Prospects for the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) review are improving and it could prove to be a more positive review than those of previous years. The usefulness, indeed, necessity of yet another review is without question, because difficulties and abuses of the system persist and financial support sometimes continues to favour the big landowners and big business. At the same time, environmental demands regarding quality products continue to increase and overall, the spirit in which the new reform is planned is more reasonable.
New mind-set, new priorities. Previously, member states, businesses, competing non-EU countries and certain bodies that sought to protect the interests of poor countries, aimed at destroying the CAP by totally opening up the EU's borders to products from the whole world. The destruction of essential elements of European civilisation, landscape and traditions was not of any concern at all to the enemies of the CAP and the idea of Europe's food self-sufficiency was not even taken into account. Minds are now more open. The recent world shortages of certain foods, the growing need for food products in poor countries, in addition to speculation in global food prices and greater ecological awareness and demands for quality, are the reasons behind this development. Even the concept of a reasonable level of food autonomy for the EU is no longer considered as heresy. The public and political leaders (in particular, and importantly, MEPs) give the impression that they are increasingly understanding to what extent an appropriately developed CAP is vital for Europe and even indispensable to the world. In this connection, the new review does not aim at the destruction of a significant part of European farming but rather, an improvement of the CAP by reducing its use of pesticides and other chemical products, simplifying administrative charges and facilitating the expansion of rural areas, not artificially through the volume of agricultural production but by improving quality and developing collateral activities: tourism, sport and culture. Changes are still necessary and some of the mistakes should be criticised (the most recent involves the project on rosé wine obtained from a mixture of red and white wines) but progress is being made.
Public opinion is evolving. What is new, however, is that the public better understand the role of farming, even in member states that are traditionally in favour of unbridled and unregulated global free trade. It is increasingly better explained and understood that the unregulated opening up of the borders is not in the least desirable because: it lays waste to many aspects of European agricultural production, which the world increasingly needs; it speeds up environmental degradation and harm to natural landscapes and traditions; it goes against both the aspirations of the people and natural and healthy food, and worsens global food shortages and the risk of famine.
Obviously nothing should be taken as read yet and at the moment, the crisis in the important milk sector is provoking difficulties and dissention. The way in which the Council is responding to the crisis, however, and the flexibility and understanding displayed by the Commission itself, appear to me to confirm that the new mind-set is continuing to make headway. At the same time, the Commission is producing a plethora of initiatives that correspond to the aspirations of farmers and especially the people. The Commission aims to extend and deepen specific regulations on organic farming and quality products (labelling, stricter geographical indications etc) and there is a guideline on consumers being able to find out where the products they consume come from. The Commission even intends to better protect and relaunch mountain farming, which is more expensive but which offers a range of specific products.
European Parliament will become decisive. In the institutional context, the European Parliament will play an increasingly important role when its budgetary powers cover the entire CAP (if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force); the farmers in Ireland and elsewhere who voted against the treaty might have to pay a high price for their slide into Euro-scepticism.
I will not be talking about the advantages of EU policy for the countries threatened by shortages or even famine, because this column discussed them at length (EUROPE 9890 and 9891) on the basis of UN documents which, in my opinion, introduced clear and definitive opinions establishing the right to food as a priority over commercial interests. (F.R./transl.rh)