Stating that agriculture represents a political, strategic and economic priority for Europe today (see this column of the day before yesterday) does not equate to a lack of awareness of the need to revise the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On the contrary: once the importance of this policy is recognised, it will be easier to condemn the errors, waste and abuses associated with it and stamp them out. In practice, reflections have already begun, although they will not become formal until the second half of this year. France, which will then preside over the Council, is preparing itself. Michel Barnier, the Agriculture Minister, transported his entire cabinet to Brussels last week, included two national members of parliament in the French delegation at the Agriculture Council, and participated in the conference “Adapting the CAP to the new realities” organised by the organisation “Friends of Europe”. He has also stressed the key role of the current Slovenian Presidency, which is, in his view, just as important as his own country's future presidency: “What France can do will be based on the results of the Slovenian Presidency.”
Budgetary considerations can wait. It is, moreover, impossible to separate radically the ongoing debate as part of the CAP health check and the debate on the future, since the immediate decisions will in part determine future orientations. The measures resulting from the health check are expected in the summer, or beginning of the autumn, in the first phase of the French Presidency; the debate on the revisions of the CAP will open the informal Council of 20, 21 and 22 September in Annecy, will all eyes on what the CAP will become after 2013 when the current financial provisions expire. Mr Barnier has announced that he will present a “strategy paper” in Annecy. He wants reflections to focus first on the content and objectives of the new CAP, and for the “funding” aspect to wait until later to take account of the objectives which are retained (see our bulletin 9587). The financial aspect will therefore not be negotiated under the French Presidency but will probably wait until the new Parliament and Commission take up their positions in 2009. This enables Mr Barnier to foresee that his country will then oppose a reduction in credits associated with the CAP and the re-nationalisation of spending.
Starting points… It is, of course, not up to the Presidency to anticipate the results of the Council's reflections, in which all the Member States will be protagonists. The roles of the Commission and Parliament, too, will be key. In his speech to the Friends of Europe conference, Michel Barnier recalled what he thought she be the starting point for reflections: world food production needs to double by 2050 in order to feed humanity and confront changes in dietary habits; at the moment food production is less than the demand and reserves are very low; the expansion of production must respect the requirements of sustainability, safety and quality. In Europe agricultural activity should not be concentrated in certain areas or regions, as it is in the USA, but rather should be spread throughout the territory, and an “institutional structure” will remain vital. The CAP will certainly be somewhat revised in order to become more equitable and sustainable, but it will represent a pillar of European activity together will the new policies on energy, research and immigration.
… which are not shared by all. Will these starting points be shared? Nothing is less certain, since in that very same Friends of Europe meeting the representative of the Swedish government expressed opinions which were radically different. In his view, the current increase in agricultural prices should allow CAP spending to be reduced: farmers are earning more money and can invest. Either way, efforts must be continued to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture, and to get rid of not only export refunds but also production subsidies, towards zero, because agriculture is an economic activity like any other and farmers are business people like any others. The idea that competitiveness at any price has already caused thousands of plant varieties to be abandoned in Europe and that it caused mad cow disease (it is “more competitive” to feed calves with animal meal than their mothers' milk) and nitrate poisoning in water does not seem to trouble the Swedish authorities.
As we can see, the starting points are clear. Let the debate begin.
(F.R.)