Two key principles. One might have hoped that the worrying developments in the world's food situation and the uncontrolled movements of agricultural prices would have brought about unanimous awareness in Europe of the role of agriculture. This has not been the case. The two key principles for the EU - food autonomy (which in no way means the end of imports but the possibility of feeding its population without being subject to blackmail of every kind) and the safeguarding of agricultural activity throughout its territory - are still partly challenged. The informal meeting of the Agriculture Council which has just unfolded in Annecy has proven that the interests of big retailers continue to prevail here and there and that the evolution of public opinion, albeit evident does not always have repercussions at political level.
Goods like any other? Of course, fine speeches and encouraging stances were not lacking in Annecy and Michel Barnier, who had organised and chaired the work, was able to note the unanimous resolve to “safeguard Community agricultural policy to raise the food, environmental, territorial and health challenges”. However, he went on to say, there are “contrasting views as to the content, tools and budget of this policy” (see our bulletin No 9746). There have always been differences, but one might have thought that what is happening in the world would have weakened the tendency to consider farm products like any other goods - subject to the same market opening and to the same competition rules as industrial products. It is true that Mr Barnier has noted that some 20 member states hope to keep market regulation tools in the CAP as well as a budget allowing the characteristic food, agricultural and territorial model of Europe to be safeguarded. However, the six or seven countries showing reluctance include the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, plus a number of more recent member states, and one must above all remember that this assessment, figures in hand, only concerns agriculture minsters, that is those who should be most sensitive to the significance and needs of the sector under their responsibility. What will happen once the European agricultural debate goes up to the level of foreign and finance ministers and to the level of heads of government? A few years ago, the Agriculture Council had reached unanimous conclusions about the role of agricultural activity in Europe. The summit had noted these conclusions but without taking the trouble to read them and this document, developed at length, had come to rest in the archives of Europe - it is still there among the thousands of others that no-one reads.
Urgency. Aware of Europe's ability to swallow up tonnes of documents without following them up, Mr Barnier, supported by colleagues of his with the same phenomenal memory, is taking the lead in beginning a battle of procedure to ensure that the debate on CAP reform is initiated immediately, without waiting for talks to take place on the EU's financial perspectives for the post 2013 period. The aim is clear: to prevent the fate of European agriculture - which will determine food security, the quality of food, territorial balance, the safeguarding of landscapes and the traditions of tomorrow's Europe - from becoming the subject of purely budgetary haggling, in which all aspects of European activity will vie with each other for a share in the financial resources available. In a moment of lucidity, Mariann Fischer Boel foresaw that there will be “enormous pressure on the European budget and fierce competition between the various spending priorities”. It would be distressing if Europe were to find itself tomorrow in the situation of having to snatch scraps of financing for the only sector that comes under total European financing (replacing national spending) and on which its food autonomy depends (essential for true independence), the safeguarding of its nature and its territorial balance.
CAP for everyone who wants it? The substantive debate must therefore begin immediately and at an appropriate level, without depending on the interests of the big retailers or on other pressure groups (European or on the outside). Some governments stress that the current discussion should only cover the CAP “health check” involving a few adjustments of the mechanisms in force. If this reduced interpretation were to prevail, it would be a bad sign for Europe. One would then have to reflect upon the possibility of a substantial CAP bringing together member states that consider it as the first and most essential of all common policies. Participation would be voluntary, and the countries that prefer to leave would of course not only give up the financial mechanisms but also the trade preferences that the CAP would keep for its participants.
(F.R./transl.jl)