Agriculture should be defended at any prince but not necessarily the CAP. I don't consider myself as a supporter of the CAP. I support European agriculture and its nature conservation, scenery, traditions, food safety and bio-diversity etc. I also support food autonomy, as there is no theory on the world division of work that would ever convince me that Europe has no obligation to meet the majority of its population's food demands. In cases where the CAP contributes to the above-mentioned objectives, it should be defended, wherever it goes off course, it should be revised. If it helps and encourages farmers to do their job well and care about the products rather than productivity at any price, the price will have to be paid but wherever it's used to protect the "excessive and unjustified income" of a few large-scale landowners, funding should be reduced and given over to rural development zones (notably, the essential part of European territory).
It is easy to understand to what extent I agree with the current guidelines of Franz Fischler and Pascal Lamy and which are shared by the European Commission. If there are some that say that this column has contributed to the progressive affirmation of the new conception of multi-functional agriculture, I will be quite happy. I obviously have no impact on public opinion but it's been said that this column could have had an influence on the raising of awareness of agriculture's true role among some political leaders, some MEPs and some decision-makers. If that's the case, well, great.
The Fischler document on revising the CAP proves to what extent agriculture is rooted in his beliefs. I'm not referring to the details of this document, which can be revised and improved if certain criticism turns out to be justified but on the essential idea I have only two points to make: a) Direct aid for farmers (from now on without a link with production) will in future depend on environmental standards, animal welfare and product safety; b) This same aid will remain unchanged if it does not exceed EUR 5,000 annually and will be reduced by 20% over six years if it exceeds this amount and, in any case has a fixed ceiling o EUR 300,000 per farm.
Against unchecked globalisation. Pascal Lamy's speech in Tokyo made me think that the most controversial aspect of the new idea of agriculture, that of relations with third countries, is also progressing (even if there's still plenty still to do). I'll provide some extracts without providing unnecessary comments, "Public opinion has changed on agriculture. If you read the surveys, if you listen to what people are saying, European citizens today want food safety and an agriculture that respect the environment". Whatever the political or corporate pressure, "…citizens have decision-making power". As for the specific manner of external relations, "It is not up to the EU to expose peasant farmers to the rigours of the international division of labour…The result would be six out of the seven million European farmers would cease functioning and I don't see how the rest would do any better"
The last underlined sentence is fundamental, as it is obvious that the EU attitude should be different if it is true that European peasant farmers ought to be subject to the "rigours of the international division of labour" (in reality, stopping European production of food for that produced by more cost-effective labour, therefore almost everywhere else given the living conditions elsewhere) in order to make things better for the poorest countries. I have already tried many times before to demonstrate that this is not at all the case and that on the contrary, the risk of famine in the world would become more serious. Given that tub-thumping and rhetoric are going to continue to dominate, I'll come back to this question. For the moment I'll just look at what the Fischler document states (the sentence has been watered down in its final version) that implementing the initiative "Everything Except Arms" in the rice sector has caused a "dramatic deterioration" in market equilibrium of this product in the EU, which I initially observed. It's a typical case in which the poorest countries are encouraged to produce for export (to the advantage of traders and traffickers) rice, of which they have a crying need to feed their population. I hope that developments in public opinion, pointed out by Pascal Lamy stretches to the area of the fight against hunger in the world. I will soon be bringing additional arguments to support this currently unfinished development. (FR)