The forgotten battle. Everything has been forgotten; we will have to start again from scratch! That was the impression I got from the reactions to references in this column to the debate that have taken place over 15 years within the EU on agricultural policy, the need to reform the CAP and, at the same time, the imperative need to safeguard agricultural activity in Europe. At the level of heads of government, these debates led to the notion of the "multifunctionality" of agriculture (the term is far too bureaucratic, but nobody is come up with anything any better) and the principle of maintaining agricultural activity throughout the European territory. Anyway, the reactions I've had to my allusions to these results and the texts which stemmed from them show that the newest generations of Eurocrats, members of the European Parliament and others with political responsibilities know nothing of them, and that the older ones have forgotten. What you hear and what you read is very often diametrically opposed to the conclusions the EU had reached. Once again, we are talking about world free trade in the agricultural sector, of applying WTO rules valid for the industrial sector to agricultural products, of pushing agricultural productivity to its limits.
Almost half a century ago, the CAP was created to kick-start food production in Europe after the devastating effect of the war and in order to save rural civilisation. With these two goals in mind, intensive production was allowed and, in some cases, encouraged. The result outstripped all forecasts: in just a few years, the food shortages which periodically plunged Europe into mourning were gone forever. However, they were replaced with another danger: the risks for nature and the environment caused by intensive production and the resulting surpluses. The CAP led to mountains of butter and meat, and lakes of wine, because, under the influence of traders, certain big landowners and the fraudsters who always want a piece of the action as soon as they can smell money, some farmers (who are neither better nor worse than any other category of society) no longer produced for the market according to consumer demand, no longer bothered about quality, producing instead directly for the European mechanisms to withdraw surplus. Hence the horror stories about wine made into useless alcohol and mixed with petrol to get rid of it, butter kept- at vast expense- in refrigerated store rooms until it was unusable, citrus fruit at and other kinds of fruit destroyed by tractors, paid for by Europe... The rules and the objectives behind all of this had to change. Those who made a vast profits out of the CAP did all they could to stand in the way of reform in order to hold onto their cushy numbers, but the reforms were carried out nonetheless: the mountains of butter and meat disappeared, but mediocre-quality wine still poses a problem. But the main thing is that intensive agriculture and this obsession with competitiveness as the sole criterion have finally been replaced by a return to extensive agriculture and respect for nature (today, the lion's share of subsidies under the CAP are reserved for farmers who respect stringent ecological standards).
Europe is already paid. The path has not been an easy one. Last week, I wrote that the conception of the future based on artificially inflated competitiveness between countries and peoples, in which the least efficient would be excluded from the race, is certainly not applicable to the agricultural sector, "where it would be not only absurd, but frankly criminal" (see this column in our bulletin 8981). The latter adjective came across as excessive to a few of our readers. It's just that in this field, Europe has already paid, thank you. Viability at all costs has led only to disaster. What, after all, was the mad cow nightmare, other than the effect of attempts to reduce the cost of bringing up the cattle by feeding cows with waste meat, making a carnivore (and a cannibal, when the waste meat in question was bovine in origin) of a herbivore, a gentle and patient animal, which has been man's companion since the dawn of agriculture? Added to this are “soil-free" farming to increase productivity, water pollution in certain areas (Brittany, for example) due to excessive porcine waste (it was no longer fit for children to drink), the cruelty of battery chicken farming, the disappearance of an unbelievable number of varieties of fruit in favour of the generalised production of the variety with the highest performance in terms of weight, getting rid of proteinaceous pasture in favour of increased cassava imports (cheaper, because it is imported from poor countries which are fully prepared to destroy their soil in the name of big business)... what battles were fought, back then, to reform the CAP whilst safeguarding the nature, traditions and countryside of Europe!
Our ancestors knew... Back in times of the "mad cow" affair, I proved, with the help of far more cultured people than I, that our forerunners knew the mortal dangers of feeding herbivores with animal meal. In his treatise on animals, Plutarch was already talking about the madness of bovines turned carnivores, and in 1923, Rudolf Steiner described the mechanism: the herbivore which is fed with meat "fills up with uric acid, which leads to a weakness of the nervous system and the brain the acid reaches the brain and the cow or bull becomes mad". With his inimitable style, Guido Ceronetti criticised our methods of rearing cattle: "Long, punishing journeys by sea and by rail, hysterectomies to put foetuses into incubators, incessant injections, force feeding impregnated with chemical horror in the dark and almost paralysed, chains, mutilations (...). And what the analyses cannot show: the negative energy with which each molecule of a sensitive creature treated like an inanimate object is imbued, and the concentration in the man who eats it of the residue of its terror and despair". Ceronetti's indignation was not reserved solely for cattle-rearing: "the destruction of olive groves is a crime which, if our ideas about the relationship is between men/earth/heaven were correct, would be punishable by death. Know, cowards, that your heads will roll for every olive tree cut down". Excessive? Don't be alarmed: this is the language of the prophets, Ceronetti wouldn't hurt a fly. But he helps us to understand why Europe should protect its agriculture, its biodiversity (which is already so badly compromised), its traditions, its countryside, and reject world free trade in this field. Let's hear again from Ceronetti, who travelled through parts of Tuscany and the French countryside: "all of a sudden, something has changed in the countryside which had remained unchanged for 4000 years, and man's soul is the sadder".
The manifold functions of agriculture. In 1997, after lengthy debates which I tried to sum up and which concluded three months of negotiations on one draft, the Agriculture Council approved a document laying down the principle of the multifunctional nature of agricultural activity, which at one and the same time provides food for the population and guarantees Europe's independence of food supply, safeguards our natural environment, protects biodiversity, guarantees the upkeep of the countryside, allows the territorial balance to be respected, provides an essential contribution to the vitality of the rural area (80% of the community territory), answers the concerns and demands of the consumers in terms of the quality and safety of the food they eat, and respects animal well-being. Given these manifold functions, agricultural activity must be supported throughout the European territory, including less-favoured and mountainous areas. In mid-December 1997, this text was unanimously approved by the European Council, laying down the rights and duties of farmers. The President of the Agriculture Council ,Fernand Boden, said: "we cannot subject farmers, upon whom we impose constraints in terms of social clauses, environmental protection, animal well-being and the quality and safety of their products, to the unfair competition of trade partners who are not subject to the same constraints". These assurances gave the EU the right to react sternly to abuses by farmers and to reduce their "guaranteed incomes", which were making the biggest landowners rich. In return for this, all animal bone meal is banned from feed destined for herbivores, farmers may no longer pollute the water without let or hindrance (in certain areas, agricultural activities had become the number one factor of pollution, ahead of the chemicals industry) and export subsidies, which made the biggest traders rich, have been radically reduced. Varieties of vegetables which had all but disappeared from our tables are once again grown widely, traditional birds and insects are reappearing and the prospects for the countryside to be protected are improving, efforts to revitalise rural areas (even, and especially, for non-agricultural activities) are starting to bear fruit. And it is precisely this moment that various politicians have chosen to launch their attack on European agricultural activity, recommending the drastic reduction of funding and the total opening up of European borders to world production! And make no mistake about it: without sufficient funding, and without a reasonable level of protection on our borders, 80% of agricultural activity in Europe would go and our continent would turn into vast swathes of desert, broken up by the occasional enormous city stuffed full with tens of millions of people on the fringes of our failing society.
The issue, therefore, is not whether continental Europe should safeguard its agriculture, its territorial balance, its traditions and its countryside, in full respect of the conclusions of the Summit of 1997 on the multifunctionality of agriculture, with the need to conserve agricultural activity throughout the territory of Europe. The issue is constantly improving policies allowing these objectives to be met, whilst avoiding abuse and wastage. Is the cost of the CAP today excessive? Is our border protection abusive? I will try to put together a few elements of an answer to these questions tomorrow. (F.R.)