version française
version française - synthèse
version Italian
Espanol: documento sobre la reforma de la PAC
česka verze: Reforma Společné zemědělské politiky EU (CAP)

Executive summary

What's wrong with CAP?

Reform is needed urgently:

The European Agriculture Policy must be fundamentally reformed and the reform should take place urgently. Sustainability, quality and localisation, rather than productivity and export promotion, should be the focus of a new CAP.

New aims for the new CAP:

Recommendations for a Sustainable Agriculture and Food Policy in Europe

Recommendations for a Sustainable Agriculture and Food Policy in Europe

1. Eco-Conditionality: obligatory 'Minimum Agricultural Standards' for all CAP payments

The vast majority of CAP funds continue to be spent without consideration to the ecological performance rendered by agriculture. At the moment even farmers that do not comply with environmental law continue to receive CAP subsidies. This must end. CAP support should only be paid to farmers who meet basic standards defined as "Minimum Agricultural Standards". A single basic premium for all sustainably managed agricultural areas should be introduced to replace the current hectare and headage payments, which are only payable for specific crops and livestock categories. Additional payments should be granted for higher standards of environmental performance.

2. Encourage localisation instead of globalisation; support local diversity in agriculture

International trade should lose its privileged position in the CAP.The new CAP should not aim anymore to subsidise the conquering of world markets, but should give high priority to local and regional trade and provide support for the necessary infrastructure for local processing and marketing.

3. More money for Rural Development (2nd pillar of CAP)

The second pillar needs to be increased and reformed in order to improve environmental results. The largest share of the Rural Development budget should be earmarked for agri-environment. The agri-environmental programmes should be redesigned in such a way that they offer incentives for more environmental protection, nature conservation and animal welfare. Modulation, i.e. reducing first pillar money and shifting it to the second pillar (currently only 10% of the funds) should be obligatory.

4. Green tax reform to ensure the polluter pays

A green tax reform should remove some of the tax burden on labour, and introduce and gradually increase taxes on transport and chemical inputs (eco-taxation) to ensure the polluter pays.

5. Limit the powers of Agri- and Food Business

The current food system is characterized by an increasing dominance of a small number of retailers, food distributors and processors who are capable of imposing their own interests on society and are becoming the arbitrators of the agriculture and food system. The EU should develop policies to enforce corporate accountability and prevent market domination. Policies should include limiting market share through competition rules.

6. Fair Accession for new EU Member States

The Accession process should be based on principles of equality and partnership. Turning the new Member States into export markets for the EU 15 is not the way to go ahead. Friends of the Earth demands equal treatment for farmers in the EU15 and the new member states from the beginning: subsidies under strict environmental conditions and priority to quality agriculture and local diversity of food.

7. Practice International Fair Trade

Export subsidies have to be phased out, as well as the dumping of agricultural products on world markets. The EU must stop demanding the opening of markets of developing countries, because that undermines food security. FoE supports the principle of Peoples' Food Sovereignty in agricultural policy. This means that international trade agreements can not overrule national concerns about social or environmental aspects of food and agriculture. Present WTO agreements must be changed to allow countries to give priority to local food production for local needs based on locally available resources.

The environmental impacts of intensive agricultural and food production have been well known for a long time. The EU faces environmental degradation and pollution, rural abandonment and an alarming lack of safe and healthy food. The impact is felt in our water, on our land, by our fauna and flora and in developing countries. If European agriculture policy continues in its productivity/export fixation it may even undermine its very foundations with the continued loss of rural population, loss of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity and accumulation of chemicals and nitrates in water and soils.

The CAP is one of the important driving forces in the present highly unsustainable system. The CAP must stop rewarding destructive farming practices and start encouraging sustainable farming practices. The European Commission and the Member States must therefore use the opportunity provided by the upcoming CAP Mid Term Review to take real steps towards sustainability.

FoEE believes that targeted, fundamental reform of the current EU agriculture policy and subsidy system is needed today to foster a more sustainable, diverse form of agriculture. This reform should be worked out now. Given the damage the system continues to cause, we simply cannot wait.

1. Productivity at all costs

The CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) was created in 1958 to increase the productivity of European agriculture in order to provide food security for Europe. Thanks largely to the success of this policy, by the 1970's Europe was producing at least the amount it consumed in the most important agrarian products. Although the supply of food had thus been secured, and the main aim of the CAP achieved, the policy of the CAP underwent few changes. Despite several reform steps since the 1990's, the main aim of the CAP remains "to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress […] and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour" [1].

The CAP system has failed to adapt to the new needs of agriculture in Europe. Productivity alone remains its axiom. New aims of the CAP should be included in a new Treaty: Sustainability, Quality and Local Diversity.S

There is a big difference between promises the Commission and the Member States make towards sustainable agriculture and actions taken. Time and time again the environmental and social impacts of CAP policy have been addressed by the Council and Commission but the reforms of Agenda 2000 show just how few of these commitments [2] towards sustainable agriculture were actually implemented. The launch of several small reforms in the place of fundamental reform and a clear new direction for the European Agriculture has given Europe a weak, inconsistent agricultural policy.

Most of the reforms are targeted at bringing prices down to an artificial world market level. This is beneficial to the interests of the agribusiness and food and drinks industry, which gets cheaper raw materials, but requires large amounts of tax payers money to keep farmers in business. Prices should reflect the true cost of sustainable production within the EU and not an artificial world market price. What is needed are clear and consistent policies that ensure sustainable agriculture and a decent living standard for farmers.

Agriculture is inherently multifunctional. Its role is not only to produce food but it has a strong impact on many other aspects of local economies, social systems and ecosystems. It contributes to socio-economic viability in rural areas as well as to environmental management. Other external benefits of a healthy agricultural system are water accumulation and supply, nutrient recycling and fixation, soil formation and flood control. Positive social outcomes of agriculture include the cultural heritage of rural communities, the aesthetic value of farming practices, landscapes and recreational areas for the public at large. A sustainable agriculture policy must strengthen these positive functions of agriculture.

2. Damaging effects of the current agricultural model

Environmental problems related to industrialized forms of agriculture are manifold. An emphasis on productivity has convinced farmers to replace agricultural biodiversity with industrialized monocultures and industrialized livestock breeding to produce more, at the cost of food quality and safety. BSE disease, dioxins, antibiotic and agrochemical contamination of products, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution are the logical effect of intensive production methods.

2.1 Water pollution and shortage

Intensive agriculture is a major water polluter. Phosphorous and nitrogen continue to cause eutrophication of surface waters. Ground water quality is affected by increasing concentrations of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture. In Southern Europe water shortage due to groundwater extraction is a major problem. The CAP has aggravated this problem by giving additional premiums for irrigation.

2.2 Barren soil and damaged land

The land and soil quality also suffers from intensive agriculture. The productivity of farming land in Europe has decreased dramatically in the last decades. In Southern Europe this phenomenon has resulted in desertification in large areas. In Northern Europe cultivated hybrid varieties now have to be replaced every 4 to 5 years by a more sophisticated hybrid variety in order to maintain productivity. More than half of the land in Europe has been affected by water erosion to varying degrees and a fifth has been eroded by wind. [3] Salinisation caused by overexploitation of water resources and soil compaction caused by overstocking, damage the land for generations making it useless for farming.

2.3 Air pollution, ozone layer and greenhouse effect

Global food production and trade is thought to consume more fossil fuel than any other industrial sector [4]. The many transport miles involved in food production, processing and distribution contribute significantly to global warming and air pollution. Intensive agriculture is an important source of air pollutants. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia result from intensive livestock agriculture. Methane and nitrous oxides produced by intensive agriculture are greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. The production of nitrogen fertilizers requires large quantities of energy causing damage to the climate. Methyl bromide, still in use in some areas of Europe, contributes to ozone layer depletion.

2.4 Destruction of biodiversity

Biodiversity in natural ecosystems has been replaced with simplified systems of just a few crops and most food produced now comes from an increasingly narrow genetic base. Reliance on so few crops in industrialised farming worldwide has resulted in the loss of 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops since 1900 [6]. Polluted water and air, the destruction of natural habitats and the use of pesticides have already had dramatic effects on European biodiversity.

2.5 Disease and dangers in the food chain

Poor agricultural practices also have an adverse effect on human health. Pesticides, including hormone-disrupting chemicals used in intensive agriculture have been linked to several health effects from allergies to infertility to brain damage [8] . Often these chemicals are used in tandem with others, creating cocktails whose effects have not yet been studied [9]. Diseases such as BSE show where intensive animal farming and an emphasis on cheap feed at any cost can lead. Intensive animal farms are "a haven for disease" [10] because of cramped conditions and a lack of proper sanitation for the animals. The wide-ranging use of antibiotics in farm animals has been linked to development of resistance to antibiotics in disease causing bacteria.

2.6 Rural abandonment

Aside from these ecological and health problems, the CAP has increased inequalities amongst farmers. About 70% of CAP money go to 20% of the largest farms in Europe [11]. Small farmers and farmers in less favorable areas are unable to make a living and are squeezed out of business. Over the past 25 years the European farm labour force has fallen from 13 million to just 7 million today. In most European countries where rural land accounts for the majority of the territory, such as Italy, Spain and Greece, the active rural population has been reduced to one-fifth of its number since the 1950s.

Fewer farms, fewer jobs and larger-scale farming have resulted in the rise of rural poverty and a lack of services. Rural areas are being abandoned leaving cultural voids where once communities thrived. In Spain, 1131 small villages have disappeared in the second half of the 20th century. Young people in particular don't see a future in farming and are leaving the countryside. The policies of rationalisation and centralisation of the food industry and the subsidy system of the CAP have done much to diminish the power of rural people and farmers to develop and determine their own livelihoods.

2.7 Negative impact of the CAP on developing countries

The EU model of agriculture damages developing countries in different ways: by excessive exports, unfair trade barriers and by squeezing developing countries of their fair share of environmental space.

2.7.1 Export obsession

Export subsidies and European over-production have a negative impact on developing countries. The dumping of surplus production, such as dairy and beef, for very low prices supported by export subsidies to poorer nations is a threat to food security and blocks economic progress in developing countries. Producers in developing countries cannot compete and are driven out of jobs. Imports of European pork at subsidised prices to the Ivory Coast are three times lower than production costs in that country. Exports of EU dairy surpluses to India and Jamaica, and beef to West Africa have severe negative impacts on local producers. The result of these dumping practices is that world market prices are driven down.

To a certain extent, direct export subsidies have been replaced by 'dumping in disguise'. The direct payments of the CAP (income support) and part of the EU Structural Funds, just like direct export subsidies, give EU farmers an artificial advantage on the world market, driving down prices, at the expense of farmers in developing countries.

2.7.2 Unfair trade barriers

Current market access policies of the EU are detrimental for developing countries by imposing measures such as higher tariffs for processed products, such as coffee and cacao. This system of tariff escalation locks developing countries into their role of raw material exporters.

2.7.3 Environmental Space: surpassing the ecological footprint

This unequal distribution of environmental space leads to environmental problems in two ways: excessive use of resources by the rich and lack of resources among the poor. Current trade patterns reinforce this unequal distribution. The EU uses large amounts of land in developing countries in order to sustain its factory farming systems.

2.8 Animal welfare

Animal welfare is severely compromised by the conditions of intensive animal farming. Overcrowding does not allow for normal behaviour or normal growth patterns. Animals are routinely separated from their young; they develop deformities due to inappropriate housing and poor farming practices (such as tail docking or beak clipping); and are fed unnaturally. Calves for veal, for example, are given feed deficient in iron and fibre to make the animals anemic, thus producing whiter meat.

Cramped conditions provide the perfect breeding ground for disease. Sick and "healthy" animals alike are fed cocktails of drugs and antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to facilitate production [17]. Live animal export subsidies in the CAP also result in horrific treatment of animals during transport out of and within the EU [18]. 15% of the CAP budget is spent on supporting beef and veal production. In 2001 10,7 Billion Euro of CAP budget was given to producers of animal products. Although poultry and pig producers are not eligible for direct income support from the CAP, they profit from low cereal prices (since the 1992 CAP reforms) and from cheap duty free imports of soya and other animal feed. Poultry and pig producers also profit from direct export subsidies.

3. The Urgency for CAP Reform:

An expanded EU If the current subsidies system is transferred to the CEE-Countries after accession without fundamental reform, the damaging environmental and social outcomes mentioned above will be exported to the new Member States.

Current EU programmes for Accession do not stimulate organic agriculture, food production and processing. Agri-environmental programmes are not considered as a viable option for the development of rural areas. There are no funds available for education of farmers about sustainable agriculture and no public awareness campaigns for politicians and consumers. EU officials in the pre-accession negotiating process seem to have no interest in encouraging and developing organic agriculture. It seems instead that agriculture policies in Accession countries are focusing towards intensive agriculture and a decrease of the number of people employed in the agricultural sector. Farmers in the Accession countries will probably not be able to compete with the subsidised EU15 farmers and industry. Many farmers will simply stop producing food and arable land will be abandoned.

4. The principles underpinning a new Agriculture and Food Policy

The following principles should be applied to European Agriculture and Food policies:

4.1 Polluter pays principle

According to the polluter pays principle, those who cause damage have to meet the costs of environmental damage and health effects. This principle should apply systematically to the farming sector where taxes & levies (e.g. on pesticides and fertilisers) would be a useful vehicle to help farmers assess the true cost of their farming methods. All farming costs should be internalised in the price of food products to enable fair price comparisons.

The current agricultural policy has hidden costs that are not reflected in pricing, and therefore products from intensive farming are artificially advantaged economically over products from more environmentally sustainable agriculture. The public pays again and again for the environmental damage caused by unsound production methods through taxes, needed to finance the cleaning up of the environment and through the continued lack of availability of healthy food. Once these costs are internalised, sustainable agricultural methods will become much more economically competitive compared with intensive agriculture.

4.2 Precautionary principle

Substances that are reasonably suspected of being harmful to human health or to the environment, like many pesticides, drugs and antibiotics, should be phased out. Moreover, positive lists, instead of the existing negative lists, must be introduced for the approval of animal feeds, additives, crop protection agents and cleaning agents. More research is needed to study the relationship between exposure to chemicals and GMOs and effects on human and animal health.

4.3 Transparency

Transparency in the food chain must be compulsory and operate not only from farm to fork, but also upstream from the farm to include fertiliser, pesticides and animal feed.

5. The aims of a new CAP

The European Agriculture Policy must be fundamentally reformed and the reform should take place urgently. Sustainability, quality and localisation, rather than productivity and export promotion, should be the focus of a new CAP. FoEE believes that the aims of a new CAP should be the following:

6. New policy measures for a new CAP

The main aim of European Agriculture and Food Policy must be to support sustainable agriculture for the domestic EU market to provide healthy and safe food for consumers. For this a fundamental reorientation of the CAP is needed. FoEE believes the following policy measures are essential for a new CAP:

6.1. Eco-Conditionality: 'Minimum Agricultural Standards' for CAP payments

The vast majority of CAP funds continue to be spent without consideration to the ecological performance rendered by agriculture. At the moment even farmers that do not comply with environmental law continue to receive CAP subsidies. This must end. Cross compliance allows the reduction or even cancellation of support payments to farmers if they do not meet certain environmental and animal welfare criteria. Cross compliance should become obligatory. Making CAP payments conditional on the eco- performance of farmers would send a clear message to farmers that environmental damage on the farm will no longer be tolerated.

CAP support should only be paid to farmers who meet basic standards defined as "Minimum Agricultural Standards". A single basic premium for all sustainably managed agricultural areas should be introduced to replace the current hectare and headage payments, which are only payable for specific crops and livestock categories. Payments should also be made available to crops that are currently not eligible, such as grassland farming, feed legumes and grass-clover leys. The single basic premium should be conditional on the fulfillment of "Minimum Agricultural Standards".

Farmers adopting higher standards in environmental performance or animal welfare should be additionally financially rewarded. This may include organic, low input or free range farms, farms that take responsibility for the management of natural resources such as water, nature reserves or landscapes of natural beauty, or farms that provide a demonstrable social benefit such as allowing access to the public or offering an educational service.

6.2. Localisation instead of globalisation: support local diversity

Current agricultural policies encourage international trade and long distance transport. A new CAP should instead prioritize regional trade and provide support for the necessary infrastructure for local processing and marketing. Trade, as global as possible, seems to have become a policy goal in itself, but in fact it is only a means. Instead of promoting global trade, an entirely different orientation is needed. The new goal of a new CAP should be to shorten the food chain where possible, deriving food from the locality first, then the geographical region and from other continents only as a last resort. Trade in food that can not be grown locally should be obtained wherever feasible from neighbouring areas. Long distance trade should be limited to food not available in the region. Ever increasing trade and transport is untenable in the long term in a world with shrinking resources and in risk of serious climate change. Increasing global trade has led to increasing powerful Trans National Corporations in control of the entire food chain.

A reduction in long distance trade would contribute to a reduction in transport costs, congestion, packaging and chemical preservatives. Localisation would also stimulate links between consumers and farmers rebuilding trust where alienation now reigns. Local food economies would provide benefits to local communities, with more money circulating in the local economy, rather than adding to profits of large corporations elsewhere. Localisation would improve food safety by reducing the risks of spreading of diseases and is essential for closed circles of production within regions. By closing regional production circles the unbalanced exploitation of resources would be avoided. Current animal 'production' in the EU, largely for export, is very unsustainable, using up large amounts of land outside the EU for fodder and polluting soils, air and water in the EU. Livestock farming should be reduced to meet regional demand and should be based on locally produced feed. CAP should give priority to mixed farms with a high level of feed self-sufficiency.

International trade will and should continue, but should lose its privileged position in the CAP policy and funding system. De-prioritizing international trade and giving a higher priority to local and regional trade: small and medium-sized farms and food companies and support for local infrastructures is a prerequisite to sustainability. A policy of localisation in a new CAP would be a large step on the path to sustainable agriculture and food for Europe.

6.3 More money for Rural Development (2nd pillar of CAP)

The second pillar of the CAP needs to be reformed in order to ensure better environmental results. The largest share of the Rural Development budget should be earmarked for agri-environment programmes which should be designed in such a way that they offer incentives for higher levels of environmental protection, nature conservation and animal welfare. Rural Development programmes should prioritize funds to foster sustainable farming, quality produce and local diversity including support to organic farming, reactivation of local varieties/breeds, conversion by farmers to sustainable farming methods, training and research. Subsidies should be particularly targeted to farmers to develop local propagation and stockbreeding centers. Rural Development programmes should act as a stimulus to rural employment through subsidies to improve farm structures and technical expertise for young farmers setting up in self-employment.

Modulation under current EU regulations allows a reduction in direct support to farmers and use of these funds for environmental and rural development measures. A certain level of modulation should be compulsory, rather than voluntary, for all Member States. Modulation should not be at the expense of small farms, but instead should be implemented in a degressive way: the bigger the farm, the bigger the cuts. A threshold should be established for small farms. Re-allocation of funds should not threaten the viability of farms in less favoured areas.

The goal of modulation should be to redistribute funds towards regions that have the greatest social and environmental needs. The existing ratio for co-funding (50%, except for Objective 1 regions, where it is 25%) of environmental and rural development projects by the Member States should be reduced to stimulate the implementation of modulation.

6.4 Green tax reform: internalisation of environmental costs

A green tax reform should remove some of the tax burden on labour, and introduce taxes on transport and chemical inputs. Taxes on pesticides and fertilizers should be introduced and gradually increased in order to internalise external costs, minimise use and provide an incentive for sustainable methods of farming. Explicit policy programs for progressive pesticide reduction have to be developed [20]. All tax subsidies to fossil fuels in agriculture should be phased out.

6.5 Moratorium on GMO s

No GM crops should be approved for commercial growing until a number of fundamental issues are addressed. These issues are the contamination of conventional crops from cross-pollination, the long-term health, environmental and economic impacts of GMO s and the question of GM liability have been resolved and legislation is in place to protect consumers, farmers and the environment. Independent research on genetic engineering must be conducted to evaluate all possible economic, health and environmental impacts, including the risk of contamination and accidental dissemination.

6.6 Transparency and labelling

Labelling and traceability must be obligatory for all foods on the EU market, both domestic and imported. Labelling to inform the consumer of the country of origin and production method (e.g. pesticide use, animal welfare conditions) should be an obligation. The EU should provide financial support to developing countries to help them meet the cost burden that will arise from meeting this requirement.

6.7 Guarantee farmers' rights to keep and reproduce their own seeds and animal breeding stock.

For some crops such as durum wheat, farmers cannot use their own seeds because they are obliged to use only certified seeds to be eligible for CAP subsidies. Certified seeds are only those seeds available on the open market. Thus farmers must depend upon the seeds provided by corporations in order to obtain CAP subsidies. Seed corporations often only sell hybrid seeds (i.e. seeds which cannot be saved by the farmer) thereby increasing farmers' lifelong dependency on seed corporations.

It is crucial for a new CAP to guarantee the farmers' right to keep and reproduce their own seeds and animal breeding stock. A simple, sound and verifiable system of self-certification for farmers must be developed. Local production bases oriented towards local food production should be set up all over Europe. This is vital to secure Europe's food sovereignty, improve food safety and preserve and promote agricultural biodiversity in Europe.

6.8 Direct subsidies to sustainable farms instead of big farms

Instead of mainly supporting big farms as is currently the case, CAP payments should provide much more support to smaller sustainable farms. Payments to individual farmers should be strictly limited to ensure that the largest farms do not receive a disproportionate share of CAP funding. This could be achieved by setting higher payment rates for the first few hectares than for subsequent hectares. Payments should be subject to a degressive overall ceiling.

6.9 Limit the powers of agri- and food business

"The market reality of today is different from that of say 30 years ago. We have observed a dramatic concentration of the retailing and processing sector over the last two decades, with a few firms in each country controlling most of the market"

Commissioner Fischler, Speech in Brussels, 12 April 2002

The current food system is characterized by an increasing dominance of a small number of retailers, food distributors and processors capable of imposing their own interests on society and acting as arbitrators of the agriculture and food system. Whereas farm prices for many products have fallen over the last decades, consumer prices have often not followed this trend. Middlemen, supermarkets and agribusiness have reaped the profits at the expense of farmers and consumers.

It is time for the EU to develop policies to enforce corporate accountability on the EU level as well as on the global level. Corporate accountability policy should include measures on the citizen's right to know in order to mandate corporate transparency, legal liability and full disclosure regarding financial transactions and relationships with governments. The EU should take action to prevent market domination by agri-business and food corporations. Policies should include limiting market share through competition rules. These should be applicable at a local and regional level in order to reverse the trend of supermarket policies forcing other local shops out of business in small towns.

6.10 Fair Accession for new EU Member States

The Accession process should be based on principles of equality and partnership. Current proposals from the European Commission for enlargement (January 2002) seem to see the Accession countries mainly as a new export market. Giving less income support to the new countries (starting with 25% and then building it up in 10 years) compared to current EU15 farmers will make it very hard for CEE farmers to compete. Turning the new countries into export markets for the EU 15 is not the way forward. Friends of the Earth demands equal treatment for farmers from the EU15 and Accession countries from the beginning: subsidies under strict environmental conditions and priority for quality and local diversity.

6.11 Stimulate sustainable development and food security worldwide

6.11.1 Exports

The basis of the relationship of the EU to its trading partners needs to be changed to better reflect principles of equitable and sustainable trade. Today the EU export subsidies effectively dump agricultural products on the world market. Moreover, these export subsidies also facilitate continued overproduction within Europe. Export subsidies simply have to be phased out. The US should also stop subsidizing exports, but the EU cannot continue to use the US export subsidies as an excuse to not phase out its own dumping practices.

The EU has reserved the right for itself for years to protect its own market. In fact, the "success" of its productivity and export oriented agricultural model is based on protectionism. But now, through institutions like the WTO, World Bank and IMF, the EU is denying this right to developing countries. The EU is actively pushing developing countries to open up their markets for its Transnational Companies. This is unfair: developing countries have the right to protect their own producers and farmers, just as the EU has done for years. Present WTO agreements must be changed to allow countries to give priority to local food production for local needs, based on locally available resources.

6.11.2 Peoples' Food Sovereignty

Friends of the Earth supports the principle of Peoples' Food Sovereignty in agricultural policy. This means that international trade agreements can not overrule national concerns about social or environmental aspects of food and agriculture. All countries should have the ability to determine their own food, health and agricultural policies (including subsidies to agriculture), which includes the rejection of products which do not meet standards in sustainability and social criteria (e.g. hormone meat, GMO s).

Imported goods should have to fulfill the same standards regarding quality and production methods as those the EU prescribes to its own producers. Where this affects producers in developing countries, the EU should assist these countries in building up the expertise to meet EU standards regarding products and production processes. EU standards should also take into account specific circumstances for small producers and developing countries.

6.11.3 Market access

The issue of market access is a complicated one, where situations differ greatly from sector to sector and from country to country. There are considerable differences between different developing countries and huge questions as to who will benefit from opening up markets by the EU: rich countries and transnational corporations or the poor sectors in developing countries? Export-led development in poor countries may help investors, agricultural companies and wealthy farmers to improve, yet large parts of the rural population are likely to suffer displacement from small farms, loss of livelihoods, and forced migration to cities.

A closer look at the EU market access policies illustrates the complexity of the situation. For example, the EU application of tariffs to processed products (known as tariff escalation), which protects the European food processing industry can have very damaging economic and environmental impacts elsewhere as it locks developing countries into being primary commodity exporters. Tariff escalation should be abolished. On the other hand, the EU open market policy for fodder products such as soya also has negative consequences both within the EU and in the exporting countries.

Every year, the EU imports more than 55 million tons of animal feedstuffs (soya, tapioca, residues and wastes from food industries, such as citrus peels, etc.) from various countries, including Brazil, Thailand, Uruguay and USA. These massive imports are damaging to sustainable development in developing countries (particularly through loss of land for subsistence agriculture and forest clearance) and have fuelled an enormous growth in industrial factory farming in the EU with disastrous consequences for animal welfare and pollution. These massive imports of fodder have to be reduced.

There is also a tension between the short-term economic need that many developing countries have to earn foreign currency to service debts and meet local conditions; and longer term requirements to promote food security, food sovereignty and sustainable agriculture, that cannot be met through export-oriented agriculture. Increased market access can never be more than a stop-gap solution - a 'band-aid' measure - since it often conflicts with the need to increase food security and sustainable agriculture and is incompatible with the need to reduce transport, prevent more climate change and reduce the ecological footprint of the north.

The real solutions to the current crisis require a deeper and more radical shift away from exported-oriented, industrial agriculture. Critically, debt cancellation is urgently needed to enable developing countries to move away from the need to earn foreign exchange and prioritize the needs of the domestic population. In addition to debt cancellation, the social and environmental impact of all quota and tariff regimes regulating agricultural trade with non-EU countries should be evaluated, sector by sector, on the basis of sustainability criteria that encompass both EU and non-EU countries.

Market access policies (such as quotas and tariffs) should be used to discriminate in favour of more sustainable production methods, fair trade products and small producers in the Least Developed Countries. In short, market access policies must prioritize sustainable development and food security.

END

[1] Article 33 (ex-Art. 39) of the EC-Treaty
[2] F.e. during the Vienna Summit in 1998
[3] DGVI/DGXI/Eurostat 1999. Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development: facts and figures - A challenge for agriculture, Brussels
[4] Colin Hines, Localization, A Global Manifesto, Earthscan, London, 2000, pg. 209
[5] Caroline Lucas: Stopping the great food swap: relocalising Europe's food supply.
[6] FAO (2002) Food Security and the Environment. FAO, Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/fsheet/environment.pdf.
[7] DGVI/DGXI/Eurostat 1999. Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development: facts and figures - A challenge for agriculture, Brussels
[8] John Humphrys "These Toxic Times" in The Great Food Gamble London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2001 p 48.
[9] ibid
[10] Dr Tim O'Brien "Factory Farming and Human Health" Hants, Compassion in World Farming Trust, 1997 p 1.
[11] Speech Commissioner Fischler November 22, 2001, European Voice Conference European Communities, Economic and Social Commmittee, 18 Feb 2002, draft opinion on the future of CAP, p 12 Rapporteur: Lutz Ribbe
[12] Oxfam/Novib: Rigged Rules and Double Standards, Make Trade Fair, 2002, p. 115 European Research Office, Paul Goodinson: "The CAP Dimension", 2001, p.3
[13] UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998, p.2
[14] UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998, p.5
[15] Dr Tim O'Brien "Factory Farming: The Global Threat" Hants, Compassion in World Farming Trust, 1998.
[16] Eurogroup for Animal Welfare Campaign Information "Live Animal Transport" available online at http://www.eurogroupanimalwelfare.org/campaigns.html
[17] BUND/FoEE: Billions for Sustainability? EU Regional Policy and Accession, p. 16
[18] Several countries have in the past introduced levies on nitrogen: Sweden, Norway, Finland and Austria. Pesticide taxes have been introduced in Italy and the Scandinavian countries.