fully implemented, 70% will be available for spending on direct aid for our farmers and for rural development measures"
All cereals, 70% of poultry and pig meat will be exported without export refunds. Many guarantee prices have fallen.
Guidelines for the future. "The call for a return to the pre-Agenda 2000 situation by some people, and the demand for a complete change in direction by others, shows that those concerned have not understood the aims of the Agenda 2000 reform package or do not attempt to understand them. And yet there is no call to reinvent the wheel or hark back to outdated rural utopias. What we have to do is to keep the world's natural cycles and put the three components of the much-touted sustainability into practice: responsible agriculture will need in future to be synonymous with economic performance, social acceptability and environmental compatibility". (…) We can no longer tolerate farms that take no notice of environmental demands continuing to be fully subsidised.
Mr. Fischler also placed emphasis on several occasions on the appropriateness of generalising the ability of Member States to reduce certain direct payments and using the amounts thus released to increase funding for rural development. He considers that, in the framework of rural development programmes, other activities outside farming need backing, like the crafts and tourism, already provided for.
The "Mid Term Review". According to Fischler, there are three reasons not only not to delay the mid term review of the results secured, but even to enlarge it: "The mid-term evaluation scheduled in the Berlin "Agenda 2000" decisions has acquired a new dimension through the BSE crisis. The Berlin Summit invited the Commission to assess the operation of the cereal and oilseed system, investigate the cattle market, present a report on the milk quota system, and examine whether the framework which we have set up for agricultural expenditure in the financial perspectives is appropriate. There is more to it than these mid-term reports, however: following the Council's confirmation of the Commission's enlargement strategy paper, the negotiations with a group of applicant countries which meet the requirements for integration are due to be completed by the end of 2002 (…). Against this background, I consider it appropriate to carry out the requested evaluations concurrently, i.e., in 2002".
Guidelines and sectoral projects. "Next year, we shall present a report on the appropriateness of abolishing milk quotas. The French Government is strongly opposed to that reform, but other Member States are strongly in favour. For milk, quotas will anyway be maintained until 2008, but that will be the opportunity to have an in-depth review of the principle of quotas (…) We shall very soon by initiating a study on the relevance of quotas in the sugar sector".
As for the possible of reintroduction in animal meal in fodder, Mr. Fischler said: "For ruminants, there is no question. But for the others, I want to recall that animal meal has been relieved of any risk matter since the end of last year; it only contains ingredients authorised for human consumption. Is it reasonable to maintain a costly and logistically complicated ban? We are actively working on the issue and the debate will resume (….).
The French are demanding a "protein plan" to cultivate plant proteins without GMOs. I would answer them two things: firstly, the European agricultural budget is not extensible. Then, it is unrealistic to think that one day Europe may be independent in this sector. We have no other choice but to import".
Too hasty a renunciation? As we see, Franz Fischler has clear ideas. This does not mean that he is right a priori on each detail: there are other opinions and negotiations will be difficult, as certain essential choices (milk quotas, sugar quotas, export refunds) are very controversial. And one could wonder if in the affair of plant proteins he has not been too hasty: the Commission paper which condemned any plan to re-launch European production due to its high cost and low possible return (see this section dated 30 March, pp3-4) is disputed: those who believe that Europe should try to free itself at least partly from its almost total dependence on the outside criticise certain of the paper's conclusions, which they believe to be too hasty, and want the issue to be taken up again with the help of additional information and assessments. The Belgian Presidency of the Council has said that it intended to "invite the Commission to adopt a different attitude towards EU supply in plant proteins" (see our bulletin of 14 July, p.14). Europe must not too easily give up hope of at least partial autonomy in a strategic field, despite the crushing weight of past mistakes.
Anyhow, the plan for an effective agricultural activity, covering the whole of the European territory, respectful of the environment and bio-diversity, concerned with the quality of food and consumer demands, presupposes that awareness of the unitary nature of European farming grows. This awareness has often been scandalously lacking even within the Council, where each minister has at times been too concerned with defending his or her national interests and too readily prepared to sacrifice that of their neighbours. European agriculture is a whole, from the citrus fruit of Sicily to the difficult but necessary production close to the North Pole, everywhere heir of centuries of efforts and civilisations. All production must benefit from similar backing and protection, in the sense that farmers adapt to reforms, i.e. they respect the demands of quality, the environment and bio-diversity, and produce for the market, according to citizen demand, and not intervention shops. (F.R.)