A development already accepted. Yesterday's column expressed a certain optimism about prospects for the Common Agricultural Policy and referred to a debate that has barely got started: a review of the CAP is planned for 2013. We are in the preparatory phase and the institutions will evolve: most of the ministers who have just been discussing the matter during the informal meeting in Brno will have other roles to play and the European Commission and European Parliament will no longer be the same. It is therefore not the right time to be discussing the possible outcome. I do believe, however, that the main developments indicated in this column yesterday should be considered to have been already accepted. The general climate is not as reticent as it was previously with regard to the very principle of a positive and efficient Common Agricultural Policy, and this is down to four essential reasons: citizens are increasingly anxious to have as healthy and natural foods as possible; the importance of a reasonable level of food autonomy for our continent has finally been recognised at a political level; the safeguarding of traditions, landscape and average towns, which are often glorious and artistically valuable in the face of the uncontrollable sprawl of the mega-cities and their often monstrous suburbs, has become a crying need; the growing risk of global food shortages, due to the uncontrolled rise in the world's population, as well as climate change, is now denounced on all sides.
At some stage, the analysis and debate will subsequently have to tackle other elements which go beyond the four essential points and which fundamentally involve three aspects:
Funding is crucial. The budgetary cost of the CAP continues to decline in percentage terms of the overall EU budget. Previously, it accounted for 60% of total spending and now accounts for around 40% of it and it has been overtaken by other common policies. It should not be forgotten that CAP spending replaces national spending for both market support and structural actions. It also has the significant advantage of allowing for an increasing parity in farmers' income throughout the EU, whereas if spending were national, certain member states would be experiencing enormous problems in tackling this issue.
That said, it has been accepted that current mechanisms will be radically revised and simplified. Debates on this subject have already largely begun between agriculture ministers and the Commission; the informal Council session that has just taken place in Brno facilitated a broad debate on starting positions and on which yesterday's bulletin provided a comprehensive report. Opinions diverge on funding criteria but the importance of direct payments is very broadly appreciated and I quote: “The EU needs to continue the system of direct payments, which provides a safety net to farmers in terms of income, remunerates a benefit to the public (landscape, biodiversity, regional planning) and allows for food security to be guaranteed”. (See the following pages in this bulletin).
An instrument for protecting biodiversity. Mentioning biodiversity in the previous sentence is particularly appropriate because the EU has just acknowledged that its “objective 2010” in this domain will not be met. This is a failure on a global scale and in which the EU is implicated. According to the European Environment Agency, European biodiversity is still significantly under threat and nature is disappearing at a “worrying rate”. The CAP represents one of a number of essential instruments for tackling this dangerous evolution.
New threat to third world. Maintaining and developing the CAP allows Europe to ensure most of its food self-sufficiency and avoid becoming part of the new threat, especially of concern to Africa: the purchase of African lands (or renting them out long term) to develop foodstuffs on them, which are then automatically transferred to the rich countries that organised the operation - mainly South Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Libya and the United Arab Emirates. One study in which two UN bodies (OAA and IFAD) participated in five African countries (Madagascar, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Sudan) indicates that the advantage to African countries is that some of their population gets work, but the renting out of land is almost free and food production automatically goes elsewhere. The situation is even worse when the land rented out is used for producing biofuels (China and Zambia). The authorities in Madagascar and Uganda have already taken action and a discussion of the international ethical code in this field is planned at the next G8.
Thanks to the CAP, the EU is not implicated in these affairs, although it is still the biggest importer of regular African products in the world.
(F.R./transl.rh)