Partly tactics. As foreseen, the first reactions to the Fischler project for review of CAP are as negative as they are contradictory. For some, the Commission goes too far in its reforms, for others not far enough. This comes as no surprise to Franz Fischler, who had immediately said (when speaking to Pierre Bocev): "The Commission is more or less half way between the extreme positions. It will therefore be criticised by both sides. Criticism will fly from all sides, it is only natural. Effervescence is a part of tradition. In the CAP, nothing is ever accomplished without some psychodrama". This declaration demonstrates considerable tranquillity that comes from the certainty of being right in what is essential. This was acknowledged by the Agriculture Minister of Belgium, a country that is mid-way between the extremes. Ms Annemie Neyts told Philippe Regnier: "We are at the beginning of a long process, the final result of which will be mitigated; but reform will inevitably be along the lines set out by Fischler, even if it takes years".
One should therefore be calm in the face of the most agitated protest and be aware of the tactical role it conceals. A dramatic split in the Union, a European agricultural policy radically brought into question, the unavoidable delay in enlargement … calm down, calm down. The political class and the media should not fall into the trap of dramatising things sought by those who defend specific interests and who cling on by every means possible to the more than lucrative means afforded by the importance of their positions. I consider that, in order to see things clearly, a double preliminary operation is needed: a) the debate should not be entirely left in the hands of those who represent the agricultural world including in this category a certain number of agriculture ministers who give the impression they do not represent the general interest but play the role of a farmers' lobby - without forgetting that all CAP reforms without exception were carried out against the agricultural organisations, which were systematically opposed to them; b) the general aims should be separated from the arrangements for implementation. After the difficult negotiation that has just opened, the arrangements will no doubt not be those that today appear in the project. They will be modified in the light of the national positions and the legitimate interests to be safeguarded. But the reasons which are at the origin of the initiative and the analyses that justify it cannot be adjusted to suit the polemic.
Reasons and aims. Let us therefore start with these reasons and analyses, in the light of the declarations and interviews of Franz Fischler rather than the official texts which are somewhat turgid and not very explicit. Why, without bringing the substance of CAP into question, should it be changed? His responses are as follows:
1) The current system of aid based on production quantities encourages intensive production. It is far too bureaucratic and encourages farmers to orient their production in relation to European subsidies rather than consumer demand.
2) Citizens have clearly indicated in several opinion polls what they expect of European agriculture. Priorities, by order of priority, are: healthy, safe and quality foodstuffs; a protected environment (including animal welfare); and supply that corresponds to consumer demand. The safeguard of traditional landscapes where it is good to live is also often cited. Less than 30% of Europeans consider that these priorities are complied with today.
Deviation and aberrations. The long history of CAP proves, for those who have lived through it, the extent to which the faults cited by Franz Fischler in point 1 are real. The support of farmers founded on quantities produced was justified in the initial CAP period when Europe had to conquer its food autonomy because there were hungry children here, in our countries. The response given by the farming world was admirable in its speed and effectiveness. Then, the system had shown that it was no longer adjusted to the new situation. It is not with pleasure that I recall the absurd irregularities noted, but to answer those who still defend the guaranteed price mechanism today without limits of quantities produced. In the milk sector, the intervention mechanism is at the level of butter for understandable technical reasons. The result was that butter production no longer had any relation with demand: it was from the mountains, it was made in order to be directly transferred to European shops, with the tremendous cost and the absurd waste of energy entailed by its conservation. Despite the lorries, the trains and the shops equipped with refrigerators, after two years the butter in storage became unusable for human consumption and it was almost impossible to find other outlets. At the end of the day, part of it was used for feeding calves, that is, the natural destination of the milk originally used to make the butter, but the now rancid butter reached its destination two years late, after absurd detours and a cost of billions of ecus (which were not, however, lost for everyone). In the meanwhile, the calves had been fed on
soya (practically prohibited from production in Europe as it enters with zero duty), by manioc which soaks up water and unfortunately, when the calves get bigger, by meat and bone meal responsible for the disasters we all know about.
Other examples? The "preventive distillation" of wine, elegant terms that mean that the wine is destroyed (by distilling it) before even being marketed and transformed into absolutely useless alcohol, which partly ends up in certain petroleum distilleries in the Caribbean to be mixed to petrol intended for the United States market: the surplus European wine kept American cars on the road. The destruction of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market which had occasionally reached frightening proportions (one year, 70% of Italian tangerine production was "withdrawn from the market", a gentle euphemism meaning that they had been crushed by tractors).
Biodiversity threatened. The above-mentioned distortions, and others, have mainly been eliminated thanks to the introduction of "milk quotas" and to other reforms, adopted each time in the middle of protest from agricultural organisations which declared them untenable and each time announced disasters. Today, it is the system of aid based on quantities produced that the Commission is proposing to abolish by replacing this by aid to income based more on the surface area under cultivation (with ceilings per farm). I am not ignorant of the fact that this radical change meets with at least opposition within the Commission itself. It is not an indiscretion - Michel Barnier explicitly said (while adding that he supported the College's decision), that, in his opinion, with the new system proposed, the farmer loses his production autonomy and becomes reliant on society's help. I do not share Mr Barnier's opinion. I consider, on the contrary, that the farmer finally regains his freedom and responsibility as an entrepreneur. With the current system, he is artificially encouraged to produce what is the most profitable from the point of view of European aid, with the above-mentioned effect. The system proposed attributes to every farmer aid intended to compensate for a performance that society demands (environment, landscapes, green areas, etc.) and gives him back the responsibility to direct his production towards market demand, consumer demand, with the possibility of ensuring quality is good and that his income is therefore increased. We must not forget the dramatic reduction of biodiversity that results from the systematic and unlimited public intervention mechanism: a single variety of apples used to dominated the market, that which gave the greatest production output, and this is but one example. The number of plant varieties that have been abandoned is so large that a Dutch institute has decided to collect the categories of seeds not used so that they may be saved from extinction. This bears witness to the wealth of European biodiversity that was and to the hope that there will be a return to certain plant varieties whose taste and savour have today been lost.
Immeasurable advantages. Of course a large number of farmers have always given priority to quality and have been compensated for it, as good wine has never been distilled and typical products that are appreciated have always found a buyer at prices far higher than intervention prices. But many farmers had acquired the habit of producing directly for public stocks or for destruction. This is what must disappear and the intervention mechanism must once more be what it was in the spirit of Sicco Mansholt when the CAP was born: a safety net against hard times, against bad harvests and natural disasters.
The new system proposed has also another advantage: direct aid will be subject to compliance by farmers of minimum environmental norms, product safety and animal welfare. Failing this, aid will be cut back. This presupposes an audit system involving a certain amount of bureaucracy and a certain cost. Franz Fischler has foreseen that this cost would not fall on farmers but that the public authority (whether European or national) would take part in the financing with a percentage of resources intended for rural development. At any rate, the bureaucratic weight of audits will be incomparably lower than the current bureaucracy, thus relieving farmers of this burden with the end of direct aid to production. They may once more devote most of their time to producing quality food that is required for the market instead of wasting their time filling up forms.
The truth of rural development. The Fischler plan does not aim to reduce the agricultural budget (which is, moreover, the reproach made by certain Member States) but to transfer an appreciable part of this budget from market support to rural development. One often has a mistaken idea of rural development, considering it is directly linked to agricultural production. This is not true. A good part of the initiatives in this context aim, on the contrary, to encourage and promote other activities, to create conditions so that the countryside remains alive and welcoming, so that the villages and small towns also have a cultural and social life, and so that young people are encouraged to live there and the population to be spread out over the whole of the territory in a balanced manner.
Now there are the criticism and objections expressed by Ministers to be answered. I shall try to do this tomorrow. (F.R.)