3 INITIAL REACTION TO THE VISION
DOCUMENT
9. The initial reaction to the publication of the
Vision paper, as reported in the specialist farming press, was
largely negative. Headlines describing "Labour's nightmare
for UK farming" and the "flawed case for CAP reform"
characterised the media's response.[12]
Although Commissioner Fischer Boel was reported as saying that
she and her colleagues would "give this report our very careful
consideration", she was clear about the UK's part in 2002
in agreeing the agricultural budget until 2013: "Let's not
forget that EU governments, including the UK, agreed in 2002 to
fix the CAP budget until 2013," she said. "We have just
reformed the CAP based on that budget and these reforms are only
now being put into effect".[13]
10. Subsequently, Commissioner Fischer Boel strengthened
her criticisms of the UK Government's proposals. When addressing
'Green Week' in Berlin she described how, while she welcomed all
contributions to the debate, "the vision of a merely industrial
agricultural sector as presented in the UK paper is not a vision
I share".[14] She
described how her own vision of agriculture's role went way beyond
just producing food. "It is an indelible part of our social
and environmental fabric and I want it to stay like that".[15]
11. Green Week also saw other attacks on the UK Government's
persistent calls for further CAP reform. Austrian Agriculture
Minister and the Farm Council President at that time, Josef Proll,
said that, after 14 years of reform, farmers desperately needed
a period of stability. "We must put an end to this eternal
call for yet more reforms", he said. The German farm leader,
Gerd Sonnleitner, also accused the UK government of "poisoning
the political atmosphere" in 2005 with its constant attacks
on the CAP.[16]
12. When Commissioner Fischer Boel gave evidence
to the Committee in October 2006, her position did not seem to
have softened. Whilst her comments were couched in diplomatic
language, she made it clear that she fundamentally disagreed with
the Vision's emphasis on farming without subsidies or market protection.
She concluded by saying that, in the Vision paper, "assumptions
are made and conclusions drawn which I have difficulty agreeing
with, which have not been fully thought through and which are
not coherent when we take them as a whole". In her opinion,
in many parts of Europe, farmers simply would not be able to continue
looking after the land if they were wholly dependent on the revenue
obtained from selling their produce.[17]
13. Domestic reaction to the paper was not much more
positive. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) described the lack
of a "roadmap", detailing how the Vision's objectives
were to be practically achieved, as being "particularly problematic".[18]
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) suggested that
the "purpose of the paper is not clear" and also criticised
the lack of any attempt "to carry stakeholders either in
the UK or in the rest of the EU along with [the UK Government's]
Vision".[19] The
Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) thought the report was "riddled
with false illusions, rocky assumptions and dated thinking",
which all made for "depressing reading from a farmer's perspective".[20]
Sir Don Curry, Chairman of the Sustainable Farming and Food Implementation
Group, was also "disappointed" that the overall tone
of the Vision document implied that little had been achieved at
a time when the farming industry was going through its biggest
change in over 40 years.[21]
14. Reaction from environmental organisations was,
generally, slightly more positive. The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds (RSPB) supported the overall direction of the Vision
and many of the points within it, although it would have liked
to see "much more detail attached to the future policy framework
it describes". It particularly welcomed the commitment to
environmental policies and the endorsement of the 'Public Money
for Public Goods' principle. However, it felt that "the value
of the Vision document will be compromised if it is seen as the
justification for a cost-cutting exercise".[22]
Natural England supported "the overall critique presented"
and welcomed the Vision "as far as it goes", but considered
that it "lacks any explanation as to how parts of the Vision
could be achieved". For example, it asserted that "achieving
sustainable agriculture will require more than regulation and
the existing Pillar 2 support" and recommended that "the
Vision is further developed to set out a clearer vision for the
shape of future European support for sustainable agriculture,
land management and the rural environment".[23]
15. Our overseas visits were particularly useful
in gauging the general reaction to the Vision in some other EU
Member States. The reaction was unsurprisingly negative in the
French Ministry of Agriculture. There we were told that the continued
existence of Pillar 1 support was necessary to compensate European
farmers for the costs associated with meeting the high standards
demanded by consumers with respect to the environment, animal
welfare and food safety. Officials of the French Finance Ministry,
however, accepted that most of the arguments contained in the
UK Government's Vision made economic sense and described the report
as being "very refreshing", but felt that it was difficult
to see how the Vision could be turned into policy. The consensus
within France on the need to support farmers was also thought
to be sufficiently strong to withstand the change from being a
net CAP beneficiary to being a net contributor when farm payments
were fully extended to the new Member States at the end of their
transitional phase-in.
16. In Germany, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture
and Consumer Protection seemed to be adopting a pragmatic approach,
describing itself as being "flexible and open, but also realistic"
about the prospects for further CAP reform. Meanwhile, the representatives
of the German farming union that we met were keen to stress the
need for a period of stability after the 2003 reforms. The overriding
message to come out of our visit to Poland and Romania was that
there was unlikely to be much appetite for further CAP reform
there until the level of direct payments received by farmers in
the new Member States reached parity with that of producers in
the rest of the EU. Due to the terms of accession, these levels
of support would not be fully aligned until 2013 in the case of
Poland and 2016 for Romania.
17. The opinions we heard from a number of individuals
during formal evidence at the Royal Agricultural Show were especially
interesting. There was a sense that the Vision document had disregarded
the human dimension of agriculture.[24]
The witnesses we met at the show emphasised their belief that
agriculture was not like any other industry and, while previous
subsidy regimes had failed to encourage farmers' entrepreneurial
instincts, it was still imperative that policy makers provided
economic conditions in which UK farmers could survive.
12 "Labour's nightmare for UK farming", Farmers
Weekly, 9 December 2005, p 6; "'Flawed case' for CAP
reform dismissed by farming leaders", Farmers Guardian,
9 December 2005, p 2 Back
13
"UK report urges more CAP reform", Agra Europe,
9 December 2005, EP/6-7 Back
14
'Green Week' is an internationally renowned public exhibition
for the food and agricultural industries, held annually in Berlin.
Mariann Fischer Boel's speech at 'Green Week' on 12 January 2006
is published in German on the European Commission's website at:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/fischer-boel/speeches/archive_en.htm Back
15
"CAP reform demands face criticism at Green Week", Farmers
Weekly, 20 January 2006, p 8 Back
16
Ibid. Back
17
Q 243 Back
18
Ev 99 Back
19
Ev 1 Back
20
Ev 117 Back
21
Ev 212 Back
22
Ev 17-18 Back
23
Ev 126 Back
24
Q 121 [Mrs Herbert] Back
|
