Cautious optimism. Will the financial framework for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to 2013, approved by the EU Summit on 25 October, facilitate or, on the contrary, hinder revision of this policy? Will it allow, in spite of its restrictive character, proper financing of the reoriented CAP and appropriate protection of European agriculture? The European Commissioners with responsibility for the CAP and trade policy have already contributed to reflection on these questions (see our bulletin of 30 October, page 11).
Mr Fischler has stated that the Summit decisions: a) do not freeze the mid-term review of the CAP nor proposals concerning the review. "There are no restrictions on the tabling of proposals or on their adoption"; b) do not prohibit application of certain aspects of this review before the expiry of the current framework (2006); c) confirm two pillars of the revised CAP, namely the multifunctional nature of agriculture and support for less-favoured regions, which means, according to the Commissioner, clear support for the "rural development" aspect of the CAP and its financing (including through national resources). The Summit decisions will have repercussions that must be studied in detail and that might lead the Commission to change certain aspects of the implementing regulations it is currently preparing, but "absolutely nothing has changed as far as the objectives and necessity of continuing the CAP reform process are concerned".
Mr Lamy's reservation. For his part, Pascal Lamy has commented, subject to a detailed technical analysis, that: a) the Summit introduced "unprecedented budget discipline", which implies a decrease in real terms in EU spending on agriculture (because the proposed credits will be valid for an EU of 25 without an increase compared to the level for the current EU 15 and because inflation will only be taken into account at the level of 1% a year). No one will be able to claim any longer that the CAP is costing European taxpayers more and more; b) the EU decided to impose severe limits on spending for its farmers even as the United States is boosting its spending; c) subject to a more thorough analysis, the new budgetary discipline will not reduce, but on the contrary, increase the need for the reforms foreseen under the Fischler project.
These considerations speak for themselves. At the same press conference, Pascal Lamy recalled the evaluation by the Commission services to the effect that full liberalisation of agricultural trade in the world would have the effect of doing away with six million farms in the EU out of a total of seven million. He did not explicitly state whether such an evolution is absolutely unacceptable, as he had done in a recent speech (see this column of 11 October). Mr Lamy obviously considers that he has to be more cautious when speaking in the Commission press room than in expressing his personal views. That is a pity, because the radical rejection of a development that would spell the end of EU agriculture, of its food self-sufficiency, its territorial balance, its traditions and landscapes (and I could go on), should always be firm and clear, whatever the circumstances.
Listening to the European Parliament. Adding to the appraisals of Messsrs Fischler and Lamy the positive aspects of the Council's work on the reform and the orientation of the European Parliament's work, one cannot but note that support for the reform, which was so disparaged at the outset, is now growing in scope. The European Parliament Committee on Agriculture followed its Chair and Rapporteur, Joseph Daul, adopting a positive attitude, provided European agricultural markets are reasonably protected from external competition (see our bulletin of 26 October, page 14). Parliament had already called for the development of European production of vegetable proteins, committing the necessary funding (to reduce imports of soya, negotiating an amendment to the Blair House agreement if need be), and for publication of a list of companies that are beneficiaries of export refunds (from the standpoint of checking the subsidies received by the big agri-food multinationals). It is now preparing to request, in substance, that the Fischler reform be accompanied by serious application of the "Community preference". The Commission should take these different requests into account.
It is clear that, in my opinion, in the agricultural sector, increasing world trade is not a priority. The right of each people to the highest degree of food self-sufficiency possible comes first. Applying general WTO rules to agriculture would be disastrous, especially for the poor countries, and incompatible with combating hunger in the world. Regional groupings should be created where trade could be liberalised between farmers having comparable production conditions. For Europe, this zone of liberalisation is the enlarged EU.
(F.R.)