sou · GLB3151 · 1998-01-01 00:00:00 — However, in my opinion agriculture can and should play an important role in the transition towards a more environmentally friendly society, partly through production which is adapted to local conditions, meaning that food production should take place throughout Union in those places where favourable environmental conditions exist. The environmental supports which currently exist within Union only account for of the total support for agriculture, reflecting the low priority which Union has afforded environmental issues up until now. I can basically subscribe to the argument put forward for basic norms in section 6.4, yet, unfortunately, the proposal is not fully developed and it is difficult to assess the consequences of the different levels of rules proposed. In my opinion this section is in contradiction of chapter five in which free competition is praised, and this creates a completely unnecessary imbalance between the various sections of the report. One area which is barely touched upon is organic farming, and this is highly remarkable. Organic farming has come a long way towards cyclical production built around local and regional conditions. The definition presented by the Swedish organic farmers themselves could serve as an illustration of the objectives which the committee has agreed on. Reservations and comments 141 The following characteristics define ecologically sustainable production. ·is based on local renewable resources, ·efficiently uses solar energy and the potential of biological systems, ·preserves the fertility of the soil, ·maximises recycling of plant nutrition and organic material, ·minimizes the need for finite resources, and thereby pollution through leakage of waste products, ·does not use unnatural substances, ·contributes to the maintenance of genetic diversity in production and in the farming landscape, ·gives domestic animals living conditions which equate to their ecological role and permit them to behave naturally. With organic farming made concrete in the description above as a long term objective we would achieve a better basis from which to decide on the instruments needed to achieve our objectives. Chapter 7 Agriculture and the animals This section is good. It is beneficial that Swedish legislation on animal welfare has contributed to the fact that animals in general are more healthy in than in the majority of European countries. The Swedish bans on the use of meal derived from animal carcasses and antibiotics have contributed to this. But there are still threats. There is a risk that the more stringent Swedish requirements may be interpreted by farmers themselves as an obstacle to competition, since production is more expensive, and there is no possibility to charge higher prices. Unfortunately, this opinion is voiced and listened to in the debate. Another threat is that these animal welfare issues might be seen as an obstacle to trade, not only within Union but in the world as a whole. An example of this is the ongoing discussion in the WTOs dispute solving panel in respect of the EU ban on hormones. It is primarily the which maintains that the EU hormone ban is a trade barrier. 142 Reservations and comments Chapter 8 Agriculture and regional development One of the most difficult issues to resolve in changing the Common Agricultural Policy is that of regional agriculture. As the introduction to this section states, a large part of the population lives in rural areas, and in certain places agriculture plays a major role in the local economy. It is a good thing that the Swedish objective for the north of is clearly stated, but thereafter follows a more negative picture of the opportunities for agriculture in a regional perspective. For example, it is claimed that continuing transition towards larger units can be expected, for which reason increased investment should be made in businesses other than agriculture itself. In my opinion agricultures role as a regional driving force is underestimated in the report. Instead of passively assuming that it will become increasingly difficult to maintain agricultural production in a number of EU regions, e.g. northern and other less favoured areas, agriculture could be the driving force in rural development and local production. The report paints the picture of an unnecessary antagonism between local, often small-scale, production and large-scale intensive farming. It is my belief that both methods of production are necessary and that it is actually possible to link them to sustainable production. I do not agree with the statement of the committee that from the point of view of business economy, large scale operations are to be preferred. It is perhaps true of current agricultural production, but does not take account of all the costs, e.g. the environmental problems which result from agriculture on a large scale. Increased regional production creates conditions for small scale local food processing, which in turn leads to new employment opportunities and beneficial rural development. Increased local production is also an advantage from an environmental point of view since the needs for transport can be reduced. Even from a global perspective, increased regional self-sufficiency is to be preferred. The report states that increased trade is beneficial since it favours production in the developing countries. But a deregulated market and increased trade will not automatically guarantee that the developing countries enjoy better conditions. A more likely scenario is that it will once again be the large multinational companies which will gain even further market shares. On the other hand, increased regional self-sufficiency can create the Reservations and comments 143 conditions in which the developing countries themselves can build up food production for their own needs. Chapter 9 Changes to the CAP The chapter is a summary of the report and the objectives and instruments which it proposes. Bearing in mind the limitations and criticism I have expressed in earlier sections, I share the view that current EU market regulating measures should be phased out and that the current CAP should be replaced by an agricultural policy which contributes to a change towards environmentally friendly agriculture, regional development and increased regard for animal welfare. The instruments for achieving the proposed objectives should be concentrated on certain aspects. In order to achieve sustainable agriculture instruments must be aimed towards environmental change, regional development and animal welfare. In order to make food safe, legislation and consumer power are necessary. Agriculture and food production should also be seen as an important business for the future, based on the need to supply food to a growing world population, and also on the need for the whole of society to become more environmentally friendly. Chapter X Agriculture, employment and equality The directive to the committee included to account for the effects of the proposals on questions of equality. has not done this. This is a serious shortcoming both in that it is contrary to the governments directive and in that significant efforts and new thinking on the part of women could contribute in a beneficial way to the environmental changes which agriculture will be forced to make. In many parts of there is a growing commitment towards local society and local food production and processing. It is often women who lead the way in this development. In one way it could be said to be a question of reviving old traditions and preserving old know-how, but in a new time, with new values such as food safety and recycling. The result is increased new enterprise and new employment opportunities. By supporting a similar development throughout the EU new jobs can be created in rural areas, instead of the negative thinking reflected in the report. 144 Reservations and comments Other points of view One of the difficulties in the course of the work has been to keep separate discussions of future EU agriculture from discussions of its consequences for . It would have been valuable if the report had more clearly been based on an EU perspective, and had provided an account of the consequences for in a separate section. However, I was not granted acceptance of my request. I also regret that it has not been possible to present a unanimous report. However, I am satisfied that there is major support for a change to the current CAP and for the objectives of the new agricultural policy. By way of conclusion I consider that the report as a whole reflects a social democratic awareness of a need for a new view on food production, yet a reluctance to accept the consequences of this awareness. Reservations and comments 145 Reservation by , (Moderate ) The work of the committee has been infused with a to produce a united point of view as far as possible. I have considered it of value that should have one viewpoint in Union, and for this reason I also attempted to ensure that unanimity could be reached. However, just a few weeks before the completion of the inquiry, the government has anticipated its results by sending its views on future agricultural policy to the Commission. The document has the title Fortsatt reformering av den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken - den svenska inställningen (Further reform of the CAP - the Swedish position). I therefore no longer consider it meaningful to continue to work towards a united viewpoint. That the government should openly and completely ignore a committee which they themselves have set up and presented with a directive is very remarkable. It undermines confidence in the role of committees, which have widely contributed to long term political decisions being based on factual information, in many ways creating unity in respect of necessary changes. The work of the committee was begun with three so-called expert groups producing reports which were to form the basis for the committees position. For the sake of clarity I would like to point out that I have not formed an opinion on the contents of these reports, and therefore do not give them my backing. Food production is an important part of the EUs business activity and its culture. Therefore it is important that both primary production and the food industry remain intact following a reform, and can enjoy the benefits of the world market which is opening up as a result of previous and coming WTO negotiations. My wish is for European food to be a winner on the world market following further agricultural reforms. Secondly, EU food supplies must not be put at risk. If deregulation and liberalisation take place at roughly the same pace in all major producer areas there will not be, in my opinion, any great risk that EU production will be drastically reduced. On the other hand, if there is a fast and one-sided deregulation, there are obvious risks that the farmers 146 Reservations and comments and industries of other parts of the world will be the only winners. There should, however, be some form of corrective measures to be introduced if production were to reach a critical level. Thirdly, the CAP should primarily cover food production. Special initiatives such as environmental and regionally based payments should be seen as supplements to the CAP. Experience from other policy areas indicates that achievement of objectives is poor if too many objectives are to be achieved under the same policy. This means that environmental and regional policies should be outside the CAP. Obviously agriculture should be carried out within the framework of sustainable development and be subject to the same duties of environmental considerations as other types of business, and it is equally obvious that regional policy (the ) should also include agricultural companies. My fourth basic principle is that the CAP should not make difficult nor, in the worst case, prevent an enlargement of Union. Adapting the CAP to new times It is important for a number of reasons that agriculture and the food industry in Europe should start to adapt to a situation with fewer regulations and less support. Even if the pace of change is questionable, the WTO negotiations will mean further deregulation of the world market for food. Agriculture in those countries which only enjoy low levels of support for business will gain considerable competitive advantages when regulation decreases. According to the FAO, more trade in food is necessary to cope with the worlds need for food supplies. As such, it will become less and less automatic for food to be produced in fixed locations or countries. Instead, like all other goods, food will be produced where conditions are best. Increased world trade and freer competition will require production which is efficient and an increased adaptation to varying consumer needs. Changes in the CAP should facilitate this. In my opinion price is an important indicator of how much can be produced and at what cost. Adaptation of prices to world price levels is therefore something to strive for. This can be done through a gradual reduction in tariffs/border protection and a removal of the limitations on supply which exist today. Consequently export charges which can be applied today can be scrapped. These measures cannot be carried out without producers being given a reasonable time to adapt to the new policy. During an interim period, they must also be compensated if lower Reservations and comments 147 prices are the result, since investments have been made under other conditions. In addition, the eventual losses of capital value in land, plant and production quotas which arise solely because of the reform of the CAP should also be compensated in part. Deregulation without compensation for farmers involves a risk of resulting falls in production. This will apply especially if deregulation is unilateral. In this case it would be the food industry and rural areas which would suffer. The Swedish agricultural policy adopted in 1990 meant that the administrative price level was gradually lowered at the same time as direct payments was introduced. The support was phased out relatively quickly. From the experiences of carrying out this policy I would recommend a gradually lowering of the administrative price levels, but unlike in that case, the price reductions should be balanced out by higher support. When the administrative price level has reached world market prices, the support should remain for a number of years before it is phased out. The rate at which this can take place will depend on the game rules (WTO) and how prices on the world market are changed. I would like to point out that a deregulated market over the last year would have meant higher cereals prices in Europe. Global deregulation will also mean an increase in world market prices for most food, since export subsidies will disappear. In the event of deregulation with temporary compensation support I would propose that a review of all production sectors should take place. For example: area payments for cereal cultivation, which were based on very low world market prices, might be adjusted in favour of livestock production. When prices have been adjusted to the market there would be no need to withhold goods from the market. Intervention systems, export support and production quotas will become unnecessary. When agreement on deregulation has been reached it can and should be put into effect relatively quickly. This would contribute to an increased dynamism in European food production. Naturally, one prerequisite is that individual countries should maintain competition neutrality in production. To do as has done and impose taxes and charges on production for which there are no equivalents in other countries or parts of the world, would not be possible without a risk that production would be forced to close down. This outline change to the CAP would also facilitate the entry of new countries into Union. The reason for this is that prices in 148 Reservations and comments several of the prospective Member States may be regarded as world market prices. The form taken by the future CAP will naturally be affected by the result of the next round of WTO negotiations. Experience shows that these negotiations take a long time to complete. To speculate on the final outcome even before the talks have begun is meaningless. I would merely like to point out that Union is a significant party to the talks, the opinion of which cannot be ignored. My proposal for changes to the CAP involve significant progress for free trade, even if compensation to farmers may be long-lived. Tobacco cultivation currently comes under the CAP, attracting various forms of support which cost the EU budget some billion per year. In my opinion, tobacco should not in future be covered by the CAP, since the policy should primarily be aimed at safeguarding food supplies. Secure food supply is an obvious consumer objective. Quality and health are also important issues. Food production in Union is so wide and varied that the majority of consumer preferences have been able to be supplied within the common market. Yet increased ability to penetrate the market on the part of producers outside the EU will further increase the variety on offer. The wide range of various foods provides consumers with the opportunity to choose food for different reasons. Taste, price, sell-by dates, production methods and production location are some of the basic reasons for choice. Up until now producers and retailers have used relevant information on these factors as part of their marketing. In reality good product information is an important competitive tool, and consumers have considerable opportunities to influence its presentation. Compulsory labelling of the kind the committee advocates serves no purpose in a free market. Exceptions should naturally be made for products which contain, for example, substances which can cause allergic reactions. In such cases there should be distinct, harmonised legislation. My proposal for changes in the CAP would provide conditions which favour lower food prices. This is an important consumer issue. A basic requirement which should apply to all food is that they are safe to eat. Swedish food legislation in combination with generally favourable conditions has brought about a very high standard of hygiene Reservations and comments 149 for our food. A clear example is the remarkably good result of our fight against salmonella. Although I basically support a harmonisation of rules and restrictions within Union, I am of the opinion that the Swedish regulations for combating disease should be maintained. As I see it, the objective should be that at least the same standard should be introduced throughout Union. Neither is there any reason to apply lower criteria for health standards to imports from countries outside Union. The agreement allows restrictions to be imposed on food which is considered to have harmful health and environmental effects. Fears in this case should be based on science and not on opinion. This also applies to food which is produced using bio-technology, including genetic modification. It is therefore impossible to prevent the import of harmless products, even if they are produced by genetic modification. This means that we will see products in Europe which are regularly produced with the aid of genetic . I share the view of the conference and that, if used properly, genetic is a way to ensure better food supply, not least in the third world. According to the use of genetic should be increased. There is absolutely no reason to impose other and more stringent safety requirements on food which is produced using new technology compared to food produced by traditional methods. Such an attitude risks a delay in access to better food and also risks contributing to the depletion of sensitive environments. Today around half of EU farming land attracts compensation support as a result of less favourable conditions for agriculture. There are several different reasons behind this support, including the notion that it preserves the landscape, and also social reasons in prevention of rural area depletion. One consequence of the deregulation of agricultural policy will be that production will take place in areas where conditions are favourable. In order to balance out the effects of this, my view is that there will be a major need for regional support throughout Union. It is important that the support is designed so that it does not create competitive imbalance. For this reason it should be designed centrally, and should also, for the most part, be financed from common funds. 150 Reservations and comments Special national solutions should be avoided. Where this section of the report is concerned, I agree with the opinion of the majority. A sound environment is a basic condition for a rich human life. In the case of agriculture, its influence on the environment is significant in many aspects. the course of time, food production has greatly changed the landscape. There is, however, a tendency for every generation to regard yesterdays landscapes as the most desirable. It is an indisputable fact that changing economic, technical and biological factors bring about changes in agriculture and thereby changes in the landscape. The changes in themselves bring about changes in the life which can survive on the land which is farmed. Around a hundred years ago a major part of food production was based on pasture lands and meadows which by todays standards would be considered extensive. Conditions for the flora and fauna of these areas have dramatically deteriorated. Current food production favours other species. It should be emphasised that even todays conventional agriculture is responsible for many important environmental values. It is wrong, in this context, only to promote organic farming. In my opinion it is unfortunate that an attitude of conservation should control too great a proportion of land use. However, it is difficult to evaluate changes in the short term. This indicates a need for a certain caution where change is concerned, and preservation of older environments is an important aspect of environmental policy. country has its own special environmental values relating to areas connected with the agricultural landscape. Special categorisation in has meant that these areas can be classified. Even before entry to the EU farmers received payments for taking care of these areas via support or landscape care agreements. These forms of support have now been replaced by the EUs special environmental support measures. These environmental initiatives have been beneficial and should be seen as compensation for efforts made in conserving the cultural landscape. Reservations and comments 151 I agree with the EUs view of environmental policy. I would like to repeat the points mentioned in the report. ·Each sector should take responsibility for the environmental effects it causes. ·The Union should promote sustainable and non-inflationary growth which shows consideration towards the environment. ·EU environment policy should contribute towards conserving, protecting and improving the environment, protect peoples health, use natural resources efficiently and with care and promote measures at an international level to solve regional and global environmental problems. To me it is obvious that agriculture should not be the cause of pollution to the world around us. It is unacceptable, for example, that ground water has been polluted by pesticides and too large quantities of nitrogen. Farming methods must show consideration for their surroundings, even if this means extra costs and more inconvenience for the producer.