A few concerns. The EU requires a comprehnsive strategy for respondng to all challenges in the agricultural arena, in the broadest sense of the term: production, trade, environmental protection, biodiversity and the fight against hunger etc (see this column yesterday). While waiting for this strategy to be defined by the new Commision, the institutions have to manage the common agricultural policy (CAP) on a day to day basis as it now stands, beginning with the milk crisis. They have to do it, obviously, with the instruments that exist ; but while striving to have a broader vision of the stakes at play, as well as the general interest. The position of the European Commission, however, is creating a number of concerns. We have to ask ourselves whether the commissioner for agriculture, Ms Fischer Boel, has understood the the different political, social, economic and environmental aspects involved.
She is certainly bound by the decisions already taken, as well as the orientations defined by the Council itself on the future of the milk market organisation. She has proposed or adopted several measures to help milk producers and will be announcing further measures. Our publication regularly reports on this matter and will continue to do so comprehensively and objecively. The commissioner has at the same time reaffirmed her misgivings about milk market regulation covering production volume and prices, and she continues to oppose the orientations that are widely supported at the Council: 20 member states, which could grow to 21 if Greece is added to the list, and which account for 95% of all Community milk production. Without wishing to question the autonomy and prerogatives of the Commission in managing the CAP, is it possible to discount the positions of member states to such an extent? Particularly when the European Parliament is going in the same direction and when its powers regarding CAP management, especially funding, are going to be significantly expanded under the Lisbon Treaty?
Demagogic reaction? There are also concerns about the agriculture commissioner's reaction to the milk producers' most spectacular initiatives aimed at alerting the public. In an address to ministers, she denounced the message that Europe would have sent to the rest of the world when millions of gallons of milk were poured on the ground. She considered that the image created by this action, released during a meeting of African and Latin American leaders, harmed Europe's reputation in poor countries at a time when starvation is becoming an increasing problem in the world - European producers engaged in the large-scale destruction of foodstuffs in order to claim more subsidies.
Such a portrayal, in my opinion, involves a demagogic component because it leaves out several factors in the situation. If the EU follows the policy advocated by the Commissioner, the farmers involved will produce less milk; there will be no more product destruction but fewer products and the effect on the fight against hunger will be the same. This consideration is valid for all the other measures that would result in reducing European agricultural production. It should not be forgotten that cows cannot be “laid off temporarily”, they need to be cared for every day or be slaughtered. If the price of milk is below the production cost, giving up this activity becomes inevitable and no relief is provided to the hungry of the world. If we also take into consideration the fact that journalists and other observers who followed the demonstration noticed that the milk had been watered down, and that there was as much water as milk, the demonstration was largely symbolic. In other respects, the Commission's report on the milk market recognises that the supply chain is not working efficiently, and that the big suppliers and processing industry have radically reduced the prices paid to milk producers, without this fall in prices being passed on to consumers. It is in this connection that intervention is perhaps required and prices paid to producers assessed, without ignoring, of course, the demands by producers regarding their production costs and improving and rationalising their farming activities.
Environmental risks. If the image depicting farming in this column yesterday were already a fact, the European institutions would be more attentive to the environmental risks involved in the increase in intensive farming in the world. The EU has been concerned about this for a long time, with regard to domestic production and has taken a number of measures to tackle the question of imports. It could take the initiative of organising an international-level discussion, given the scale of developments and risks involved. This column will return to this issue tomorrow, as well as other developments confirming demands to coordinate the different response to the ramifications on farming.
(F.R./transl.rh)