Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development

European Agriculture in 2010

Visit to LTO Nederland
The Hague, 2 June 2005

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen,

I'd like to thank you sincerely for inviting me to the Hague to look forward a few years to what agriculture in the EU may be like in 2010.

If any of you enjoy science fiction, you may know that "2010" is the title of a Hollywood film made in the 1980s - the sequel to the earlier film "2001", in fact. It shows a world in which people are more concerned with exploring the solar system than with life's traditional challenges, such as getting food out of the ground and transporting it to hungry people. Indeed, I think we take it for granted in the film that all difficulties of food production and distribution have been solved by technology.

Perhaps you won't be too surprised if I say that we're probably not going to get quite that far in the next 5 years! I confidently predict that farmers will still be working the earth in 2010, and I even dare to forecast that the post of EU Agriculture Commissioner will still exist - on planet Earth, in the familiar setting of Brussels.

But although technology and society aren't quite evolving at the speed dreamt of by some writers in the 20th century, in my field of interest - agriculture - we're certainly not living in quiet times. 5 years from now, a career in farming will be a little different to what it was in the 1990s. Today I intend to outline some of the forces that will shape that change.

The draft constitutional treaty

Let me begin with a few words about the EU's draft constitutional treaty, since this is obviously a subject of very immediate interest today.

The people of France and the Netherlands have squarely rejected this document.

It is not for any Commissioner to comment on whether voters have given the "right" or the "wrong" answer to the questions put to them by referendum. The important thing is that they have made their wishes known in a democratic process.

It's too early to say what their votes will mean for the draft treaty - which includes, of course, clauses giving the European Parliament the power of co-decision with the Council over agriculture.

The next steps will be up to EU heads of state and government, who will meet later this month. The Commission will be listening closely to whatever they and the other EU institutions have to say.

In the mean time, though, allow me a few observations.

First, the European project can move ahead only with the support of the European people. But to see things in proportion, we should remember that nine member states, representing almost half of the EU's population, have already ratified the draft treaty.

Second, we must - and we will - do a better job of explaining why the constitution is helpful and necessary.

Third, the show will go on: the daily business of the EU must continue. In terms of agriculture, we have vital work to complete in the coming months, such as reform of the sugar regime.

It was reassuring earlier this week at the Agriculture Council when we agreed a new Regulation on financing the CAP. This shows that the machinery of the EU is still running.

As we keep it running over the next few months, I know we can count on the Netherlands and France to make their usual vital contribution to day-to-day decision-making.

Ongoing reform

I'll move on now from the "big picture" for the EU to legal detail much closer to what our farmers do day to day.

It's clear that we're in the middle of unfinished business - the business of remoulding the CAP for a better fit with modern economies.

The big challenge of the last 5 years was dreaming up the ideas, talking them over and turning them into a workable overall scheme - the reforms of 2003 and 2004 . One of our tasks for the next 5 years is making that scheme work on the ground in all its various forms in member states which between them encompass freezing mountains and sun-baked plains, livestock holdings of a few hectares and cereal farms of a few hundred.

As we introduce the Single Farm Payment across the EU, farmers will feel the difference. The beef farmer in Bavaria will be completing one form to claim his subsidy, rather than enough forms to fill half an office. He'll be giving less time to his paperwork, more to his cattle. The arable farmer in central France may be thinking about substituting an energy crop for some of his usual wheat, safe in the knowledge that his decoupled aid will be a strong safety net if the profits don't quite match his hopes.

I fully expect that, even as soon as 2010, the new freedom to farm in the EU will be starting to bring a broader range of goods to market, with extra added value. And I expect to see a new vigour among Europe's farmers, a new sense of expanding opportunities. There should be a feeling that it's an exciting time to be in agriculture.

Much of this "unfinished business" relates to decisions already taken at Community level. The rest of it is linked to discussions yet to be concluded.

The wave of reform moving through the CAP is not yet spent: it still has to pass through the sugar, wine, and fruit and vegetables sectors if our farm policy is to keep its overall coherence.

As you know, sugar is the first of these to be tackled, and the Commission wants to make its firm proposals just 20 days from now.

Depending on farm ministers' final verdict, this really should mean far-reaching change for the sugar sector before 2010. Among other shifts, there's likely to be a deep cut to the internal price, the partial integration of support for beet farmers into the SFP, and probably slimmed-down domestic production.

Inevitably, for some this has very negative resonances - particularly the point about EU output. On the other hand, I will do all I can to ease the transition. Measures examined by the Commission would, if accepted, shrink our industry as much through reward as through pressure. Where production ceased, we should remember that this would release resources for more economically viable activities. And I believe that the industry which emerges from the process will have a sound long-term future amid all the unnerving variables of global competition.

What happens to the fruit and vegetables sector will also, of course, be of close interest to a country like the Netherlands, with its superb record of efficient production and dynamic exports. Today I can't tell you about the likely detail of a possible new common market organisation. What I can tell you is that it will support, not obstruct, your efforts to produce the right goods for global markets eager for what you have to offer.

Rural development

When I received my invitation to address today's symposium, I was asked to pay particular attention to rural development. I'm more than happy to do so, because the related questions are so integral to what the people of the EU will require of Europe's countryside over the next few decades.

With regard to our landscape, the story of the CAP has been not one story, but several. Where some have praised it for keeping farmers, the custodians of the land, in business, others have criticised it for poisoning rivers and filling fields with pesticides - all at the expense of the public purse.

I tell yet another story: the story of a policy which has had mixed overall success but which now, at any rate, has to change.

In 2010, as today, when the people of the EU judge our agricultural and rural policy, they will do so both as consumers and as citizens.

As consumers, they will ask to what extent policy has helped provide the goods they want, at the prices they're prepared to pay. But they will also be allocating marks as citizens. And the questions in this case will be: Is policy protecting the fields, the streams, the woodlands that we value? Is it creating pleasant spaces for work and play outside the towns and cities?

If the marks they give in this section of the examination are poor, then no matter how well we perform in the first half, we will be considered to have failed.

As I say this to you, I suspect I'm preaching to the converted. I was impressed when my staff showed me the following paragraph from your website, under the title "LTO vision":

I quote "Farmers will produce a diversity of quality products (agricultural, horticultural, and green services) that will be oriented to the needs of specific customers. This will be done with due consideration for the soil, air and water, and animal welfare. Farmers will be custodians of a pleasant countryside providing history, peace, and open air." Closed quotes.

Congratulations for agreeing a mission statement of which parts could have been written by my cabinet, or even by me!

But even if I am preaching to the converted, I'll nevertheless continue my sermon, because we need to think about aspects of rural Europe which lie beyond the influence of farmers, and also because we need to reflect on means as well as goals.

Let's turn back to your mission statement: among other things, farmers will provide green services and will care for the countryside. Spot on. A large part of farmers' future lies in looking after our rural areas; and our rural areas have no future without farmers.

But getting these places to make their full contribution to the EU's economy and well-being will involve a wide range of agents doing more than just preserving the physical landscape.

Does one region have a beautiful forest? It would be nice if visitors could enjoy parts of it by strolling through on well-kept paths, taking advantage of good information about local history and stopping off at a well-placed café for a cold beer.

Does another region have rolling hills which are becoming a popular address for weary city workers in need of a quiet life? The area risks being no more than a dormitory unless it can sustain shops, a school, perhaps a kindergarten.

Rural policy certainly implies conservation; without this, a rural area quickly loses its charm. But it also implies "development" - the appropriate development of businesses, public services and infrastructure to hold communities together.

Balancing conservation against development is the key task whether a member state is concerned about overloading the countryside - as in the Netherlands - or with the opposite evil of the rural exodus.

This belief is reflected in the structure of the Commission's blueprint for a rural development Regulation for 2007-2013, which is structured around lifting competitiveness, managing the land, stimulating diversification and ensuring a good quality of life.

There have been some heated discussions about our proposals in the Council, but I'm confident that we'll get a basic political agreement by the end of this month, thanks to wise leadership from Cees Veerman last year and more recently from Fernand Boden, Luxembourg's agriculture minister.

If hammering out a text were the only challenge, then the medium-term future of our rural policy would be assured. But there's a threat from elsewhere.

Six member states, including the Netherlands, have argued very loudly that the EU's budget is getting too greedy for funds and that it should be held at 1% of the Union's economic output, even in a Union which has acquired 10 new members.

If they get their way, it will be a heavy blow to our rural policy.

There is little room for manoeuvre. The first pillar of the CAP is protected by the Brussels agreement of 2002, and talk of making it subject to co-financing is not going to lead anywhere: we cannot allow the renationalisation of farm policy which this would amount to.

With this in mind, structural funding and rural development are big targets for cuts. Rural funding will therefore not survive undamaged if EU member states opt for a leaner overall budget.

I understand the pressure on national finance ministries to find savings at a time of weak economic growth. But I think they take too negative a view of the value of every euro, every pound, every krona spent on the EU - especially on the 90% of its territory which is rural.

Properly applied, spending at Community level adds value, it does not absorb it. The traditional view of the countryside as a potential black hole for subsidy must be challenged. In an era when tens of thousands of intelligent, enterprising people want to live and work outside our cities, we are putting a brake on our economies if we do not help them.

Of course, part of the solution is up to markets. But markets will often be much less developed outside the cities and may need to be kick-started by public money.

This is especially true of many of the new member states, which are desperate for help in switching much of their land use from subsistence farming to more viable non-agricultural activities.

In Brussels we spend a lot of time talking about the Lisbon Agenda for economic dynamism. That dynamism will never develop if our rural areas are not fulfilling their potential; and they will not do this without help.

International trade

As I've outlined, then, the next 5 years will bring a lot of domestic change for EU agriculture. The international context should also have shifted visibly.

I hope that the Doha Round will long since have ended in success and will be bringing benefits to all.

The weather seems fair in this respect for the time being. The breakdown of ministerial talks in Cancún in September 2003 seemed catastrophic at the time. But we've got the train back on the tracks since then, and I think she's moving with enough speed to get to Hong Kong by December this year - where we hope to put together an agreement on agricultural `modalities'.

I defy anyone to try to take away credit from the EU for this healthy state of affairs. It was our provisional offer of May 2004 to scrap agricultural export refunds that injected fresh vigour into flagging negotiations. Since then, we've been as deeply engaged in the talks as anyone, and most recently - last month - we tabled some helpful ideas on structuring changes to the three main `pillars' of the agricultural discussions: domestic support, market access and export competition.

There's a lot of hard work ahead between now and December, technical and political. But the necessary will is clearly there.

What will it mean for EU agriculture in 2010 if we get the deal we want?

Lower import tariffs will certainly make our farm sector more open to the rest of the world. But the food markets of most WTO members - probably with the exception of poorer countries - will also lie more open to us: an opportunity which we need to seize.EU farmers need not fear that they will emerge the losers from the Doha Round. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and I will press hard for an outcome balanced between agricultural and non-agricultural concerns; we are also set on fairness within the farm talks themselves.

Industrialised countries with healthy farm exports are unhappy with our export refunds. Fair enough; we can do without these. But they for their part must lay down the armoury of devices which they use to bolster their own foreign trade.

Poorer states demand that their richer partners spend less on trade-distorting subsidy. This is acceptable. But they must not then also attack more benign subsidies as defined by the current Green Box.

And advanced developing countries with mighty farm sectors clamour for more access to our markets. We are listening. But if goods flow around the world more freely for the benefit of consumers, those consumers must be in a position to make informed choices. This implies a strong role for geographical indications and non-trade concerns.

This is the kind of agreement for which I am fighting. If we get it, the international context for European agriculture in 2010 will hold opportunities. Fortune will favour the bold.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen,

I'm coming towards the end of my allotted time for today. I'd like to end with some words of encouragement very specific to you.

Of course the years ahead are uncharted waters, as always. But the Dutch have never been afraid of exploring and have always thrived on a challenge.

Like my homeland, the Netherlands is a small country, but for centuries it has punched above its weight in politics and especially in trade. When scientific knowledge opened up the oceans, the Dutch seized their chance and took to their new ships, trading on the markets of the world. And they grew rich. New difficulties, such as high population density and environmental damage, have similarly been met with shrewd thinking and prompt action.

Life is never simple, and our best-laid plans can go awry. But I am sure that, if farmers in the EU take lessons from the best qualities shown by the Dutch, they will be prospering well beyond 2010.

Thank you for your attention.