sou · GLB3151 · 1998-01-01 00:00:00 — My opinion is that GMO crops should be banned in Union, both in respect of growing them and of imports, in whole or as part of processed foods. This should have been made clear in the report, and should be the policy which the Swedish government firmly promotes. PSE and CSE data In chapter 3.1.2 - 3.1.4 there is an account of agricultural policy in terms of PSE and CSE. The argument is extremely theoretical in that a number of variables are missing in the calculations of both the PSE and CSE, and, in my opinion, the text reflects the attitude that deregulation of the CAP would lead to major advantages for consumers, conclusions which can be questioned. The text also accounts for the cost of the CAP to consumers in figures. Since agriculture creates environmental problems, more or less due to crops, intensity and production methods, it should be in order to account for the environmental costs which various types of agriculture bring about. Only then would the picture be complete, and it would be possible to read off the ways in which cheap food and production at world market prices increase environmental costs. This is missing throughout the report, and does not tie in well with the proposals for stringent environmental objectives. 130 Reservations and comments Instruments for a new agricultural policy In chapter 9, the objectives and instruments of a future CAP are developed. The objectives, as they are outlined in 9.1, are sound. There is emphasis on sustainable agriculture along with strict animal welfare requirements, biodiversity and a regional balance. I might possibly have wished that food should not only be safe, as expressed in the first objective, but also of high quality. Much of todays bulk production of food rich in carbo-hydrates and fats is certainly safe but of high quality, containing the nutrition necessary for human beings. To the term safe should also be added high quality. In chapter 9.2 the instruments for achieving the objectives proposed are outlined. In my opinion, an analysis is lacking here of how the proposed deregulation, with is removal of market regulation, can lead to sustainable agriculture. Instead, it is stated here that the CAP does not favour efficiency in production, that structural change is impaired and that the proposed change is expected to cure this. A deregulation may lead in the short term to cheaper food, but at the cost of animals and the environment, and also of the will towards farming in the entire European Union. With a will to structural efficiency measures, as expressed in the report, there is a risk that small and medium-sized farms, especially in less favoured areas, will disappear. These farms also have land of a high biological value, farming methods which include livestock and fallow land, pasture lands and cereals. The principle of cycling of nutrients applies, and many of these properties are farmed ecologically. They must be preserved. The wants to change the CAP, but in the name of ecology. Current developments in in organic farming are beneficial, and similar developments should be stimulated and put into practice throughout Union. In order to achieve this it might be necessary to retain area support, which should, however, apply to all land irrespective of crops so as not to favour cereal production in a one- sided . In the same way the so-called cross compliances should be used to a greater extent than today. The share of green land and livestock density, etc., should be linked to area support. Environmental support must be retained, yet I do not share the opinion expressed in the report that it should exist so that agriculture should produce various types of environmental services, such as biodiversity, cultural values and a varied farming landscape. In ecological agriculture, biodiversity and a varied farming landscape are favoured by the method of farming itself. Reservations and comments 131 It is important that all support should be aimed at the creation of an ecologically sustainable agriculture, not as it is today, in which large amounts of support put this at a disadvantage. Environmental support should be financed to a greater extent than it is today by Union, and be accompanied by strict requirements common to the entire Union, requirements which successively become more stringent. In order to reduce the number of additives used in farming there should be environmental taxes on commercial fertilizers and pesticides throughout the Union. The current level in could be a joint starting point, yet the taxes should be raised successively. As such I do not share in the majoritys proposals for instruments to fulfil the proposed objectives. It is important that more of the costs of producing food can be seen in the price in the shops. By also paying for food via taxes, people in towns and cities become even more distanced from those in the country. It is only when the real price of food is clearly seen that a dialogue and interaction is possible. Producers could not then, as they do today, grow things to receive financial support, but would be forced to grow things for . The attitude of the is that should leave the Union. Since agricultural policy is totally harmonised there is no opportunity to operate a policy of our own in agricultural matters nor to lead the way. It is important - so long as remains a member - to act so that agriculture should become sustainable and therefore to change the existing CAP. Our opinion is that the CAP today favours large scale, intensive, chemicals-dependent, resource wasting agriculture, which does not produce safe food and will be impossible to operate in the future. It is high time for Union and other countries to make a changeover to sustainable ecological production, and for the benefit of Union, any change in the CAP should be directed to that end. 132 Reservations and comments Special comment by (Liberal Party) The enlargement to the East, together with an attempt to win back the trust and belief of its citizens, is the most important task facing Union. The proposal before us on reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy is generally of a liberal nature, infused with liberal values such as free-trade and a market economy. identifies a considerable number of reasons as to why the CAP should be reformed - for its own sake, and because there are a number of pressing factors in the rest of the world. It is clear to me that whether Union is enlarged or not, agricultural policy must be substantially changed. Enlargement to the East Union is now facing one of its most important challenges, namely for the first time in history to try to unite east and west by peaceful means. It is extremely important that Western Europe makes use of the opportunity to create a united Europe, stable from the point of view of security policy and economically vigorous. Should Union fail in this, the consequences could be fatal. It could place at risk the entire development towards democracy and a market economy in Eastern and Central Europe. , in common with the rest of Union, has a major responsibility for seizing the opportunity of this historic chance and creating a complete Europe. In my opinion the enlargement of Union to the East is the issue of outstanding importance for Europe, and that it should have had more influence on this inquiry. The enlargement is naturally an extremely complicated process, with many obstacles to overcome. One of these obstacles is the CAP. For this reason, a reform must be begun as soon as possible so that Union can give clear signals to the future Member States and avoid the creation of imbalance and unequal competition in their markets. Many countries in Eastern and Central Europe are important agricultural producers, whose agriculture is, and can be more, competitive. Those countries must therefore be given time and conditions in which to plan for a substantially reformed CAP so that they do not use the CAP as a reference whilst they are currently in the process of reforming their own agricultural sectors. It is new regulations, quotas and bans that people in the East are looking forward to. To retain the CAP for the current European Union Reservations and comments 133 but to exclude applicant countries is completely unthinkable. The reforms must therefore be begun immediately, preferably before the process of enlargement begins. The new Member States should have full membership of an European Union with a reformed CAP. For those currently farming in Union it is important that clear signals come from the Union concerning future agricultural policy. The difficulties in carrying out the reforms are, of course, very large, but they should not be overstated. Lack of public trust and belief As the committee states, there are several reasons as to why the CAP is in need of reform. However, one important point is missing, and it concerns the trust and belief of the citizens themselves. Few areas arouse such irritation as the agricultural policy, its complicated system of rules and its evident cheating. EU citizens have every right to mistrust an enormous bureaucracy which swallows up round half of the EUs joint budget. The EUs own figures show that annually around of the agricultural budget, ECU 6.3 billion in 1993, disappears in fraud. Such a policy does not create legitimacy. On the other hand, a substantially deregulated policy with initiatives for quality, the environment and rural development, as the committee has suggested, will have completely different means of winning the approval of EU citizens. The report emphasises the role of consumers in a reformed CAP. This is both sensible and important. But agricultural production is an interplay between consumers and producers. Farmers must be afforded the opportunity and the freedom to compete through their products on equal terms in a competitive market. It is important therefore that farmers are seen as business people and given the opportunity to act accordingly so that rural areas can offer vitality to businesses. The capacity of agriculture to compete is of major importance to all those who work in agriculture and food. Quotas, regulating measures and complicated administration do not facilitate enterprise. What is needed is a Swedish and European policy which helps small and new businesses, so that small scale alternatives can develop in rural areas. This aspect is not presented in the report. One other aspect which is slightly obscured 134 Reservations and comments is more developed argumentation about competition in the links between farmers and consumers, and which in , as in many parts of Europe, is increasingly dominated by a number of retail and wholesaler giants. Competition in the food and distribution sectors must increase. Reservations and comments 135 Reservation by (Left Party), By way of introduction I would like to make clear that I agree with the committees basic criticisms of the Common Agricultural Policy and the need for a radical change. I also support the proposal for new objectives for agricultural policy. My reservation concerns the possibility of achieving those objectives within the framework of the current European Union, and also how the proposed instruments can lead to the fulfilment of those objectives. I do not share the negative view of the possibilities open to agriculture at a regional level as presented in the report. Otherwise I have a number of points of view on the various sections of the report. Food supply - a vital issue for the new millennium The world population is growing and total food production has increased in recent decades. Despite this, the highly efficient, industrial agriculture has not managed to secure a good supply of food on a global scale. Whereas affluent regions and sectors of society live in excess leading to surplus production and ill health related to good living, other regions and parts of society suffer famines and poverty. 800 million people lack sufficient food and are forced to live in hunger. The increase in population together with an increasing depletion of the earths natural resources means that the question of food and the use of agricultural land will be one of the most important issues of the next millennium. Two examples clearly illustrate this. Today there are approximately 0.26 hectares of farming land per individual world inhabitant. By 2025 this figure is expected to have fallen to 0.17 hectares per person. Our need, in order to survive, is estimated at 0.2 hectares. This shows the necessity of making use of all agricultural land and to use its production in a sustainable way. The food patterns displayed by the western world are not viable in a global perspective. In order to ensure human survival our current food production and over exploitation of natural resources need to change and become sustainable in the long term. One other prerequisite for the earths long term production capacity is access to fresh water. The majority of the worlds water is the salt water of the oceans. Of fresh water, the majority is bound up in the polar ice caps. Current agricultural production methods mean large areas of land under irrigation which depletes the ground water and leads to salt 136 Reservations and comments pollution of agricultural land. Currently some (approx. 300 million hectares) of the worlds irrigated areas are suffering from salt pollution. This figure is expected to double over the next 25 years. In the south west of the ground water levels have fallen by more than 120 metres. , northern and are other densely populated areas where the levels of ground water are falling. It is self evident that the worlds food production and consumption must be changed. The dominant current view that man can control nature must be replaced by the realisation that nature sets boundaries for all human activity. On a global level one can observe that todays market economies, in which economic growth is the goal and nature the means, have not managed to produce a sustainable system of supply. Union is no exception. With a basic philosophy which places economic freedom above human needs and free trade above the environment, a framework has been put in place which is in contradiction of a sustainable society. The objectives which the committee has proposed are therefore in conflict with the EUs overall demands for free movement of capital. A genuine change towards a sustainable policy makes other demands for democratic control of the economy and genuine opportunities to place health and environmental demands above the demand for free movement of goods. Given the limitations of the possibility of achieving the objectives described above, it is my opinion that the objectives presented in the committees report can form the basis of policy as to how future agricultural policy should be shaped. I also partially agree with the instruments and interim measures which have been proposed. However, I have a number of points of view and differences of opinion with regard both to the proposed instruments and to the reasoning upon which the objectives are based. I would question whether the proposed instruments can lead to fulfilment of the objectives. The points below basically follow the format of the report. I also present my understanding of the significance of agriculture in the future for employment and equality, subjects mentioned in the report but not dealt with seriously, despite that fact that employment and equality are generally heralded as social democratic flagships in the context of European cooperation. Reservations and comments 137 CAP facing the future The chapter describes a number of effects of the current agricultural policy within Union, making the heading somewhat misleading. I generally agree with the description of the effects of the CAP on producers, consumers and taxpayers, but I think it is important to stress that PSE and CSE do not cover all types of grants and support, neither do they describe prices or costs at the consumer level. I do not share the committees conclusion that food prices would fall if the Common Agricultural Policy were deregulated. At least, it is not obvious that this would be the result, given the increased health-, animal welfare- and environmental requirements that the committee has agreed on in setting the objectives for future agricultural policy. I do, however, consider that where food is concerned, the issue of price must not be allowed to dominate issues of safety and quality. With regard to the CAPs effects on employment and the economy, the committee has not discussed the effects which deregulated agriculture would have in these areas, given the structural changes which are predicted to lead to a probable reduction of employment in the agricultural sector. This will naturally have an effect on the economy throughout Union. From the presentation of the number of people employed in agriculture in chapter 3.2.3 it is clear that there are major regional differences in Union. In total some 8 million people work in agriculture in Union, equivalent to , yet, for example, in , the proportion is as high as . If one then counts those who work in the food industry, some 2.5 million, and the related employment which this creates, agriculture and food processing creates a very large number of jobs. I am not prepared to contribute to a structural change which leads to an increase in unemployment in Union. Where the CAPs effects on the environment are concerned, it is clear that even if many environmental problems can be attributed to general technological and economic developments, the Common Agricultural Policy has encouraged and supported forms of agriculture which have caused major environmental problems in certain regions of Union. 138 Reservations and comments Chapter 4 A new Common Agricultural Policy I agree with the introductory description of why the CAP is in need of reform, yet I question the opinion in section 4.1.2 that the risks for disrupted supply are lower now than they were in the 1950s. It is rather the risk for supply disruptions on a global scale which are one of the reasons for reforming the CAP so that sustainable agriculture can produce food of a high quality. The committees proposal for new objectives in the CAP are ambitious: a wide and varied supply of safe food at reasonable prices, and sustainable agriculture to be achieved within the framework of an agricultural policy which is intended to ensure that production as well as processing and distribution, shall be carried out in a sustainable . Alongside this, biodiversity and a varied landscape should be conserved and promoted, cultural heritage should be preserved, environmental load minimized and animal welfare demands set at a high level. A regional balance and viable rural areas are to be promoted, alongside agriculture which is internationally competitive. I agree with these objectives. The chapter on food is incomplete. It is naïve to state, as in the first sentence of section 5.1, that the primary aim of production including food is to provide consumers with the goods they want. It may be a devout wish that demand alone controls production, but it is not the case. It is well known that the food industry, along with sections of primary production, is dominated by large transnational companies. In my opinion it is a serious shortcoming of the report that an entire chapter is devoted to food without any description and analysis of the multinational food companies power over production of goods and consumer choice. The truth is that consumers today are too much in the hands of the international capital which has control over food production and processing. It is not consumers who have demanded genetically manipulated food or meat from animals which have been treated with hormones and antibiotics to promote growth. It is not consumers who have demanded food with allergy and cancer causing additives, or food from animals which have suffered long journeys or have been reared without basic regards to their welfare. On the contrary: consumers Reservations and comments 139 demand safe food and should have the right to demand national legislation and bans on food, additives and production methods which can bee considered unethical or unsafe. I share the committees assessment that the consumer movement must be strengthened, and it is important that consumer information is available to enable individuals to make their choices on the basis of correct information. There are also examples of how consumers have influenced production through their choice. Probably of equal importance is a well-informed environmental movement to stir up opinions in important consumer issues. To demand that each individual make all the assessments necessary to be able to choose safe food is, on the other hand, a negation of political responsibility. I am also critical of the majoritys excessive belief that free and viable competition and a deregulated market will lead to the achievement of the objective for safe food. In many places in the section free and viable competition is proclaimed as the best instrument for cheap and safe food. Competition is naturally good, but free competition exists as things stand today. Instead, opportunities for free trade and free competition are limited by cartels and monopolies, manipulation and questionable methods, all in the name of the market economy. In order to guarantee food at reasonable prices in a better way it is, in my opinion, equally important to reduce the number of links in the food chain from primary production to the dining table. Today it is mainly through these that prices are jacked up. Only a small part goes to the primary producer, something which clearly affects the price and increases the difficulty in controlling origins and safety. Moreover, agricultural profitability is affected, leading to demands for other forms of compensation. problem-based argumentation surrounding the consequences of free competition would have been valuable in assessing the various instruments required to achieve the proposed objectives. For example, this might concern a definition of what is meant by free competition, competition neutrality and competition barriers. Are low prices a good indication that competition is functioning? How should quality aspects be valued? How should, for example, different production methods be regarded in competitive terms? Is it competitively neutral to compete using lower standards of animal welfare? If not, should a country not be entitled to impose animal welfare requirements on its imports? Or would that be an obstacle to competition? Is it competitively neutral if production methods lead to a depletion of natural resources, such as 140 Reservations and comments ground water, or to the widespread use of dangerous pesticides and herbicides? How should competitive neutrality be achieved between regions with different climates leading to differing costs for similar types of production? There are no simple or obvious solutions to these questions, but in my opinion it is wrong that they are not dealt with in the report. Chapter 6 Agriculture and the environment It is completely clear that current EU agriculture is not sustainable in the long term. There are, however, major regional differences, and in , for example, steps have been taken towards more sustainable development. Yet much remains to be done. I agree with the committees description of the overriding objective of sustainable agriculture, along with the section on agricultures negative effects on the environment.