Controlling expansion. The milk sector is currently at the centre of the news, analysis and indeed criticism about the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP) because what the current affairs say goes (see this column yesterday). Concerns about the colossal development in world cattle farming and demands to control it also feature in the news. Recent studies claim that this activity is responsible for more than 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world: more than the transport sector! Japanese scientists have calculated that a kilo of beef generates 36 kg of CO2, in addition to methane and nitrous oxide. In some regions in the world, changes in food habits and parallel efforts to develop exports to Europe and elsewhere are putting forests and other traditional habitats in danger. Without accepting every claim made about impending doom and gloom, which are sometimes artificially inflated, the EU ought to take the matter into account and debate it at an international level.
Indispensable vigilance. Europe has already been confronted at a domestic level with the dangers of excessive expansion of certain animal production, such as pig farming in Brittany, the effects of which included massive levels of nitrates in water, making it undrinkable and creating an invasion of green algae on the beaches. At the moment, it is the question of global cattle farming that is creating concerns. Certain countries have already begun to act. Brazil has proposed guidelines that have provided some reassurances, and elsewhere, alternative rearing methods are suggested as a way of tackling the huge increase in world meat consumption (while waiting for the human race to one day give up eating it?). In the short term, the EU has to step up its monitoring of its own production conditions by taking into account animal welfare and putting limits on the transport of live animals and so on. However, it should not ignore the question of imports. In the absence of rules on behaviour at a world level, the only result of increasing the rules in Europe would be to transfer production elsewhere, not only for cattle rearing but also for poultry and egg production. Food quality standards are ineffective if they are not applied to imported products. It is not as if I have recently discovered these problems and concerns, the EU has been actively tackling the issues for a long time. We are aware of the measures that have been taken or announced and the controversies arising from them in different third countries. I will underline them in order to reaffirm the global nature of a genuine agricultural policy, which necessarily incorporates trade, environmental protection, the fight against world hunger and Europe's food self-sufficiency.
The US maize affair. It is not just the animal sector that is creating problems at a global level. Defenders of unbridled free trade in the agricultural arena continue to call for an end to subsidies for production in rich countries. In principle, this orientation is justified because it is not financial power that should determine competition between countries and market share. Export subsidies for the most part ought to disappear, including those in the EU (which have been significantly reduced) but we should not have any faith in any facile populist sloganeering.
Let's look at the specific case of US maize. External pressures denouncing subsidies for national production and calling for the opening up to imports, led US farmers to shift to biofuel production. But what actually happened? The same political forces (including some MEPs) that demanded a reduction in aid for maize and the opening up to imported maize subsequently cried foul and made accusations of a crime against humanity being committed! The consequences of what they demanded soon became obvious: without subsidies and by totally opening up the borders, there would no longer be any maize left for food in the US. The situation is the same for European cereal production in general. Statements such as “Europe spends two euros on every cow while millions of human beings don't even have a dollar a week to spend” is pure populism because CAP euros do not go to the cows but to the farmers so that they can send their children to school and have a standard of living that is similar to other citizens, and so that they might even be able to have a few holidays once in a while. It is not just Europe that needs European agricultural production, the whole world needs it. Rules and modalities may need adapting if necessary, and abuses must obviously be eradicated but the principle is not up for discussion.
(F.R./transl.rh)