A feeble objection. It is difficult not to share the overview of the EU's agricultural future outlined in the Fischler plan (see yesterday's column) and the ministers rejecting the plan attacked neither its objectives nor its principles. Their criticisms focussed on two elements - failing to respect the Berlin timetable set at the European Council in 1999, according to which true reform of the CAP will not take place until 2006 and therefore one should stick to mid-term changes at the current moment in time; and sector-specific changes proposed for certain organisations of the market.
The first objection seems feeble to me. If the proposed measures are suitable or even, as in the Commission's view, urgent, the timetable should be a secondary element. Either way, negotiations will take a long time and can already be launched.
The Commissioner's reasoning. The second objection concerns neither the principles nor the objectives of the reform, but certain technicalities. Opposition to one measure or another arises from defence of specific national interests and sometimes from the desire to defend acquired benefits that are always difficult to give up. Hardly surprising or scandalous, it is to be expected that ministers their countries' agriculture. Some of the aspects discussed at the Council have a technical nature. I could not venture to decide whether on this issue or that it is Fischler who is right, or the minister contradicting him so I will restrict myself to quoting the reasons the Commissioner put forward to justify his sector-specific proposals. These explanations are not explicitly mentioned in the document, but Franz Fischler mentioned them in his oral presentation to the EP's Agriculture Committee.
1 - Cereals in general. With regard to the new US Farm Bill, fluctuations in world prices are widening, whence the "need" (the word used by the Commissioner) to give intervention its previous role as safety net and cut the guaranteed price by 5% (with suitable compensation for farmers), which will make it possible to deal with low cost imports from Russia and the Ukraine and export at world prices without need for "restitutions".
2 - Rye. Three-quarters of rye production goes to intervention! This is an "absurd" situation and the mechanism has to be scrapped in order for the market to be rebalanced, said Fischler.
3 - Durum wheat. Around a million tonnes of durum wheat are used to make animal feed rather than pasta, explained the Commissioner. The Court of Auditors criticised the supplementary specific payment that it sees as overcompensation. The Commission is therefore proposing to reduce the supplementary specific payment to EUR 250 in traditional durum wheat growing regions, to totally scrap the special aid in other durum wheat regions (it is well known that in some northern countries durum wheat is only grown to take advantage of the generous EU aid without being of a high enough quality to make pasta) and to provide a quality premium to counterbalance this of EUR 15 per tonne for quantities that the food processing industry pledges to use to make good spaghetti, penne or tortiglioni.
4 - Rice. Rice imports under the duty-free scheme promised to poor countries will have the effect of a drastic deterioration of the EU market (this sentence was scrapped from the document but Franz Fischler used it in his speech to MEPs). The Commissioner added that it would be irresponsible with regard to EU rice farmers to remain passive faced with this situation and radical measures had to be taken - cutting the intervention price to the world rice price, compensating for 88% of this cut and giving rice growers special aid taking account of the cultural role of rice farming in traditional humid zones. I remain of the opinion that the true solution is to help the poorest countries use their rice to feed their people (who desperately need it) rather than encouraging theme to produce ex novo for the EU market.
5 - Dried fodder. The Court of Auditors criticised the consumption of energy involved in drying fodder. The current system should be replace with a system of direct payments based on historic reference periods.
Fischler is also proposing a standard payment of EUR 100 the hectare for nuts, a radical simplification of livestock premiums (single revenue aid based on "historic" rights) and greater rigour and control in export refunds for livestock.
In order to reject these measures on has to prove that they are not justified.
(F.R.)