The legend of the excessive costs. The detractors of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy of the EU) criticise it essentially for its cost and protectionist nature. It is true that to start with, the proportion of the CAP as a whole of the Community budget was excessive: it exceeded 60% of the total. The reason for this was simple: it was the first jointly-financed European policy, and it remained the only one for a long time. Today, the cost of the CAP is less than 40% of the budget, and this percentage will continue to fall, because other policies supported by the European budget are coming into play. The total funds for the Cohesion Policy, to support member states and regions which are lagging behind, have already outstripped the total budget for the CAP. Other budgets are increasing, particularly the budget for research and development. The new “financial perspectives” to be negotiated for the post-2013 period will consolidate these changes.
One must also take into account the fact that agriculture is, and will remain, the only policy of which the cost is almost entirely European: the budget of the EU replaces national expenditure, what is funded by the entire Community is no longer paid for by individual states. According to certain observers, some of this expenditure could be “re-nationalised” in order to avoid criticism. But this would be politically and socially unacceptable. The richest member states would easily be able to take on the cost of their own national agriculture: hectare-based subsidies, price support, risk coverage. But the less well-off member states would not; the result would be to create two categories of farmers within the EU: the haves and the have-nots.
A correct development of the cost of Europe's agriculture should take account of global public expenditure, both European and national. The most recent available data (for the year 2005) indicate the following division of public expenditure within the EU: 5.22% of national product for the education/training sector; 0.67% for research/development; 0.54% for agriculture (0.38% of which is paid for out of the European budgets, 0.15% by national budgets); 0.46% for public aid to the developing countries. If we take account of the total significance of agriculture, not only as a source of food, but also for the environment, biodiversity and regional equilibrium, its costs are reasonable. An assessment based on the percentage of farmers as a ratio of the total population is meaningless. An evaluation of the “cost of non-CAP” (as was once carried out on the “cost of non-Europe”) would be extremely useful. The objective is not to spend less, but to spend better.
What is not negotiable. The second criticism levelled at the CAP, that of protectionism, is no more founded in reality than the first. At the end of the Second World War, food shortages were a reality. Hungry children and their massive, imploring eyes, were European. Anybody who has never seen them - good for you. The absolute priority concern of the CAP and the first person in charge of it, Sicco Mansholt, was to boost food production. This objective required the “Community preference” and production subsidies and guarantees. This was achieved with impressive speed and efficiency, and it is true that the administrative machinery set in place to do so then attracted abuse and advantage-taking: destruction of surplus food, butter mountains condemned to sit there until they went off, distilled wine earmarked for destruction, abuse in export “restitutions”. Infringements were, over time, corrected and surpluses led to the creation of “charity soup kitchens”, the distribution of fruit in schools (which continues) and, above all, allowed Europe to help to tackle food crises throughout the world. The total opening-up of the borders of the EU to agricultural products from anywhere in the world would have killed agricultural activity and would have led to the Europe of today being defenceless in the face of the “food blackmail” which would then have been possible (see this column in our bulletin 9590).
It is true that production levels are negotiable. But the development and the prospects of the global food situation require us to safeguard Europe's substantial food autonomy. What politician would like to stand up today and admit that the EU is not able to feed its own population? The “Community preference” must be adapted - it must become more articulated, no longer based on just tariff or quantitative protection, but, above all, on qualitative criteria. What would be the point of standards on the safety of food products, respect for animals, the protection of denominations of origin, if we allowed in products which do not respect similar conditions? How would European farmers be able to face competition from farmers not obliged to observe the same obligations? Guaranteeing the quality and safety of products is not protectionism.
(F.R.)