A gap to be filled. One of the first measures to be taken by the second Barroso Commission should be to decide on an overview for farming in the European Union and the rest of the world. The failure to come up with this overview was a failing of the first Barroso Commission, in my view. Managing the common agricultural policy (CAP) is just one small aspect of the EU's responsibilities, which also include tackling famine in the world, protecting nature and biodiversity, trade policy, development policy and more besides. The European Commission regularly examines these areas of course, but sporadically and taking each in turn rather than developing a genuine collective broad brush strategy with all the European commissioners responsible for areas that impact on farming.
This old shortcoming leads to a lack of joined-up thinking in the various EU policies, resulting in permanent and often ridiculous negative side effects. I remember, for example, the European Development Fund (EDF) financing a farming programme in a country in Africa, while at the very same time the Commission was increasing export subsidies for EU meat exports to the same country, resulting in the collapse of the EDF programme. The Agriculture Council in the past, with the aid of the European Commission, endorsed an impeccable, shiny new document on the role of farming in Europe, a document destined for the European summit. It was duly sent to EU foreign ministers who, rather than reading it themselves, simply added it to the pile of dossiers for the heads of state. The heads of state took note of it and the document ended its days wallowing in the dust of the EU archives. It is there to this day, surrounded by a lot of other shiny documents.
Some vital issues. The “big ideas” document that the European Commission should now develop should do some joined-up thinking on issues like:
a) Is farming vital for the European Union to protect nature, traditions and lifestyles? Is it needed for balanced town and country planning to prevent an exodus swelling already shapeless metropolises that are spewing out into the countryside around? Is it needed to safeguard small towns and cities and their cultural lives?
b) Should the EU continue to have a policy for food quality, with rules to ensure high quality products and to protect denominations of origin? If so, should it apply similar rules to imported food in the interests of consumer protection?
d) Does the EU have the right (or the duty for that matter) to become self-sufficient in food? The EU is and will remain the world's main importer of foodstuffs, particularly from poor countries, but it should be able to feed itself if needs be because food autonomy is a precondition for the independence of any continent;
c) Should free trade around the world apply to food and farming under the same rules as apply to industry, or should other factors be taken into account for food and farming rather than expanding world trade for its own sake?
The pitfalls of radical free trade, particularly its disastrous impact on the world's poor. Point c) covers a raft of considerations that deserve in-depth examination. Uncontrolled expansion of the production of certain cash crops in poor countries to maximise export revenue leads to the destruction of forests and other natural habitats, encourages disastrous reliance on a single product and destroys traditional farming and food self-sufficiency to the detriment of local people. These people become dependent on imported food, are forced off their land and have to eke out their lives in often desperate conditions in the shanty-town overspills of nearby towns and cities. Totally free world trade also causes disruption to, or even the disappearance of, farming in the developped world, leading to squeals of protest from the very people who caused the problem in the first place (look at what's happening with US maize).
These issues have been developped at length by specialists, and their research and analysis is freely available. I have referred to it in my column on several occasions. What is lacking is an overview and visibility. The European Commission must act as a college of commissioners and collectively examine all these aspects rather than simply leaving often short-sighted day-to-day management of the CAP to the agriculture commissioner.
Needless to say, the European Parliament should also play its part in developing this “big picture”, rather than simply reacting in a piecemeal and often contradictory manner to the specific sub-issue being examined and voted upon at any particular point in time. (F.R./transl.fl)