An indispensable and welcome reform. It would be a scandal if the Agriculture Council did not finish negotiations this week on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Why a scandal? Because all Member States and institutions agree, with more or less enthusiasm, that reform of its objectives is necessary. Accusations against Commissioner Fischler, sensational declarations, melodramatic scenes and the parade of positions on the impossibility of agreeing to the draft (despite the amount of flexibility that's been introduced) do not involve the general direction of the reform but certain methods of its application, essentially in view of preserving some of the benefits that farmers receive and that the Commission has proposed getting rid of or reducing. Governments (not just Ministers of Agriculture), the European Parliament, national parliaments, political forces and more generally public opinion need to take into account the real situation and distinguish between two elements:
A. General direction and reason for reform. Decoupling of aid to farmers, namely the end to the automatic link between aid received and quantities produced, aim to break the infernal cycle pushing farmers to always produce more depending on the level of subsidies paid by the EU by ignoring both quality and market demand. The original policy of the CAP was justified in the 1950s by the need to increase European agricultural production in order to meet the alimentary needs of the population (there were starving children in those days). Mechanism encouraging the unlimited expansion of production was at the origin of unused butter mountains, the destruction of thousands and thousands of tons of fruit which were impossible to consume or conserve, "the preventive distillations" of millions of hectolitres of very bad quality wine and in general, the dramatic decrease in bio-diversity in Europe (due to the concentration of production on the most profitable varieties, without worrying about the quality or demand. Successive CAP reforms gradually mitigated or eliminated these deviations. The final step still needs taking.
In the future, the farmer must be paid out of public funds because of the irreplaceable service they provide to both nature and society. Additional payments linked to production will come from the sale of their products and will be even higher depending on the quality and consumer demand. This fundamental guideline was approved by both the European Parliament and the Council (the French Minister for Agriculture, Hervé Gaymard was very explicit on this subject).
B. the interests of farmers must be taken into consideration but without forgetting the general interest. Issue that have been the subject of the most fierce debates have involved methodology. It is a question of the level o percentages for "decoupling" for grains, durum wheat, beef meat, as well as the reduction certain guaranteed prices: prices for grains and oilseeds will have to fall by 2.5% or more or not at all? Prices for butter by 7% or 4% a year? It is on these or similar aspects that Ministers are fighting it out, often with the goal of defending some additional benefits demanded by one or other of the national farmers' organisations.
Things should be made quite clear: farmers have the right to defend their interests, like all citizens and every Ministers has the right to defend production in his country. Ministers, however, should not forget their political responsibility: they are not the spokespersons for farmers' organisations (all CAP reform has been carried our despite sharp opposition from farmers and their claims of ensuring irreversible damages. They must also distinguish between the "acquired benefits", which are still justified and those tat have become abuses, while taking into account consumer interests. For our countryside, the "development of rural zones" are as important as agricultural production and financial transfers between these two objectives are timely. Farmers have to understand that production quality and its link to demand are and will become even more so, their main advantages and that their mortal enemy would be an ill-thought our opening up of the EU borders to global competition.
Agriculture Ministers and farmers' organisations have perfect knowledge of the details and reality involving the different problems. It is necessary that Parliaments (European and national) are aware too, as well as other Ministers, particularly Foreign Affairs Ministers, who cannot ignore the fact that it would be easier to defend the CAP at an international level if reform was given the go-ahead.
(F.R.)