Franz Fischler was basically right. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has arrived, and I won't go over it in detail. After the series of partial changes in the past, a decisive step had to be made by introducing the idea of subsidies for European farmers no longer being automatically connected with the volumes farmed. The danger of shortages is luckily a thing of the past so the rigid link between aid and production is negative because it encourages farmers to produce to get subsidies rather than meet demand and quality targets. The criteria of volume must be replaced by improving ecological conditions and product quality.
This basic idea of the Fischler plan was supported from the word go by everyone who understood its importance (like the President of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee, Joseph Daul). Endless arguments ensued and opposition from framing organisations had to be countered (they logically battled to preserve the current automatic benefits). Various aspects of the plan were watered down. In the final phases of the negotiations all Member States realised that Franz Fischler was basically right, but each minister tried to win last minute concessions for farming in their own country. At the end of the day, all farming ministers (with varying degrees of conviction) played the game. Farmers in the future will have to pay greater concern to EU rules on the environment, product safety and animal welfare, if they want EU subsidies, and their direct income will depend to an ever greater extent on high quality products and their ability to meet consumer demand. That's the main issue.
After the decisions were taken, farming organisations did not withdraw their criticisms or reservations and made their customary predictions of doom and gloom that the reform would cause for European farming. In fact, their concerns have been largely taken into account (when justified) by both the Council and the Commission and other adjustments may be made domestically. Some complaints are unfounded… For example, it is crazy to say that the reform will cut the number of species of vegetable found in Europe. Quite the opposite. The millions of farmers who have always been passionate about their work and skills will be rewarded because high quality products will be better protected and marketed. The other farmers will have to take greater care of the environment and real demand.
Having the courage to say no. But the EU's efforts to get the reform approved and farmers efforts to adapt to it will come to nothing if the EU institutions and Member States fail to behave responsibly in international negotiations, particularly the new WTO trade round. The EU may say it will cut subsidies that encourage production (in return for concessions) in addition to export subsidies and other measures that can disturb international trade; but it should refuse to even discuss the gradual elimination of protection at its borders. Big export countries have already said that they see the reform of the CAP as a step in the right direction that needs to go further, while Mercosur countries have restated their demands for a bigger cut of the EU's meat and sugar markets (and others). Their responses must needs be negative on the whole. The EU must stop making piecemeal concessions, each of which appears reasonable but which cumulatively gradually and inexorably lead to a shrivelling of the role of EU's farming. I think this tactic is unsustainable and gives non-EU exporting countries unjustified expectations. When will the EU institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) have the courage to stop this and tell the truth, that free trade in agriculture is a pipe dream that will never be agreed to, in the interest of Europe and of poor countries too?
Food self-sufficiency is vital. Another detail. Former European Commissioner and French farming minister Edgar Pisani has added food self-sufficiency to the reasons for safeguarding Europe's farming policy. I have always believed this, but people argued against me that there was a plethora of potential exporters ready to meet Europe's food needs cheaper. Edgar Pisani's attitude encourages me to list overwhelming food self-sufficiency (which in no way rules out a high level of imports) as one of the duties of the European Union if it is to have a sense of its responsibilities vis-à-vis its inhabitants and its history.
(F.R.)