Increasing role of European Parliament. A third article focusing on the CAP review in the same week? My aim is actually much wider and seeks to underline the extent that progress has been made with regard to the conviction of agriculture being much more than just agriculture alone. Who still thinks today, which was the case a few years ago, that the EU must not place too much importance on agriculture because it only directly occupies a very small segment of the European labour force and an almost insignificant percentage of the EU's GDP? Agriculture is in fact decisive for the future of the whole of humanity and the world. Uncontrolled population growth is dependent on agriculture for its food, as are changes to the environment and climate and protection of the seas. It is no longer minority opinions or corporatist interests that affirm this but a general awareness, for example, at the European Parliament. It is important that the citizens who vote in the new Parliament are aware of this.
Parliament's position has already considerably evolved. The agricultural budget is still not within its remit because it represents “compulsory spending” as defined by the Council on the basis of the Commission's proposal. The Lisbon Treaty, however, will get rid of this anomaly by extending the EP's powers to the whole of the EU budget. In anticipation of this development, MEPs have already changed the views they previously held and support a new vision on agricultural policy as a whole. The fear of Parliament being dominated by the traditional enemies of the CAP (a fear behind the notion of “compulsory spending” being outside the EP's remit) is now a thing of the past and, on the contrary, its increase in powers reinforces the sense of responsibility. The tone of the agricultural debates at the EP has changed, the previous superficiality has been overcome, as has the majority rhetoric calling for the complete opening up of the agricultural borders, which falsely considered this as benefitting poor countries.
An important report. As an example, I will quote the report by Katerina Batzeli, which was adopted two months ago (390 votes in favour, 112 against, with 71 abstentions) by a majority and goes much further than the political group for which she is the rapporteur (Socialist Group). All political groups, despite the presentation of an alternative resolution during the plenary, gave their support to European farming and consumer interests against the abuses committed by the trade and distribution chains. The EP called for clarification with regard to factors that provoke an excessive disparity between production prices and those paid by consumers. In this connection, it also denounced the decisive role played by increasing supply chain concentration, speculation on basic agricultural products and other external non-production costs. It called on the European Commission to put its projects into practice and create an efficient market follow-up system, as well as an extensive electronic database, accessible to citizens, which indicates product prices at source, in addition to the real distribution costs. Above all, the supply of agricultural products must be diversified by developing producer organisations, cooperatives and other similar structures. The result would be greater bargaining power exercised by the farmers, given their increased proximity to distribution and consumer networks. The EP's position was explained in detail in EUROPE 9871.
I have used this as a symbolic example of what the European Parliament has done and more importantly, what it can do. Nonetheless, I could have used other examples, such as the position demanding a universal declaration on animal welfare, where the report by Ms Mairead McGuinness criticised the WTO's shift towards unlimited liberalisation of international agricultural trade.
Two remarks. I would like to say something about the election campaign. Once again, voters have had to swallow the usual sarcasm about a Europe that spends its time defining the size of peas and the length of asparagus. It is obvious that all international legislation includes rules of this kind and political leaders sign them without even knowing they exist. The greatest leaders in history have signed texts of this sort. Sarcasm on this subject seeks to be funny but is in fact tiresome. European provisions of this nature have always responded to the demands made by member states. With the goal of simplification, standards on 26 types of fruit and vegetables will be removed as of next month. Producers are also protesting on the behalf of consumers. I don't know who's right but we can gauge the level of the Eurosceptics' arguments in this way.
One final comment: it is the CAP that funds the “restaurants du Coeur” (restaurants for the poor and homeless) and other similar initiatives which, without the agricultural budget, would not exist. (F.R./transl.rh)