sou · GLB3151 · 1998-01-01 00:00:00 — However, I do not think that producers should suffer penalties in production or environmental charges based on un-scientific grounds. At the end of the chain, this affects consumers via more expensive food and sometimes via poorer quality. The view of the majority is that recycling is an objective for society to strive for. This view has significant shortcomings. In my opinion the use of recycling is one of a number of ways to cut back on the use of resources and to minimize environmental load, but it is not an objective in itself. In the same way, the majority thinks that it is an objective in itself to cut down on transport. In my opinion, this is an incorrect view. Transport of people and goods has been the driving force in the increase in welfare standards which has occurred throughout the world in recent centuries. Without good, well functioning transport, for example, free trade would be meaningless. According to the FAO, in order to cope with supplying the worlds population with food, world trade needs to increase, not decrease. The environmental damage caused by transport has gradually been reduced, and can be reduced still further by new technology. I see a great danger in a return to more isolated societies, and I am not prepared to contribute to such a change. I agree with the majoritys proposal that environmental regulations should be harmonised. The issue of countries imposing restrictions for their own producers is not entirely beneficial. Those producers affected will find themselves in a worse competitive situation than others. 152 Reservations and comments Furthermore, in the environment has been used as a cover for taxing means of production without clarifying environmental consequences. Further thought should be given to this particular issue. Otherwise I share the majoritys opinion with regard to decision-making and finance (chapter 6.4 and 6.5). Animal husbandry and animal welfare issues For the most part I agree with the majority over these issues. In we have more stringent regulations for animal husbandry than in the rest of Europe. However, it has proved extremely difficult to obtain a higher price for this production. I therefore feel that in the WTO negotiations, Union should press for animal welfare issues to be added to the agenda, with the objective that certain minimum requirements should be imposed in all countries. Strict demands should be made in this question, and Union should also be able to set as a condition for the winding down of tariffs that better animal welfare legislation should be introduced in all countries and parts of the world. Summary points of view In my opinion the CAP should primarily concern policy on food and have the following objectives: ·European Union food production should be competitive on the world market. ·A wide and varied supply of food at reasonable prices should be accessible to consumers at all times. The instruments for achieving these objectives should be deregulation combined with compensation support for primary production. This support should be paid during an interim period, the length of which will be determined by the WTO negotiations and developments on the world market. Border protection/tariffs against third countries should also be gradually phased out. Restrictions on production should, as far as possible, be common to the whole of Union. This applies, for example, to environmental restrictions and animal husbandry regulations. Support to entrepreneurs and individuals should also be common throughout Union. This applies, for example, to regional Reservations and comments 153 policy support and payment for environmental services. The rules must be simple. Support for tobacco cultivation should be excluded from the CAP. National decisions on support should only be able to be effected following central approval. National decisions on more stringent regulations or increased taxes on domestic producers may be made without central approval. I am assuming that the rights of individual citizens will not be infringed in this respect. However, if such decisions are made, countries should be conscious of the fact that there is a risk that their own production will decrease. Given time my proposals would mean a dramatic fall in costs for the CAP. Instead, the proportion of regional support in the EU budget would increase. In my opinion this would be a beneficial development which would contribute to an improvement in living conditions throughout Union, not least in the wake of an enlargement to the East. 154 Reservations and comments Special expert comment by and We have taken part in as expert advisers, and we largely agree with the report. However, by way of special comment we would like to highlight and emphasise the significance of employment in the future agricultural policy. presents two principal objectives for future agricultural policy. The CAP should aim to facilitate: ·a wide and varied supply of safe food at reasonable prices Apart from these primary objectives there are seven secondary objectives. These chiefly apply to environmental and animal welfare issues in a broad context, issues which we consider to be important. The secondary objectives are intended to ensure that production, processing and distribution of food takes place in such a way that ·biodiversity is conserved and promoted, ·cultural heritage is preserved, ·a varied farming landscape is promoted, ·environmental load is minimized, ·livestock production takes place under strict requirements for animal welfare, ·regional balance and viable rural areas are promoted, ·internationally competitive agriculture within Union is promoted. In our opinion employment should be added to these secondary objectives in the future agricultural policy, and dealt with as a special 8th point. Only in the point concerning regional balance can anything relating to employment in the sector be inferred. However, in our opinion there is a difference between promoting a regional balance and promoting employment more generally. The new policy should therefore, in addition Reservations and comments 155 to the two principal objectives, have the task of promoting employment throughout the entire food chain. We also consider that the food industry also has an important part to play in employment. A reform of the CAP will mean that for many years to come there will be a transfer of significant amounts from taxpayers and consumers to agriculture: the CAP today comprises around half of the EU budget. With the high unemployment throughout Union, this money must be used in a way which stimulates employment. The Swedish prime minister said in his government policy speech in last year: Food production should contribute to a in economic balance, to sustainable growth and to a growth in employment. In our view, the Swedish position on the CAP must not be allowed a lower level of ambition in questions of employment. It is unfortunate that the committee only speaks of agricultural production, completely forgetting the processing industries in regional policy. In northern , these industries are equally important in terms of employment as agriculture itself. In the long term, without the processing industries we will find it increasingly difficult to manage agricultural production in sparsely populated areas. In the future, measures of regional policy may also lead to the processing of more products other than those of traditional agriculture. It will not be defensible to support agriculture in sparsely populated areas if it consists only of raw materials producers without local processing. New and improved regional policy must pay attention to the links between raw materials production and processing, through which higher levels of employment can be achieved in sparsely populated areas. 156 Reservations and comments Special expert comment by I have taken part as an expert adviser to the KomiCAP main committee. However, the committee experts have not been given the opportunity to participate in all meetings, something which in my opinion is remarkable. My comments relate to the text in existence following the committees final meeting on 12 1997. In my opinion the report of the KomiCAP inquiry cannot be used as a basis for a Swedish position with regard to the future of the CAP. The most important reason for my opinion is that the proposed structural objectives for the CAP are not at all in line with the policy or the controlling instruments which are proposed in the next step. Briefly, it may be said that the objectives and demands outlined for agriculture and the food sector cannot be achieved via a policy which is based upon the removal of the basic principles of the CAP. As such, the KomiCAP report completely lacks any analysis of how demands relating, for example, to the environment, animal husbandry and regional balance can be reconciled with the demands for free trade and deregulation which otherwise permeate the report. There should be a discussion of how, in a deregulated scenario, the high ambitions in the above mentioned areas could be maintained. On an open, international market prices are determined by criteria other than, for example, animal husbandry regulations. Experience from shows that it is extremely difficult to obtain a higher price for the entire Swedish production on the open Common Market. If there is an imported alternative at a lower price, prices will be pressed downwards. Increased initiatives in food labelling and consumer information are instruments in this context, yet they are not sufficient. On the one hand KomiCAP advocates purely market solutions, yet in the next instance proposes national regulations for labelling, bans on harmful products, rules for permitted environmental effect levels, demands for regional balance, etc. In practice KomiCAP makes extensive demands on agriculture, yet is not willing to grant agriculture support to fulfil these demands via the CAP system. In my opinion it is unrealistic to believe that European agriculture can live up to these expectations without fundamental support from European society at large. The report directs relatively harsh criticism towards the current CAP objectives. This criticism is partly unwarranted. The objectives may not indeed be up to date, but on the other hand there is no general discussion within Union of any change to the . Reservations and comments 157 report also fails to recognise that there are important consumers aspects to objectives aimed at stable markets, safeguarded supply and reasonable food prices. Naturally enough there is also a link between the wording in the current CAP relating to producer incomes and what is written about secure supply of food on the Common Market. Not specifically covered in the current objectives, as mentioned in the report, are environmental and regional issues. The structural objectives proposed by KomiCAP for the CAP are relatively thorough. However, it is necessary to supplement the principal objective for agriculture. In order to balance out the other principal objective for safe food at reasonable prices, the regarding agriculture should be adjusted as follows: The CAP should aim to facilitate economical and environmentally sustainable agriculture . Thus the most serious shortcoming in the report is that the proposed policy will not lead to the fulfilment of the CAPs objectives. KomiCAP proposes that current basic measures of market regulation such as intervention, export support and production quotas should be removed. Border protection is to be retained for an interim period. According to KomiCAP, the current system of direct payments will only be necessary during an interim period. Moreover, political decisions should be made as to why one sector of production is in need of support whereas another is not. As in the 1990 Swedish policy on food, it is proposed that the reform of the CAP should take place under socially acceptable forms, and that direct payments should be available for a limited period to facilitate transition and structural change within the agricultural sector. Thus what KomiCAP is advocating in practice is that the current CAP be disassembled: not completely, perhaps, yet very nearly. Although the report discusses increased initiatives for the environment and rural areas, it is clear that the consequences of the proposed policy will be a set back for food production inside Union. KomiCAP also speaks of a change and transition of the agricultural sector which can be interpreted to imply that EU agriculture will improve its situation. In a very brief section on the consequences of KomiCAPs proposal it is also mentioned that profitability for milk, beef and sugar production will fall inside Union. My opinion is that KomiCAPs proposal will lead to an overall reduction in EU food production, even in less favoured areas where agriculture plays a central part in the survival of the local community. It is quite remarkable that KomiCAP has not presented more in-depth analysis of the consequences of its proposal. It is irresponsible to deal with any sector in this way, and 158 Reservations and comments one might ask if there is any other sector of business in which a policy leading to lower production and lower employment would be accepted. Unfortunately a characteristic of the analyses presented in the report is a one-sided seeking out of harmful aspects of the CAP and a tendency to base everything on theoretical reasoning. The section which deals with the effects for consumers and producers is based, for example, on the relatively obscure PSE and CSE calculations and not, as would have been more relevant and interesting, on actual price development, foods share in peoples personal spending, developments in profitability, etc. What should be obvious, if one wants a competitive food sector in Union, is that European agriculture cannot be deregulated at any other rate than those that adopted by competitors on the world market, and that one can observe that natural conditions for agriculture in Union are different compared with leading export countries such as the , and . Without this in mind, European agriculture will unfailingly lose market share in the international market. Worse still, to believe anything else is naïve. The report states that world market prices will be increased when the CAP is deregulated. This means that KomiCAP is expecting EU volumes in international trade to decrease. KomiCAP also believes that certain developing countries in such a situation will have better chances of increasing their own supplies. This may be true in certain cases, but as a rule the effect would probably be that the above named competitors to Union on the world market will thankfully take over the market vacuum which Union would willingly be creating. One might also actually ask whether Union via unilateral deregulation with its ensuing reduced production would be making a substantial contribution to global food supplies, and especially the large numbers of people who today go hungry. In my view the CAP should be successively reformed, starting out from the 1992 reform which began a gradual adaptation to international, real market conditions in line with international trade agreements (/WTO). This means attaching generally lower importance to market price support and compensation via direct payments if the international price levels are not raised. Production limitations and quota systems should be adapted to market development so that increased European production becomes possible. Environmental and regional payments should, as today, supplement the CAP system. At the Swedish Farmers Union meeting in in 1996 the document Swedish Farmers Union views on Union was Reservations and comments 159 The document comprises one section entitled Vision for agriculture and one entitled Choice of direction for agricultural policy. In brief, the vision for agriculture starts from the belief that European and Swedish farmers have the capacity, given equal conditions for competition, to compete on an international level. In increasingly free trade conditions, sensitivity to consumer demands will be a decisive factor for success. The vision of the future is based on the basic options for cooperation within Union remaining the same, even when an enlargement of the union and subsequently necessary reforms are carried out. It is also noted that agriculture is the basic provider in all countries and that it provides the most basic of all needs, i.e. The tasks facing agriculture in the future can be summed up as follows: ·Production of what the market demands, in which food production is the basis, supplemented by energy and industrial goods, tourism and collective benefits. ·Viable agriculture throughout with good economic conditions for the farmer. ·Production which is resource-efficient and environmentally aware, taking good care of animals gives high quality products. ·The key role of agriculture in a society in ecological balance is utilized. One other part of the Farmers Union view of a future Europe is that an enlargement of Union to include countries in Central and Eastern Europe is both desirable and necessary for stability in Europe. As for points of view concerning the future Common Agricultural Policy, the document expresses a wish for the policy to continue to be commonly held and commonly financed by the Member States. The Farmers Union is opposed to a re-nationalisation of agriculture and any accompanying increased level of national financing. The Union considers that agricultural policy objectives should be reviewed and that issues such as competitive position, the environment, sustainability and regional development are brought into the current objectives. With regard to agricultural policy instruments, the document states that agricultural prices should be increasingly governed by market demands. However, so long as pure market conditions do not provide acceptable economic circumstances, there is a need for a combination of price 160 Reservations and comments support and direct payments, with a successive reduction in the significance of price support. The general connection between CAP support and lower prices makes a link to production both natural and necessary. Future changes in direct payments should focus on simplification and competitive neutrality. The Farmers Union is of the opinion that regional support should facilitate farming and rural area enterprise throughout the country. Environmental support should be used to promote agriculture which focuses on quality and efficient use of resources. Special national regulations and taxes/charges on the environment should be levelled out between different countries.