Healthy reaction. It is by no means certain that this new wave of populist soundbites against European agriculture will not end up having a positive effect. Let me explain. If, as seems reasonable, we concede that the overall reflection on the future of Europe will just about have time to get started during this current six-month period (see this column yesterday), but at the same time, we will have to recognise that the EU is compelled to take a position in the near future on a few fundamental problems, for the very simple reason that these decisions are urgent, particularly those on: the borders of the Union (with possible Turkish accession), external economic relations (ahead of WTO negotiations) and agriculture (with budgetary choices). I would give the priority to agriculture, because this dossier is starting to evolve positively. Starting with the good news is always encouraging, for the person writing it as well as the person reading it.
It is amazing that people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are still busy deploring the fact that the EU spends 40% of its budget on an activity which represents 4% of employment and 2% of the GDP of the Union, and feel that agriculture (going along with their mentor, Professor André Sapir) is an "activity in decline". It is comforting that these days, this kind of nonsense is getting more and more reactions; I feel a lot less isolated. The former Belgian Minister for foreign affairs and current European Commissioner for Development Cooperation, Louis Michel, told a press conference that agricultural activities affect not 4 or 5%, but 100% of the European population. A prestigious Institute observed that the "Gordon Brown/Sapir calculation" of the percentage of the population affected by agriculture is like assessing the interests of research on the basis of the number of researchers and concluding that research affects less than 1% of the population! This would be ridiculous and absurd; and any calculation based on the number of farmers is just as illogical. As for the commercial aspect, several commentators have flagged up the assessment by the European Commission, indicating that the application of normal WTO rules to agricultural products would mean that 6 million agricultural businesses, out of the 7 million which existed in the old EU of 15, would go to the wall, with the result of the destruction of European countryside and the ecological, social and cultural disintegration of our continent (as well as putting an end to any possibility of European food aid to poorer countries).
Research on agriculture, a positive alliance. The artificial comparison between what Europe spends on research and what it spends on agriculture was demolished on several fronts, with the observation that expenditure on research already exceeds the rate of 2% of European GDP (the objective of bringing it up to 3% has been agreed to in principle), whereas agricultural expenditure is between 0.3% and 0.4% (a shade more than a third of the budget of the EU, which corresponds to 1% of European GDP). The difference of visibility between the two categories is based on the fact that research is mainly paid for out of national budgets and by business (even though adequate levels of European funding remains essential for joint action and coordination), whereas agricultural activity is almost wholly paid for out of the European Community budget. It is true that the recent statements by Professor Sapir are not calling for an end to agricultural expenditure, but for it to be transferred to the national budgets. However, this is a false remedy (unless it is applied to a modest percentage), because various Member States are not in a position to foot the bill, which would mean that the safeguarding of the environment, biodiversity (which is absolutely essential) and the countryside, etc, would be determined by the respective economic situations in each of the States. The richest countries would be the most favoured, competition would be distorted, and the essential principle that agricultural activity must be maintained on the whole of the territory of the Union would fall by the wayside.
There is nothing new in the above for seasoned readers of this column. What's new is that certain ideas have run their course; the Europeans are finally starting to understand just how important agricultural activity is for their civilisation. Within the corridors of the European Commission, the idea that adequate and essential funding for the new European programme of research could be paid for by cutting agricultural expenditure is now old hat. Agriculture and research are not rival objectives, but they are complementary, and many aspects of them are closely linked: health, safety and quality of products, protection of environment (the EU has finally had this discussion at ministerial level), reducing the use of chemicals, et cetera.
A few enlightening phrases by Jean-Claude Juncker are to be added to this gradual awareness-taking; I will take stock of this tomorrow, with a few other significant points. (F.R.)