The European Commission has done what it had to do and is quite satisfied. Its communication on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) health check will no doubt be of some service to those who work in the sector as it gathers together some interesting facts, but it lacks vision when it comes to what farming means for Europe and for the world. From this point of view, it is worthless, and one can understand that some farm ministers have sounded a note of warning: - there is no link between this text (published in our series EUROPE/Documents No2470) and the debate expected on the future of CAP.
In its “health check”, the Commission ignores the three fundamental issues: 1) Is significant, if not growing, agricultural activity necessary for Europe's natural balance? 2) Is it the EU's duty to maintain a high degree of food autonomy? 3) Is there a vital need for European agriculture in a world threatened by famine and desertification?
Original objectives betrayed. One could say it is not the role of a “health check” to answer such questions. But “technical” measures influence what is essential. By taking a stance in favour of total uncoupling between farm production and support for farmers, the Commission determines the latter's role in society. By being careful not to take a stance on maintaining Community preference (hence protection at borders), it condemns maintaining agricultural activity in Europe. It betrays the original objectives of the CAP which are to: - ensure agricultural supply security and autonomy for the peoples of Europe; - improve productivity; - ensure farmers have an equitable standard of living; - safeguard the territorial balance of member states by combating the desertification of rural areas; - and stabilise the markets by making prices affordable for consumers. Over the years, these objectives have been specified with the addition, in particular, of the principle of making farming sustainable in all member states. Worldwide developments and projections for the future make it an obligation for Europe to help combat food shortages in other continents.
Recalling such objectives is not simply in order to court popularity. I tend rather to believe that, as things stand at present, omitting them would be a crime against humanity.
Two highly costly false aims. The CAP had begun to deteriorate when its original objectives were gradually replaced by: an unlimited search for productivity in farming; and unconditional global competition. Europe paid very dearly when it submitted to such principles, and the consequences of this were: a) the “mad cow” disease, resulting from efforts to reduce the cost of livestock farming at all costs by feeding cattle that have been herbivores since time began with meat and bone meal; b) excessive use of chemical fertilisers, herbicides, etc, which has caused nitrate poisoning of water; and c) the elimination of a countless number of plant varieties replaced by varieties that grow faster and are more profitable. Fortunately, seeds have largely been saved by university institutes, and are beginning to spring up again here and there. But some dangers persist - such as that for honey, hence for bees, hence for the pollination of flowers, hence for springtime.
Counting on member states. How far can the EU count on the European Commission to defend its food autonomy, its nature, its landscapes and its traditions? The agriculture/external trade twosome formed a few years ago by Franz Fischler and Pascal Lamy (who signed joint positions at the time) has had no successor. The current Mariann Fischer Boel/Peter Mandelson twosome is, for such aspects, painfully inadequate. So we have to count on the member states, some of which are proving that they have understood what is at stake, while others are still wavering. I find the stance taken by the northern countries quite incomprehensible - they seek to safeguard their marginal agricultural sectors (which I consider essential from the point of view of culture and nature), while generally supporting total opening of the EU's agricultural borders. They will deserve support for their national demands when they support European farming as a whole. I would say the same for Dutch flowers, Irish meat, German soft fruit, and bananas from the British overseas territories.
The EU must not confuse the aspects of the CAP on which it must give way (such as export subsidies) with what is vital. For now, the debate is focused on several aspects of management, such as a possible ceiling for subsidies (an example of a proposal put forward without sufficient reflection). And then it is the survival of European farming that one must bear in mind. (F.R.)