Born in 1957, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is now more than 50 years old. The European Commission is proposing that this middle-aged entity should have what it calls a health check. But superficial repairs and some patching up will not meet the future needs of the European Union. The CAP has to be born again.
Work on its renewal is due to start now, with the completed project ready in 2013. But a much more profound re-think is needed. The CAP’s original aim was to provide a secure source of food for the community. The six original member states of the Union were importers of food, and sought a degree of self-sufficiency. Good, healthy and cheap food had to be accessible for all their citizens. Improved agricultural productivity would benefit rural areas and give farmers a comparative share in the growing wealth of the Union. Appropriate instruments to achieve those objectives were developed, and food security was achieved. The CAP quickly came to be seen as the jewel in the crown of the European project.
As the European Union has evolved and expanded, food systems have become more complex, involving production, processing, chain organisation, wholesale and retail distribution, with all of these involving new issues like health and the environment. The proper use of the land itself is also receiving more serious scrutiny; a 1991 study by the Netherlands Scientific Council for Governmental Policy “Ground for Choices” demonstrated that the EU’s food supply could be met with 50% less cultivated land, reducing pesticides by 80% and at 50% less cost. Pollution would be reduced by 70% as a result of fewer nitrates in the surface water, and there would be a cut in greenhouse gases.
Those figures were for an EU of 15 countries, so with today’s 27 members the possibilities are even greater. An analysis of land use by the Dutch has shown that by employing the best technical and ecological means on the best available land, substantial gains can be made in food production so it is not surprising that the number of farmers needed has fallen substantially. Looked at from the standpoint of food security and the wealth of rural areas, there is now an urgent need to revisit the CAP’s main instruments so that a new policy formula can be introduced. Perverse subsidies have to be removed and recent new ones favouring products such as bio-fuels have to be given fresh consideration.
Traditional thinking directed at maintaining the status quo clearly has to be broken. Rural policy in the Union is too often narrowed down to income guarantees for the farming community. But that attitude is undermining change. Competition within the farming community has to be encouraged as more rural entrepreneurship will strengthen the position of the farming community, with fewer farmers but better farming. A simplified CAP will deal with cleaner, more productive and efficient agriculture. A side benefit for the EU’s standing in the world could be that the World Trade Organisation’s stalled Doha negotiations could be restarted once farmers in developing countries can be assured of setting a fair deal from Europe.
The CAP has in years past helped to integrate the diverse countries of Europe. But it has now become an object of contention with heated arguments over its cost and effects. These also come at a time when the whole issue of European unification is under scrutiny and the Lisbon treaty for expansion had to be suspended. Even those in favour of European integration criticise EU over-regulation because it creates a picture of a cold, disrespectful bureaucracy without democratic control that undermines national loyalties yet is often widely seen as the real face of Europe. In the Netherlands and elsewhere, support for populist movements has grown enormously with all this jeopardising the unifying power of Europe, even though in reality the EU is a wealthy and coherent area now experiencing a new renaissance. There are said to be some 50 potential trouble spots in Europe where economic difficulties, discrimination against minorities and other factors threaten trouble, but even so the big picture is of a continent more peaceful, coherent and wealthy than in any previous era.
The CAP’s role as a motor of political and social integration could be restored once suitable policies of renewal are in place. But a renewal of this sort cannot be left to global market forces as the results might not necessarily be to the benefit of European agriculture and society. If the market “misbehaves” own farmers could be reduced to poverty, leading to the neglect of large areas of Europe. That is a real enough danger for policymakers to give serious thought to reforming the CAP on the basis of the following five pillars.
1. The EU needs a knowledge and innovation policy that strengthens the competitiveness of European agriculture. It’s a policy that has been very successful in the Netherlands, substantially contributing to the development and power of the country’s agri-business. Ten out of 21 branches of Dutch agri-business, including horticultural seeds, ornamentals, seed potatoes and veal, are among the top contributors to the national economy and the country’s trade balance. In the EU as a whole, a policy directed towards research programmes stimulating scientific excellence and greater coherence in the European knowledge system would greatly strengthen agriculture’s competitive ability and contribute to food security and sustainable development.
2. Europe also needs a restructuring policy for land use. Many structural improvement programmes have been financed at European level, but agricultural production and land use are not among them. The development of an agricultural main structure would compliment the European Ecological Main Structure, and reforestation and the repair of natural ecosystems should also be part of a land use policy.
3. A policy for European food systems would treat production, processing and distribution, logistics and retailing in combination. Consumption patterns and preferences are an integral part of such systems. Preliminary studies at the European Science Foundation’s “Forward Look on European Food Systems” could prove useful in devising an EU-wide policy.
4. Metropolitan agriculture in a rapidly urbanising world can provide high quality produce on small amounts of land. It offers an answer to rising demand for healthy food with minimal environmental side effects.
5. A new-style CAP should include a policy to safeguard our landscapes. But a cultural heritage should not be maintained everywhere, nor should it be irrespective of cost. And it should not be a defensive policy of the sort that tends to concentrate on poor quality land.
These five pillars involve drastic choices, but they probably require less money from Europe’s tax payers, not more. They could make a very real contribution to cleaner, more productive and efficient farming and land use, and they also address the needs of society. A radically re-thought could make a major contribution to Europe’s food security and its sustainable development, and would strengthen the EU’s positive influence in the world.