Part 3 - Proposals

Part 3 - Proposals Matthieu Calame, Philippe Cacciabue, Iain Farqhart Susana Poveda (1.6 to 1.11), Samuel Ferret (2.11 to 2.15) These proposals are those that were debated during the Peles Assembly. They were also debated on the forum. This is the reason they are distributed according to the four topics that gave rise to the forum's structure. They are very diverse; some are for immediate application while others require more time. However, together, these reflections and proposals lead us to state 4 principles and raise a key question:  The changes in question here are long term changes that will take time to become effective. We are not limited to what is possible now and in present political and social circumstances, but we point out the reforms we feel are inevitable and which on which we are prepared to wager that they will occur sooner or later, though sooner would be better!  We think that all the proposals must try to clearly set out the long-term objectives they aim at achieving, even if they appear impossible to achieve in the near future. Reflection should always be carried out with the future in mind, by not restricting subjects to what is thought acceptable at a given moment by an audience or to what can be achieved already. Experience proves that raising a question in the correct terms naturally leads to solutions.  However, a proposal cannot be satisfactory if it just announces pious wishes; it must clearly declare the means it needs at its disposal to achieve its aims, thus the coherence between the declared objectives of a proposal and the tools it develops is capital.  Once the final objectives are clear and shared, and once the means for implementing them are known, most of the following social negotiation covers the schedule for achieving the objectives. We are not in a situation where we can simply push a button so that everything changes; any sudden transformation would have disastrous consequences and be refused by the actors. Therefore we must agree on a reasonable rhythm for change, as it is the only way of guaranteeing acceptance and the real success of policies at the lowest social cost.  Questions remain in the area of changing international relations and in particular acceptance by Europe's trading partners regarding its rural policy once it interacts with the market. Europe, or at least a large minority of its population, benefits considerably from the globalized economy. In the case where certain European measures met hostility from our partners that then retaliated, to what point would we be prepared to go in a possible trade war? Should we restrict ourselves to measures compatible with WTO rules or should we consider measures contrary to them in the name of higher principles? 1. Territory, Food and Health The link between food and health is the subject of a specific Alliance proposals booklet, as is the subject of food security (security of food supplies). Here, we will only deal with points we feel are fundamental in the European framework while bearing in mind that Europe's economic and cultural influence causes the effects of its policies to extend far beyond its borders. Moreover, we wish to recall that the role of territory in health is not only limited to the question of food. The link between food, territory and health comprises three aspects: 1- The integration of food production and health policies, with the issue of health policy reform in the background. 2- Security of food supplies. 3- The therapeutic and social role of an open territory. 1- Health policies suffer from a chronic lack of preventive measures, leading to failure in formulating a nutrition strategy worthy of the name and totally obscuring the change through time of the nutritional quality of agricultural products. In addition, from the standpoint of health (bacteria, etc.), emphasis has been almost exclusively focused a strategy of asepsis (disinfection and the elimination of all germs). This type of "eradication" strategy is doomed to failure. It is illusory to believe that asepsis is possible outside a closed environment (a test tube!). A microbe will always succeed in adapting and, on its own, will develop and become toxic. The human stomach is also and above all a fermentor of microorganisms without which digestion would be impossible. Therefore it is necessary to develop a conception of hygiene based on the equilibrium between germs rather than on their elimination. Then, the link between health and food obviously cannot be reduced to the presence or not of germs, nor of a balance between types of germ. If the diet of a person is unbalanced (e.g., too salty) in relation to the life they lead, they will have health problems. In Western Europe, for example, coronary diseases are common and obesity is becoming frequent. However, an agricultural policy that stresses the importance of such and such a product could modify the food habits of Europeans. By promoting milk, for example, Europe has encouraged over-consumption and its massive use in diets (as in Spain where its use was relatively rare). The same can be said about sugar. On the other hand, little has been done to encourage the consumption of vegetables, which are positive for health. Without going as far as to dictate what Europeans should eat, it is at least possible to lessen encouragement of products whose consumption is already excessive. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that food is only one facet of health. Is it reasonable to have tobacco production policies? Not really! For all that, rural policies can only provide a fraction of the solutions; the problem of various types of pollution, especially atmospheric pollution, will become very serious in the future. Without going further, we have chosen 11 proposals : 1.1 Base prices on dry matter 1.2 Establish nutritive standards for basic products 1.3 Useless GMOs, GMOs to be banned 1.4 Regulating the use of salt 1.5 A territory for all: democratization of the countryside 1.6 Establish quality standards 1.7 Education for consumption and production 1.8 Organisation of production for consumption 1.9 Develop the production of quality raw materials 1.10 Develop research into GMOs 1.11 Adapt the CAP to sustainable agriculture for quality production 2- Although there is no threat to food supplies in Europe in the short-term, this issue cannot be separated from the overall issue of supplies and their relationship with trade deregulation (see proposal 4.4). 3- As a temporary environment for life and revitalization and as a place for physical exercise the countryside (territory) plays a fundamental role in improving the population's health. Developing it and making it easier to get to, whether for short or long stays, represents a major challenge in improving life space. (see proposal 1.5). *** Proposal 1.1 base prices on dry matter Context and reason - Everyone has fallen victim to the juicy slice of veal or turkey that has disappeared like molten snow when cooked! Unfortunately, the same applies to many other products, such as potatoes, carrots and milk. There is forever more water in them and is not due to chance! The voluntary dilution of certain products, such as milk, by producers was practiced for a long time when it is easy to carry out. This practice was forbidden but since it is impossible to check, the result is the application of a minimum definition for milk. For example, below a given threshold of fat content, milk is no longer considered to be milk, etc. It has now been established that agricultural practices modify or alter product quality. After all a carrot remains a carrot whatever one does to it (in terms of nitrates, etc.) and however much water it contains. Producers profit from methods that result in products swollen with water, or from storage methods that maintain high water levels in them. And yes, if our juicy slice of veal produced by modern farming methods is cheap, this is so only in appearance. In fact what we are buying is very expensive water! Mechanism and implementation– To limit this sale of water, prices should be displayed that are based on the dry matter in food products and not wet matter! At present, the prices displayed in shops (e.g., 2 Euros per kilo) give the price of wet matter, i.e. including the weight of the water contained in the product! On the contrary, prices should be based on dry matter, the only constituent of the product with any real nutritive value. We would then see that quality products thought of expensive are actually much less so while "cheap" products are in expensive if one analyzes their real nutritive value It is relatively easy to calculate the dry matter of products and many products already display it although without linking it to the price. Thus consumers could compare the prices based on the dry matter of two apparently equivalent products (for example, two carrots or two slices of veal). The partners concerned – Here is a measure that can be implemented by everyone. There is no need for a complicated technical and legal arsenal. Any shop can decide, at least initially, to display two prices and make measurements (a good oven is enough), while waiting, of course, for this procedure to become standard commercial practice! However, producers and consumer organizations are perfectly capable of doing this too. Complementary measure – This solution obviously does not solve the problem of balance between different nutriments, since amounts of dry matter do not permit measuring possible deficiencies. However, it does give consumers a useful indication of the real value of the product they buy and a better idea of quality/price ratios. *** Proposal 1.2 establish nutritive standards for basic products Context and reason – to be or not to be a potato, that is the question? The quality of agricultural products has always varied from year to year. However, modernized farming methods, the development of hydroponics, and the use of synthetic fertilizers have radically changed the level of producers' responsibility in final product quality. Today, farmers that over-fertilize their potatoes deliberately commit an action that will modify the nutritional quality of the potatoes they dig out of the ground. Over-rapid cultivation practices cause imbalances in certain functions of the plant's organism, resulting in potatoes containing too much starch in relation to other constituents, for example, magnesium. Since the capacity of the human stomach is limited and cannot increase its ingestion of potatoes, the result will be dietary imbalance, with a lack of magnesium, to continue with our example. However, if the dairy producer is responsible in the case of diluted milk, and the miller responsible if he mixes bean flour in his bread, why shouldn't farmers be responsible when they use methods that change the composition of their products? Debates have already taken place in Europe over chocolate (what proportion of chocolate butter should be used in chocolate fabrication), so why shouldn't they be held for beef and artichoke production too? Mechanism and implementation – in Europe and internationally (codex alimentarius) it is necessary to define a certain number of minimum nutriment thresholds, as has been the case for milk, for products so they deserve the names by which they are called. Abnormal products would be destroyed or sold under another name which would be clearly distinct. *** Proposal 1.3 Useless GMOs, GMOs to be banned Context and reason – What is the prion that causes mad cow disease? According to current theory it is an abnormal protein. How are GMOs made? By transferring the genes from one organism to another and synthesizing proteins or, as one French author has written, by putting a fish gene in strawberries. Lastly, the human immune system generally reacts strongly to proteins. This is why doctors recommend against giving too many raw proteins to young children, especially when the protein comes from a very different source. For example, mother's milk is generally ideal whereas raw lentils and peanut butter are not. Giving foreign proteins to very young children can be harmful and result in serious allergies. These three examples show that our knowledge of the genome-protein system remains patchy and that the massive development and marketing eof genetically modified organisms represents a health risk. This risk is especially great since it does not satisfy any need that cannot be satisfied by other tried and tested methods. Food GMOs are therefore useless and potentially dangerous. For ten harmless products the tenth will surely be harmful (the Starlink strain of corn has been banned in the USA due to its allergenic effects). Mechanism and implementation – Since GMOs provide no advantages and represent potential risks, they should be simply banned from European foods. *** Proposal 1.4 regulating the use of salt Context and reasons – The over-consumption of salt is a strong trend in European eating habits. The growth in the consumption of pre-cooked dishes, biscuits, crisps and other snacks is one of the main causes of the overconsumption of salt, leading to disastrous results. The reasons this excess salt consumption appear to be the loss of savor of basic foods. Thus the farm and food industry has increased the salt content in its products, since it is a flavor enhancer. What is more, it is also used to increase consumer's appetites. Passing legislation that restricts the consumer's freedom is difficult, indeed policing people's dishes should be avoided! On the other hand, it would be a good idea to moderate use of salt and possible substitutes by the farming and food industry. Mechanism and implementation – Limiting the addition of salt in food could lead to the development of two actions. The first is to provide clear information based on color coding stating whether the product:  has a low salt content,  has a normally high salt content,  has an abnormally high salt content. The second measure would be to gradually limit the addition of salt to a given threshold. The parties involved – These are all the farming and food industries, distribution companies and the health services of different countries. It goes without saying that this policy must be accompanied with informaiton being communicated to citizens. *** Proposal 1.5 A territory for all: democratization of the countryside Context and reason – New services providing "revitalization" in the country are spreading through Europe. These services range from rural hotels providing a wide variety of activities (Yoga course, artistic activities, etc.) in bucolic environments to rural guest houses, camping on farms and even „therapy‟ farms (often providing psychiatric care sometimes in association with animals). This strong trend will increase. However, other less organized ways of enjoying the countryside should not be forgotten. Obviously, these may be less suitable for generating economic activity but they are more widely accessible to the entire population. The countryside must also provide an environment for activities such as individual and family walks, whether for leisure or sport (bringing the scout movement to mind). Every occasion is worthwhile for whiling away the time in fields and picking flowers, wild fruits, etc. There is a great risk in a densely populated Europe of seeing unbridled privatization of the countryside, and the over-organization of space, eventually leading to the disappearance of areas where one can wander freely. On the contrary, we feel that the social, psychological and cultural functions of the countryside are essential for everyone. There is also a great risk of seeing the countryside fragment due to car use. Cries of alarm are often heard regarding the effects of this fragmentation on wildlife with the separation of animal populations by highways, main roads, etc. But there is no point in going as far afield. There is no network of pedestrian pathways worthy of name that can be used by children and the population in general, in other words people who don't own cars. It is now out of the question to walk three kilometers to school or to a neighboring town since this systematically implies following a road, an unpleasant exercise if any. As for walking or cycling in large cities, they are not even worth speaking about. Thus the countryside is only open in theory. In fact it is less and less accessible. Implementation – Certain hiking paths in Europe have shown that it is possible to implement a major program. The "Compostel" paths are exemplary in this respect. A European Walking Network should be set up, a green network that should be given the target of covering even more kilometers than the road network. The first aim of this measure would be conserve the existing network and create connections where they are lacking. All new constructions should be subordinated to the creation of a green link with the center of the commune. Each conurbation would survey the existing paths and set up a plan for their maintenance and development. Furthermore, a "path plan" should be incorporated in the community's rural policy and opening up and maintaining private paths should be one of its objectives. The parties involved – all the territorial authorities. Finance - a share of taxes collected on fossil fuels. *** Proposal 1.6: Establish quality standards Context – Food consumption is a dynamic process influenced by several factors that include price and fashion. Other socially related elements that affect daily consumption are family structure, education and status, religion and age. Thus the "quality" of a food product is a very subjective concept and its meaning changes according to each person's point of view. To establish quality standards, one must take into account that perception of sensorial, hygienic and nutritive quality changes from country to country in the European Union; however, differences exist within each sector of the food industry, from producer to consumer. Since administrative and production structures usually have little contact with consumers, it is necessary to know how all consumers perceive quality in order to establish quality standards in all the sectors involved. Actions  Consumers' organisations must act as a counter-weight to production; they must also have their own laboratories so they can participate directly in product quality.  The definition of quality standards between every sector involved in food. *** Proposal 1.7 Education for consumption and production Context – Every day, the share of family income spent on food decreases since the market is oriented towards quantity rather than quality. This is because of a consumption system that does not distinguish different foods according to their nutritive properties. Education directed at consumers could promote demand for healthier and more nutritive products though this requires greater involvement from distributors, manufacturers and producers in order to produce such foods. As for low income families, it would be very useful to inform them of diets that comply with the nutritional parameters necessary with economically accessible foods (for example, by adding dried fruits in diets). Actions · Training for quality production: Restore traditional crafts and food production without abandoning new technologies or quality control. · Training manufacturers: Incorporation of quality raw materials in the foods produced. · Information for distributors: Training and information aimed at distributors on the importance of knowledge of the origin of the products they use, traceability, good labelling of products and the need to inform consumers about them. · Education for consumers: Public education aimed at households to teach them to distinguish between the most nutritional products. For low-income families, it is important for them to learn to distinguish about the most accessible products so they can obtain balanced diets. School education about balanced diets, the importance of quality foods and the pleasure of taste via practical activities, visits to farms and the introduction of biological meals and local products of quality in school canteens. Regulations on labelling, which is the most direct method of informing consumers about the foods they buy. For example, in theory nutritional labelling should serve to educate the consumer. At present, it is often used for advertising foods of poor nutritional value. · University education: Set up university courses in public nutrition in order to train professionals in different sectors (teaching, health, etc.). · Education of collective catering establishments: Training courses intended for catering professionals: chefs, people handling foods, etc. *** Proposal 1.8 Organisation of production for consumption Context – Current long distribution chains cause the value of products distributed on the market to increase substantially. Furthermore, consumers cannot see the links that exist between the product and the producer, hence suspicion about the origin of foods. Restructuring the organisation of production for consumers so it becomes more direct represents a challenge for the food sector. It is possible to set up alternative distribution systems to those that exist already, in order to bypass the strategies of major distribution chains by organising production in rural areas, developing local markets for direct sale and reducing the role of middlemen to a minimum. Actions  Reduce the distance between producers and consumers via short marketing channels and reducing the number of middlemen.  Support local markets for direct sales and encourage consumption of seasonal varieties.  Set up alternative distribution systems to those in place in order to counterbalance the strategies of the major distributors. *** Proposal 1.9 Develop the production of quality raw materials Context – Product quality depends on territory and nature: this subject is controversial in Europe and it requires reflection. On the one hand, some feel that territory and nature configure the quality of foods in themselves. On the contrary, others feel that it is scientific and technical progress that gives a new configuration to foods. In order to clarify these two points of view, it is necessary to formulate the quality parameters given to a territory. These can be determined by analysing the endogenous characteristics of the raw materials before determining the characteristics attributed to the foods. Integrating raw materials in the production of foods preserves the traditional gastronomy of each territory and prevents product standardisation. Origin names and the geographic identification of foods create links with the territory from which they come and enhance the product, but these brands should not be used as marketing devices instead of indicators signifying the relationship of quality and territory. Actions  Integrate quality raw products in food production.  Utilise local varieties to conserve the gastronomic traditions of each territory.  Maintain diversity vis-à-vis product standardisation to prevent the disappearance of food related culture. *** Proposal 1.10 Develop research into GMOs Context – The introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food chain has triggered a new debate due to the risks represented by mass sowing on both human health and the environment. Most scientific communities have insisted that worries concerning GMOs are unfounded, whereas many European consumers remain unconvinced, mostly because they do not see them as necessary. Obviously, we are confronted by a highly complex subject that we must continue to study with caution and with the support of institutions, in order to determine the health risks such new technologies as GMOs may cause. Actions Set up public research teams to determine the health risks GMOs may cause. *** Proposal 1.11: Adapt the CAP to sustainable agriculture for quality production Context – Support from the Common Agricultural Policy for sustainable agriculture is vital in order to evolve towards the production of food of nutritional quality. At present there is no preventive policy aimed at obtaining healthy products and thus reduce illness in the population; only hygiene is controlled, i.e. control of pathogenic organisms. Actions  Provide aid for the changeover from industrial to sustainable agriculture: lower VAT on products that promote good health.  Set up public research teams that encourage sustainable agriculture with emphasis on the sanitary and nutritive quality of its products.  Apply controls on the production of foods with little incidence on good health (or tax these foods and use the revenue to finance the health services)  Incorporate new criteria that take into account the weight of dry matter when setting prices. *** 2 . Sustainable production systems Since 1987, the concept of sustainable development in the Bruntland report has become very popular, even though its has not had many concrete results. With respect to the countryside, it is concerned by sustainable development, due to its inclusion in major multidisciplinary workshops (air, water, soil, energy, etc.) on the one hand, and by agricultural activity in particular on the other. Controversy exists on the criteria governing the sustainability of agricultural production methods. Among the different systems proposed, at least three were presented in the agriculture chapter of the Rio Earth Summit (1992): biological (ban on chemical products), integrated (limited use of chemical products) and biotechnological (the development of GMOs). The extent of rejection of GMOs in Europe implies that they can no longer be considered as credible alternatives. True, if further studies were to show that biotechnologies are liable to lead to much more sustainable production systems, they could possible regain credibility with consumers and citizens. In this case, the future role of biotechnologies would be reconsidered. However, for the moment there is little evidence that this is so. Biotechnologies create very real risks and great uncertainty. At the other end of the spectrum, agrobiology systems are often considered as cleaner and friendlier to the environment. Since they have developed over recent years and have benefited from the latest scientific advances, they are based on good understanding of natural cycles. Consequently, they appear to satisfy the principle of precaution very well. Stated bluntly, the mad cow crisis would never have occurred if agrobiology were standard practice, since no agrobiologist would have had the idea of recycling slaughterhouse wastes into animal feed. Agrobiology has withstood the test of time, it is globally sustainable, and it places emphasis on recycling nutriments and the prudent and economic management of soils and natural resources. Furthermore, it does not appear to have been responsible for any serious damage to the environment or human health. However, things are rarely as simple as one would wish, and agrobiology is not the best solution for every situation. It is sometimes less efficient than integrated agriculture or methods that use small amounts of fertilizers, i.e. methods that make parsimonious use of agrochemicals for well-defined purposes. This point can be illustrated by two examples: - Copper based products that are largely used on agrobiology in order to limit rots, are very toxic. Agrochemical companies have developed alternatives that, according to studies using rats, are a thousand times less toxic and degrade quickly in the environment. - Water pollution by leached nitrates is a serious problem in many parts of the Union. Agrobiology usually makes use of manures that decompose, releasing nitrates. However, they are not always released at the very moment when needed for crops. Most of the nitrates produced are lost and end up in streams and rivers. On the contrary, artificial nitrates can be applied by spreading in the right amount at the right moment. In this case, the use of chemical fertilizers can reduce leaching and have beneficial effects on water quality. A great amount of European legislation concerns the control and use of agrochemical products and there is no doubt that European citizens' groups would like to see them come under even stricter control. However, looking into the effects of each product constitutes an enormous task. The following proposals focus more on setting up an overall strategy aimed at transforming the EU non-sustainable agricultural methods into sustainable ones in the near future. This implies that resource persons are capable of supplying the additional details. In itself, this is part of the strategy of change, that of proposing that the 'specialists' in the sector (researchers, consultants, and technicians) should be oriented toward research into and the promotion of sustainability rather than on reducing the costs and increasing the efficiency and profitability of agribusiness! The proposals are : 2.1 Encourage appropriate use of land (SUS1) 2.2 Develop appropriate use of water resources (SUS 2) 2.3 For remedial action to halt the decline of soil life (SUS 3) 2.4 For ameliorating the impact of rural areas on air quality (SUS 4) 2.5 Protection of Bio-diversity (wildlife) (SUS 5) 2.6 Protection of Bio-diversity (Domestic species) (SUS 6) 2.7 A energy tax 2.8 KDR 2.9 Limiting the spreading of nitrates per hectare 2.10 A rural employment policy 2. 11 Reinforce cross compliance within agricultural policy 2.12 Clarify the notion of good agricultural practices 2.13 Integrate sustainability in agricultural education 2. 14 Creating new spaces for dialogue on sustainability by stakeholders from all backgrounds 2.15 A strategy for the EU: defending sustainability at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) These proposals are the subject of a fundamental debate on the balance between constraint and encouragement. This debate has not come to and end even though everyone agrees that: 1) a certain number of constraints must be applied imposed, 2) policies that facilitate transition must be implemented. The debate essentially dealt with the balance between these two imperatives: Should restrictive policies be applied as soon as possible? Is more time needed? *** Proposal 2.1 to encourage appropriate use of land (SUS1) Context and reasons - When technology was less powerful, farmers and other land users were forced to adopt their agricultural practices to local conditions (such as soil quality, water availability, weather patterns and topography). The development of powerful and affordable technologies (but affordable only because of CAP subsidy regimes), allowed farmers to over-ride local conditions and to develop simplified and standardised crop patterns. The use of technology against rather than in concert with natural forces has led to widespread environmental and social problems (ranging from destruction of soils to flooding of human habitations). The downstream costs of inappropriate land use are rising, as environmental problems accumulate and interact with each other. In the UK, for example, prior to the Foot and Mouth epidemic, these costs were calculated as being approximately 330 Euros/ hectare/year. Who would be eligible? - Regional authorities. Conditions of support - Regional authorities, working with interdisciplinary teams of experts and consultative panels of farmers and other land users would: a. collect information about existing land use and its downstream impacts; b. compile historical information about land use patterns, prior to the second world war (after which changes in land use patterns greatly accelerated); c. draw up plans to reform land use in such a way as to allow new technologies to maximise returns gained, while working within the constraints of natural conditions and cycles. This proposal does not imply that regional authorities should try to recreate the historical past. Rather the intention is to find new ways of using technology to capitalise on natural local conditions, rather than attempting to repress these and then having to pay hidden downstream costs, which result from failures to adapt intelligently to natural forces. The aim would be to draw up long-term strategies for rehabilitating areas, which had been inappropriately developed, with a 50 year time horizon (given that it has taken 50 years to develop inappropriately). Levels of support - Substantial teams of full time workers or a combination of full time workers and specialist consultants would be required to undertake such work seriously. Budgets in the area of 5 million Euros per annum per region would be required for each natural region to employ around a hundred people and provide associated resources and support. Financial support - Half of the cost should be borne by regional authorities with the taxes they collect locally (for a region of 1 million people, this would cost 2.5 Euros annually per person). The remaining half should come from EU Regional Development Funds. Appropriate areas - all rural areas. Accompanying measures - Regional teams should liase with municipal authorities in towns and cities within or downstream of their regions, to help in the assessment of downstream impacts of any proposed changes. Local authorities may have to pool resources when legislative boundaries do not correspond to natural ecological areas. Mechanism - Regional authorities would need to appoint regional teams. They would need to consult closely with panels of farmers and other rural land-users to ensure that ultimate plans for redeveloping regions were practical and were based on intimate knowledge of local conditions. *** Proposal 2.2 to develop appropriate use of water resources (SUS 2) Context - Water is arguably the most crucial of natural resources. It is essential to all agriculture, to human, animal and plant life and to a great many specific human activities (such as industrial processes, etc.). It is also, through natural systems of drainage and river systems, important in shaping ecosystems. Its patterns of flow, in the form of river systems, river basins and estuaries have shaped historical patterns of human settlement and, with these, human culture. Reasons for proposing support - Modern efforts to constrain the movements and flows of water have often achieved desirable short-term outcomes but have frequently led to unforseen, expensive and undesirable outcomes, particularly in downstream areas. The draining of certain marshland areas and the engineering of rivers, for example, has frequently led to new crises as downstream areas suffer increasingly serious drought conditions in dry periods, combined with increasingly serious flooding during wet seasons. Who would be eligible? - Regional environmental authorities. Conditions for support - Regional environmental authorities already have responsibilities to develop local environment action plans based on water catchments. Under EU legislation, they are also required to undertake local consultation processes with water and river stakeholders. However the process of consultation is frequently too cursory and environment authorities or agencies are not making sufficient progress to meet targets set by the EU for river water quality (in at least part of most EU rivers). Under this proposal, environment authorities would be required to consult more actively by participating in the process outlined in SUS1 and by participating and contributing towards Proposal CON3 (see Appendix 3). They would be required to meet existing standards and to actively seek solutions for long term improvements in both water quality and flow control, re-introducing wherever possible natural patterns of water harvesting which were destroyed by inappropriate drainage and river engineering. Levels of support - Environment authorities would receive 5% increases in their budgets. Sources of financial support - Half from national Public Sector Budgets and half from the Rural Development Budget. Appropriate Areas - All EU water catchments Accompanying Measures - Proposal SUS1 and CON3. Mechanism - Reform of Environment agencies to develop more active liaison with citizens. *** Proposal 2.3 for remedial action to halt the decline of soil life (SUS 3) Context - Soils have been taken for granted in many EU countries. It is only recently that land users and policy makers have begun to appreciate that soils are a finite and important resource. The use of agro-chemicals has allowed farmers to disregard the health of soils and even to continue production without “living soils”. More recently, awareness has grown of the importance of soils in regulating water movements, in acting effectively as reservoirs, in breaking down chemicals (through microbial activity) and in effecting air quality (by absorbing or releasing gases). At the same time, it has become apparent that many soils suffer from salination (in hot areas where irrigation has been used extensively), from acidification (particularly when exposed to nitrous oxide produced by chemicals industries), from declines in organic matter content (particularly in arable areas) as well as from the more obvious problems of wind and water erosion. Reasons for proposing support - Scientific understanding of soils is still limited, particularly as regards the biological activity they sustain. EU countries are only now beginning to develop national strategies for protecting and/or enhancing soil protection. However many soils have arrived at a crisis point where they could be irreversibly damaged by organic matter levels falling below the critical thresholds, which are necessary for maintaining soil structure and the survival of soil organisms. This proposal would pay farmers and land-owners to provide basic information about the state of biological activity in the soils to help countries to develop national strategies for remedying damage to soils. Who would be eligible? - Farmers and land-owners. Conditions for support - Farmers and land-owners would be paid to undertake minimal surveys of their land and to report results to regionally or nationally held soils databases. A precise procedure would need to be agreed with soils experts but could be based on measuring carbon/nitrogen ratios and numbers of earthworm holes in March and April. Where land owners find that organic matter levels were below 2% (as implied by the indicators mentioned above) they would be encouraged to undertake remedial action to build up organic matter levels (one method of doing this is proposed in Proposal CON 6). Levels of support - Payments should offer sufficient inducement for landowners to undertake the work. Source of financial support - Rural Development Funds. Appropriate areas - All rural areas. Accompanying measures - Environmental Ministries or agencies in EU countries should undertake reviews of the states of their soils. Mechanism - Publication of schemes by environmental authorities. Direct contacts with farmers. *** Proposal 2.4 for ameliorating the impact of rural areas on air quality (SUS 4) Context - Rural areas have a major impact on air quality. Not only do they have negative impacts (for example, agro-chemical sprays add to the toxic load of air and adversely effect human and animal health), but they also have positive impacts (removing, absorbing and breaking down air borne chemicals.). Reasons for proposing support - Potentially rural areas could act as purifiers of the air. They already do this to some extent (by, for example, acting as carbon sinks and by absorbing nitrous oxide and other gases). This function could be enhanced by better land management and by modifying agricultural practices. However, at present the overall balance of the contribution to air quality is not monitored systematically. This makes it difficult to propose specific approaches to crop rotations or to other aspects of land management, to optimise the contribution of rural areas to achieving good air quality. Who would be eligible? - A representative sample of farmers and landowners, who manage the land in ways which are characteristic of the regions or in ways which were innovative. Conditions of support - Farmers and landowners would be paid to work (with appropriate scientific advisors) to assess the overall contribution of their enterprises to air quality (both negative and positive). They would be encouraged to work with experts to investigate ways in which their overall contribution to air quality could be enhanced. Levels of support - Payments should offer sufficient inducement for landowners to undertake the work. Source of financial support - Rural Development Funds. Appropriate areas - All rural areas. Accompanying measures - Specific proposals like those contained in CON 4 would support positive action to improve air quality (in the case of this particular proposal, the improvement is particularly focussed on the continent's overall carbon balance, which impacts on the greenhouse effect). Mechanism - Publication of the scheme by environmental authorities. Direct contacts with farmers. *** Proposal 2.5 Protection of Bio-diversity (wildlife) (SUS 5) Context - A considerable number of plant and animal species have disappeared from various regions in the EU in the last 50 years and a considerable number continue to be under threat. EU countries as signatories to the Bioldiversity Convention are required to undertake Biodiversity Action Plans, aimed at identifying species under threat and at carrying out remedial action. Reasons for proposing support - Biodiversity Action Plans tend to focus on specific regions, while actions, aimed at protecting particular species, are often focussed on isolated habitats which exist as islands of wildlife in a surrounding context of urban development or intensive farming. However some species (particularly those at the top of the food chain) need larger wild areas to continue to thrive. Action Plans which focus on individual regions are likely therefore to be enhanced by being linked in continent wide networks which would allow wildlife to move more freely, without having to cross urban areas or areas of intensive farming. Who would be eligible? - Landowners or managers who manage land between wild areas or centers of biodiversity, particularly where species had been identified as being under threat of extinction. Conditions of support - Land managers in these areas would be required to provide wildlife corridors, allowing animals to move between otherwise isolated habitats The aim would be to develop a network of corridors uniting the whole of the continent. Levels of support - These should be compensation payments, based on the existing profitability of areas taken out of production, plus an additional 10% to provide positive inducements. Source of Financial Support - Structural Funds. Appropriate Areas - In particular, areas where movements of wildlife are restricted by urban development and intensive farming. Accompanying Measures - Long distance footpaths across the continent could follow wildlife corridors, providing an amenity value, in addition to a positive contribution to biodiversity. Mechanisms - Consultation with authorities responsible for carrying out Biodiversity Action Plans and with NGOs, plus relevant landowners. *** Proposal 2.6 Protection of Bio-diversity (Domestic species) (SUS 6) Context - Plant and animal species used in agriculture have been selected over thousands of years, because of their suitability to local conditions in different parts of Europe. Reason for support - Over the last 50 years many of these breeds have become very rare as standardised approaches to farming have developed (concentrating on a few high yielding breeds). Rare breeds offer a more diverse gene pool. Previous crises in farming (where a plant or animal disease has swept through genetically uniform breeds) have in some cases been solved by drawing on and breeding from a wider genetic pool which includes genes resistant to the agent responsible for the epidemic. This measure is therefore also a precautionary measure. Who would be eligible? – Famers and landowners interested in preserving rare breeds of plants and animals. Conditions for support - Recipients of support would be required to maintain the diversity of plants and animals (by using rare breeds in their farming systems) and to make rare breeds available to conventional farmers or breeders in the event of epidemic or other difficulties which threatened the viability of mainstream agricultural production. Levels of support - Sufficient to provide farmers with an income equivalent to comparable farmers in the region who were following mainstream commercial approaches to agriculture. Appropriate areas - All areas from which surviving rare breeds originally came. Accompanying measures - Genetic research which produced better knowledge of the relationship between these breeds distinctive genetic structures and the characteristics which they display (their phenotypical characteristics). Mechanism - Ministries of Agriculture would devise schemes and publicise them as a potential option for farmers. *** Proposal 2.7 A energy tax Problem - Energy consumption is one of the main aspects of modern societies regarding the environment and obviously of agriculture. Energy consumption by agriculture has increased remarkably over the last fifty years due to mechanization, nitrate fertilizers and greenhouse productions. Other factors include transport, energy costly conservation methods (cold chains) and the generalization of uniform eating habits leading to the consumption of products without regard for their place of production (for example, imports of cucumbers from Norway). At the same time, the problems of overproduction have led to plans to get agriculture to produce energy from its surpluses, e.g., diester, rapeseed oil etc. However, the energy balances of these products are difficult to establish and very variable. In fact, establishing energy balances at present is extremely difficult due to a lack of data. Thus the energy balance of agriculture remains to done. Proposal - The introduction of an Eadded Energy Tax based on the VAT (Value Added Tax) system, which would partially substitute the latter and recording the energy traceability of products. Each company would be responsible for calculating its energy consumption and the energy contained in its exports. This cost would be added to the cost of its production. Making transport and energy hungry conservation methods more expensive, would encourage the use of more environmentally friendly modes of consumption. Comment - The energy problem is not limited to agriculture alone and it would be interesting to extend this principle to all activities. The involvement of agriculture in other sectors of production leaves few alternatives. Either we set up a global energy policy or else we must implement isolated actions. Therefore, without general application, it would be very difficult to appreciate the real effect of such a measure. This added energy tax could take the place of other taxes on petroleum products since it would be more global and more complete. Implementation - It appears more natural for a measure such as this to be introduced in the framework of the tax harmonization due to take place in Europe and that of the Rio and Kyoto agreements. *** Proposal 2.8 KDR Problem - Biocidal products comprise all herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, which eradicate 'weeds', fungi and insects. To this list can be added shorteners: these are hormones that block the growth of cereal stalks. These products are clearly toxic in strong doses. Their utilization should be limited and some measures have been taken already regarding certain biocides. However, there is no general principle for evaluating and comparing the practices of farmers over one year. Proposal - When seeking to certify any product, the applicant for certification must carry out an LD 50 (Lethal Dose 50). LD 50 is used to determine the number of milligrams of a product needed to kill 50 rats out of a batch of 100 after injection. This provides a kind of toxicity index. On the basis of this index, it is possible to calculate for a given treatment the number of rats that could have been killed by injection. Thus, if a farmer uses 200 grams of product P per hectare and the LD 50 of this product is 2 grams/kilogram, this means that he has spread a toxic dose capable of killing 100 kilograms of rats by injection. We say that this treatment corresponds to 100 Kilograms of Dead Rats per hectare (KDR/ha). It is then possible to calculate over one year the KDR/ha of a series of treatments and to compare them to another series. It is also possible set a threshold (e.g., no more than 15,000 KDR, i.e. the equivalent of a lethal dose for 15 tonnes of rats per hectare!) and lower this limit through time! Comment - Although this measurement remains imperfect, since it does not measure a product's longevity (certain products degrade very slowly while other very rapidly) or its solubility, it is useful to use existing obligatory measurements that cannot be contested. These indexes can be totaled, thus they can be used to make comparisons. Another option is to substitute a threshold with a tax on toxic products, the KDR can also be used as the basis of a tax per point of KRD. Implementation - this is simple since all the tools exist already. All that is necessary is for the proposal to circulate! *** Proposal 2.9 Limiting the spreading of nitrates per hectare Problem - The massive use of mineral nitrogen is the keystone in the development of chemical agriculture and it is also the source of abnormal agronomic practices: forever shorter crop rotations and land used for single crops such as wheat and corn. These agronomic practices have led to increased biocide consumption, soil degradation, the overproduction of certain foodstuffs and the underproduction of others. The energy balance of nitrogen is rather poor. If nitrogen consumption is not subject to regulations, then these problems will remain. Proposal - The use of nitrogen should be limited per farm by setting a limit to average consumption of 80 kilograms of nitrates per hectare. We are speaking of average consumption, which means that a farmer could put 160 kg of nitrates on one hectare and nothing on another. Comment - This measure is extremely simple to implement and will lead farmers naturally to balance their rotations better since they will gain greater advantage from planting crops with low nitrogen consumption or which fix it to offset the effects of high nitrogen consuming crops such as cereals. Doing this would considerably reduce European overproduction of cereals and also make up for its deficit in proteins. It would contribute to the return of agronomically more balanced systems. This measure can be progressive: limitation to 160 units of nitrogen for the first two years, 140 the second and so on. Implementation - It should be part of the environmental conditions for receiving public aid. Before being applied generally, it should be introduced gradually in the specifications of sustainable agriculture, which is flourishing. *** Proposal 2.10 A rural employment policy Problem - for decades, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has mostly been focused on supporting production: subsidies for wheat, milk, meat and so forth. These public subsidy procedures are to a great extent the reason for the CAP‟s failure regarding territorial development, production management. Furthermore, and not without reason, these production subsidies are contested by Europe's economic partners which consider this practice as a form of dumping. How can public subsidies be oriented so as to stimulate the development of urban areas? Proposal - The shepherd method does cannot solve every problem of rural development, but is does provide a response in terms of support to activities in rural areas linked with the territory. The idea is to give a subsidy per hectare regardless of the type of production (agriculture, forestry, tourism). The subsidy would not be given on the basis of active worker but per hectare as a function of the number of active workers and by a lump sum system. For example, one active worker would give entitlement to 1 hectare subsidised at 3,000 Euros, 4 hectares subsidised at 1,500 Euros, 10 hectares at 750 Euros, 35 hectares subsidised at 375 Euros, 50 hectares subsidised at 180 Euros, 100 hectares subsidised at 90 Euros and nothing over this. An enterprise with two employees would therefore be entitled to 3,000 Euros, 8 hectares subsidised up to 1.500 Euros and so on. This system would give stronger support to activities creating more jobs that are handicapped by the current situation. It means supporting activities disconnected from yields, it puts a strong brake on expansion and it allows a large margin of manoeuvre to local players. Lastly, it acknowledges that in setting up, activities, agriculture is not the only method of stimulating rural areas. It should be noted that the notion of active worker is independent of the notion of owner, and only gives entitlement to subsidies to persons able to prove they effectively use the land for their professional activity. Being the owner of an estate of 200 hectares left fallow does not give right to any aid! Comment - This measure does not solve environmental and over-production problems. Regarding the promotion of sustainable territorial systems, it comes into its own only when linked with specific policies aimed at the environment and production management. It is part of a rationale that postulates that the multifunctional management of areas requires implementing specific measures for each of the functions identified. The purpose of this measure is exclusively support activities linked with the territory. Implementation - This measure is consistent with the current trend of European policy. It should obtain support from all rural entrepreneurs and elected representatives. *** Proposal 2. 11 Reinforce cross compliance within agricultural policy Context and reason - In 1999, the Berlin agreement brought into play a new tool in agricultural policy: cross compliance for subsidies. The purpose of this tool is to link the payment of direct subsidies to farmers to compliance with environmental protection requirements. Protection of water, soil and biodiversity are areas given priority in many EU countries where the state of the environment continues to deteriorate under pressure from intensive farming. Reinforcing this system in the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, by 2006 at the latest, should occur along with more consistent links with other systems already in existence, especially between agricultural and environmental policy tools. Cross compliance has the advantage of providing greater clarity than other instruments regarding the use and legitimacy of direct subsidies, as seen in the United States and Switzerland. For example, in the United States, the protection of soils against erosion and the management of wetlands to protect biodiversity are functions recognised by most farmers and local authorities, for maintaining both levels of productivity and different types of rural environment. Mechanism – The cross-compliance system is part of the CAP's overall rules and applicable to all federative organisations active in the market. Thus cross compliance is not part of the rural development rules (RDR). It stipulates that member states can implement measures to protect natural resources and the environment and subject direct subsidies to compliance with the environmental requirements defined by them. In the case of failure to comply with these requirements, the member state must sanction offending farmers by withdrawing part (a certain percentage) or all of their direct subsidies or production quotas. Implementation – The system of 1999 incorporates the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. the EU gives member states relatively wide scope to apply measures according to their national priorities regarding environmental protection. For example, in France, the target set by the Ministry of Agriculture has been the quantitative management of water resources, with the obligation for farmers to practice irrigation, declare the quantities of water taken during the first year, and the installation of water meters during the second year. In view to widening the environmental targets planned in the cross compliance system in the forthcoming reform of the CAP, each member state must prepare the following actions:  prepare farmers for the environmental requirements of direct subsidies, which has already been planned and allowed in the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round (green box subsidies);  reinforcing the sovereignty of states regarding compliance with community environmental protection directives: nitrate directives, polluter-payer principle, etc.;     identify the different environmental targets for each subsidy system or marketing co-operative (agricultural co-operatives, beef, etc.). Concerning productions not covered by agricultural cooperatives (e.g., pork), compliance and application of the environmental rules in force; make farmers aware of the importance of managing natural resources: the extension of voluntary programmes (e.g., collective management contracts managed locally); train farmers to protect resources in view to maintaining high productivity levels (combat against soil erosion, etc.); study the impact of cross compliance on farming strategies: enlargement, reduced intensification, recycling and treatment of pollution from livestock, rational fertilisation and treatment practices, etc. *** Proposal 2.12 Clarify the notion of good agricultural practices Context and reason – In Europe, a variety of alternative types of farming exist, as well as a wide range of environmental standards that indicate levels of environmental performance, better treatment of animals or a specific type of processing. Often, a large number of consumers and even farmers are not informed of what these labels and types of farming imply, since they make distinctions between approaches regarding products (1), systems (2) and sometimes both at the same time (3). These standards and labels often stem from strategies formulated by the agricultural sectors or groups of farmers involved. In the future, agricultural subsidies will certainly be subject to good practices, and compliance with these will become an obligatory criterion of access to markets, before they can reach the stage of occupying a segment of the market. Mechanism – A panorama of alternative agricultural practices and environmental labels in each member state would make it possible to specify the nature of environmental standards. For better understanding of the plan formulated by the Community, it is vital to decipher each case study by using multi-criteria indicators in a multidisciplinary framework (at expert level) with multiple actors (by associating research teams, NGOs, and organisations of farmers, consumers and nature conservationists). A work group directed jointly by the European Commission and the European Parliament could be given the responsibility of carrying out such a project. Besides dealing with the environmental aspects of standards, it would above all examine the impact on consumption, food and the type of agricultural system encouraged. Implementation – The aim is to create a typology of good farm practices in Europe as a function of different labels and approaches that highlight the best of them in terms of environment and sustainability, by analysing their different systems of evaluation and control (certification, qualification, etc.). This would make it possible to take into account the complexity of these different public, private and collective initiatives, proving or disproving their value, in order to achieve better clarity. Certain European nature conservation organisations identify three standards that correspond to different levels of environmental performance: (1) biological agriculture, (2) good agricultural practices, and (3) minimum legal requirements. Agricultural policy in Switzerland, and more recently the programme of the German Ministry of Consumption Food and Agriculture, have also identified three levels of agriculture: (1) "conventional" farming (non-subsidised in Switzerland) or "industrial" in Germany, (2) integrated production (IP in Switzerland), or good agricultural practices (Germany) and lastly, (3), biological agriculture. These types of classifications have the advantage of simplifying the presentation of environmental standards, though they only give a partial explanation of the very different nature of alternative types of agriculture found between "bio" and "industrial". However, the segment between biological agriculture and good agricultural practices is very occupied, especially by sustainable agriculture, integrated farming and rational farming. Thus it is vital to go further in the analysis and specify how these other forms of farming provide different types of ecological services and, consequently, different standards. Lastly, in relation with the debates on multi-functionalism, emphasis could also be given to those production methods that produce negative effects on the environment, in which case they are subject to sanction and regulations, or positive effects in terms of multi-functionalism, in which case they can be rewarded by public policies. *** Proposal 2.13 Integrate sustainability in agricultural education Context and reason – Recent agricultural policies increasingly incorporate requirements for sustainable development, whether at Community level in Agenda 2000, or at national level through agro-environmental measures and new agreements made between farmers and the public authorities. New schemes implemented in particular by the Rural Development Regulations (RDR) make use of new skills from different actors involved in one level or another of sustainable agriculture. In France, for example, the system of territorial farm contracts brings to light several notions at the heart of changes in farming: contracts, territory and the global approach to farming. Much use is made of continuing education given to farmers and the skills of training organisations, consultants and experts in popularisation. New strategies of training and assisting groups of farmers to change are required from the public authorities to facilitate the transition from traditional to sustainable farming. Mechanism – Sustainable agriculture is quite the contrary of a system: it is a new approach to agricultural development that attempts to solve the questions raised concerning the functions and role of agriculture in society. In addition, sustainable agriculture is not a rigid system, rather it is a permanent quest for the conditions that best satisfy the farmer's need for income, and the requirements of citizens and consumers. However, sustainable agriculture also gives impetus for learning about the stakes behind sustainability, first on the scale of farms themselves and then on a larger one. This is the approach taken in Europe by groups of volunteer farmers who have formulated technical references and decision-aid tools thanks to new training programmes. Consequently, sustainability must be conceived, taught and learned from agricultural school to working on the farm, by both teachers of the profession and consultants. Public authorities play a decisive role in ensuring the process, while success depends on the desire of the actors, especially farmers. Implementation – Facilitating the implementation of sustainable agriculture should be done at institutional, Community and national levels by diffusing knowledge on the methods and approaches involved which are not exclusive to the Ministry of Agriculture or DG AGRI, for example, but which are also acceptable to the Ministries of the Environment, Consumption and Public Health. Inter-ministerial work groups could be set up at European and national levels to deal with this subject, with decentralisation of the process to the regions. The next step would be to identify the different levels at which training in sustainable agriculture could be given, starting with administrations with responsibility for agriculture. This comprises the following levels: the evaluation of sustainability by research and forward studies; training the personnel in the administration: teachers, professors, etc.; the incorporation of sustainability in new training modules; updating programmes and creating new curricula: biological farming, sustainable agricultural systems, knowledge of the territory; conversion of farms, etc. Far from being applied mechanically, this range of actions from agricultural policy to the farm itself, should also make use of innovative groups at local and regional level, i.e. groups of farmers changing over to sustainable agriculture, regional networks of farms showcasing sustainable agriculture, drawing up a list of innovative methods and technical-economic references, with the support of local and regional authorities. *** Proposal 2. 14 Creating new spaces for dialogue on sustainability by stakeholders from all backgrounds Context and reason – Sustainable development cannot be decreed from above, it must be discussed and negotiated both locally and globally. Although sustainable agriculture incorporates a process of apprenticeship, the question does not concern farmers alone but all those involved in the agricultural and food sectors, starting with consumers. On the one hand, farmers seek sustainable agriculture, on the other, consumers expect sustainable methods of food production. Although farmers consider sustainability as a system of indicators, cultural practices and agricultural policy, these questions are perceived differently by non-informed citizens. The problem for the consumer therefore resides in his or her definition of sustainability in this debate. Tangible definitions of sustainable agriculture can be found in reports on farmers' experiences it and on analysis of agrarian systems using economic indicators (the hard side) and their social implications (the soft side). How can the public in search of information on food quality and the environment be informed of the philosophy used by these approaches and the need for resources to implement them? These questions must be asked before building new alliances in civil society between farmers, consumers and ecologists. Mechanism – The multi-stakeholder debates between organisations of farmers and consumers represent privileged areas of dialogue that permit mutual learning based on the questions, expectations, problems and responses expressed by the different parties involved. New places of mediation are needed so that civil society can express complaints and proposals. Politicians should give them recognition and try to get every category of stakeholder and institution to join in a common process of learning and creative interaction. Since the problem of sustainable development is consubstantial to that of methods of governance, it is up to all the organised stakeholders to contribute and take initiatives at the most appropriate levels with those acting in a voluntary capacity. Implementation – Local and regional debates between different stakeholders are required in order to remove the partitions between questions concerning the future of agriculture and the rural world. However, changing conditions and knowledge appears just as vital to facilitate the development of sustainable agriculture. Since changes occur through action, it is also important to identify the different steps involved in carrying out projects that bring together, for example, groups of farmers and consumers: (1) first bring farmers', consumers' and environmental organisations together at local and regional levels to deal with a common problem, for example, the relationship between food habits and farming systems; (2) use the structure of new alliances in European civil society between farmers, ecologists and consumers and also scientists and politicians by organising meetings and via communication; (3) collectively identify within these new coalitions the barriers and conditions related to achieving the changes required to bring about sustainable development: at the level of farms, groups of farmers, territories, policies, the market, research, education, etc.; (4) joint proposals for action at local level between different stakeholders to push changes in favour of sustainability in production, consumption, etc., such as setting up local markets and co-operatives for bio-products. In short, the new alliances that are being forged in Europe between producers and citizens active in consumer and nature conservation organisations should be seen as the catalysts of a sustainable and multifunctional agriculture that seeks efficiency and responsibility. Lastly, whatever the case, in the future there will be no choice other than sustainable agriculture. The projects of the future will most certainly include the conversion of industrial agriculture and the invention of modes of local governance, above all based on innovative social contracts. *** Proposal 2.15 A strategy for the EU: defending sustainability at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Context and reason – If the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round (AAUR) is renegotiated at the next ministerial conference of the WTO at the end of 2001 in Qatar, the EU should prepare a clear and coherent strategy to defend the sustainable development of agriculture. With its trade dispute settlement system, the WTO is more powerful than the European institutions responsible for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Berlin agreement of 1999 has not allowed the EU to foresee a strategy for dealing with agricultural negotiations under favourable conditions, since the heads of State postponed serious debate on reforming the WTO. Farming is dealt with from several angles at the WTO. There is the Agricultural Agreement of the Uruguay Round (AAUR), the agreement on trade on intellectual property (TRIPS), the sanitary products agreement (SPS), and the technical obstacles to trade agreement (TOT). The dispute settlement system makes the WTO the only authority capable of imposing sanctions. Hence the interest for the EU to play an active role and take initiatives in favour of sustainable development in agriculture. Mechanism – The successive reforms of 1992 and 1999 were carried out respectively in the frameworks of the public policies recommended by the Blair House agreement and the agricultural agreement of the Uruguay Round. These reforms are based on three Community commitments for the period from 2000 to 2006, which define the framework of Agenda 2000, i.e. stabilise European public expenditure, integrate candidates for EU membership, starting with Central and Eastern European Countries, renegotiate world trade rules in the framework of the WTO to continue deregulating markets, without excluding the agricultural sector. The Commission's priorities, that can be summed up by the slogan "competitive, sustainable and focused on quality", should result in a reformed agricultural policy based on sustainable development, which is both the desire of civil society and the guiding principle in multilateral negotiations. Implementation – What strategy will the EU defend at the next inter-ministerial conference at Qatar? If its tactic is to defend the European agricultural system, then the many questions remaining to be answered make the negotiations very uncertain. CAP 99 is an impossible compromise and the EU is bereft of any project for agriculture and the rural world. Although it declares itself in favour of sustainable agriculture and multifunctionalism, these intentions fail to hide the real stakes in play: the negotiation of budgets and the rate of return on investments for each member State. Thus it is urgent to situate sustainable development at the heart of the forthcoming negotiations. Agenda 2000 gives a glimpse of the possibilities for progressively rebalancing subsidies in favour of rural development and taking into account multifunctionalism by rewarding the services rendered by agriculture to the community. Nevertheless, the EU must choose an unequivocal position on sustainable development at the WTO: that of defending the farmers of developed countries without compromising the capacity of farmers in developing countries to continue along the path of sustainable agriculture. To achieve this, the EU must commit itself to several points in the AAUR: (1) eliminate export subsidies for agricultural products which ruin the economies of developing countries, (2) recognise the right of developing countries to choose appropriate protective measures related to agricultural products at their borders, (3) defend the SPS agreement, with labels of origin for greater protection of consumers and public health in both the North and South, (4) and maintain domestic aid for farmers provided it is subject to ecological services and rural development. *** 3. New contracts between farmers and society Even in the coordination team, the specific position of farmers gave rise to wide ranging debate. Some think that the farming profession is distinct from others for several reasons and so it is entitled to special treatment, because it benefits from the CAP and because it has been the target of specific policies in the past. Others feel that it is this very distinction that is the cause of the rural demise. The fact of turning the European countryside exclusively into an agricultural production area, with special status being given to farming, has handicapped the development of a more balanced rural society. That being so, the two positions: 1) do not deny the „current position of agriculture‟, 2) do not deny the need to consider the "conversion" of farmers so that can manage the period after total agriculture or nothing. For reasons of tact, the term agriculture could be used for activities that, strictly speaking, are outside its scope (therapy, education, hotels, maintaining the countryside). This is why, beyond quarrels about definitions and views, it has been possible to agree on the need for a transition period for farmers so they can fulfil other roles that better satisfy social demand. This leads to two key questions: 1) If these aids simultaneously condition the viability of European agriculture, how is it possible to avoid them being seen as a form of disguised subsidies for agriculture? 2) Should these aids be limited only to farmers or should other rural actors (forestry workers, hotelkeepers, etc.) be given grants too? This dilemma is clearly illustrated by proposal 4, which aims at mobilizing farmers against the greenhouse effect by encouraging them to replant forests! Setting up mechanisms therefore requires:  Clear definition of the "new services" that the countryside should provide,  Set up mechanisms that prevent these funds from being diverted in agriculture. This requires that the mechanisms are based on indicators characteristic of the service expected,  Develop methods of definition and regulation that imply the physical presence of all the social actors involved. Since agriculture is not the only profession or activity practiced, it seems obvious that social dialogue based only on face to face meetings between farmers and the public authorities will lead to conflict. This is why the proposals must also aim at defining the parties involved and which must be associated with managing the transition. In a general way, there is an apparent need to substantially back up local methods of regulation in order to avoid national or European standards being applied to the "correct European countryside", the "correct European hedge", "wild animals deserving protection", etc. The current proposals are to: - 3.1 Support conservation of the countryside, by proposing that part of the taxes generated from tourism are used at local level to remunerate rural elements considered as characteristic, - 3.2 Extend the scope of agro-environmental measures: these environmental protection measures set up by the EU are a good starting block. In comparison to the previous proposal, the aim is not to conserve but recreate more diversified landscapes in areas despoiled by modern farming techniques. - 3.3 Implement specific water management measures by promoting the development of collective management per catchment area that associates farmers, anglers, hotelkeepers, etc. - 3.4 Get farmers to participate in the fight against the greenhouse effect by promoting the planting of forests that conforms to regional characteristics (not just any species just anywhere in Europe). - 3.5 Promote keeping the countryside near urban centers open and accessible, since the countryside around towns and cities plays a special role. Indeed, it is a showcase for the rural world on the one hand, and it can play an even more decisive role than more remote rural areas on the other. - 3.6 Grant tax exemptions to citizens and farmers involved in sorting and recycling organic wastes. - 3.7 Use some of the taxes on the most pollutant leisure activities to support non-pollutant activities. - 3.8 Promote more balanced diets. - 3.9 Maintain and promote diversified eating habits. - 3.10 Support teaching activities. - 3.11 Conditioning European aid to the maintenance of paths *** Proposal 3.1 for supporting landscape conservation in remote rural areas (CON1) ooo This first proposal considers how farmers could be supported for conserving traditional and semitraditional rural landscapes in areas which are remote from large centres of population. ooo Context - Management of traditional and semi-traditional agricultural landscapes benefits citizens directly (as potential visitors to the countryside) and indirectly by contributing to the tourist industry (and therefore to the strength of the national economy). In a message sent to the previous forum (Barcelona99) there was a description of the case of a Welsh sheep farmer whose farm was featured in tourist posters, used by the Welsh Tourist Authority. The price of sheep and lambs was so low that the farmer could hardly survive. In fact, often he had to sell his animals at prices, which were less than the cost of production. His farm looked beautiful however and was being used to encourage tourists from all over the world to visit Wales. His point was: “How can my farm be used by the Tourist Authority to give an impression of idyllic rural life in Wales, when in fact I and my family are nearly starving?” Purpose (CON1) - To preserve traditional and semi-traditional agricultural landscapes in remote rural areas Reason for proposing support - Farmers cannot compete in global markets when they farm in less favoured areas. However, the landscapes associated with traditional farming practices attract tourists and provide revenue to tourist industries. Farmers should be paid to maintain those landscapes, which provide a major source of attraction for tourists. Who would be eligible? - Farmers (and other land managers) in farming regions where tourism employs a third of the working population or more and where surveys of visitors show that the attractiveness of the landscape has contributed significantly to their decision to visit the area (Tourist Authorities routinely undertake surveys of visitors). Conditions of support - Farmers would be required to maintain traditional landscapes (for example by maintaining “dry stone walls” in sheep country in the North of England). They would be required to practice only extensive farming practices (i.e. not exceed certain stocking densities, specific to local conditions). They should be encouraged to adopt farming practices which conserve natural resources and which encourage good water quality (in many cases these will be mountainous or upland regions which are also the sources of rivers – avoiding pollution of water sources is essential for ensuring good water quality downstream). Additional inducements should be provided in these areas for farmers to adopt organic practices. Levels of support - These would need to be negotiated at a local level. However, the payments should be sufficient to provide farmers with a level of income, which would be enough to encourage their children to want to continue farming in the region (taking into account the profits which would be made from selling stock or other agricultural products). Source of financial support - Existing taxes levied on the tourist industry and its employees, both locally and nationally (for example “business rates”, levied by local authorities on tourist enterprises and income tax, levied by national governments on workers in the tourist industry) should be partially recycled to support landscape conservation. Payments made as a result of this recycling of tax revenue, should be co-financed from the EU Structural Funds. Appropriate areas - These are most likely to be mountainous and upland regions but would also include other regions (e.g. Aquitaine in France, Breckland in the UK), which are distant from centres of population. I will propose a different mechanism for landscape conservation (Proposal CON5) near to centres of population, in a subsequent message. Accompanying measures - Farmers who participated should be encouraged to adopt the highest environmental standards (ideally organic) and to increase their margins by marketing their produce at a premium with a regional label or other quality labels. They should receive support (under the Rural Enterprise Scheme) for setting up regional marketing cooperatives and support during a five year set-up period for advertising campaigns, to establish the regional label (if such a label does not already exist). Where a food tradition exists (e.g. Roquefort cheese, Cumberland sausage) advertising should make links between the quality of environmental and landscape management and the distinctive nature of local products (see Proposal CON9). Mechanism - Dialogue between farmers, tourist operators, local residents, local NGOs and local government (in well-defined ecological zones with distinctive farming traditions). The purpose of the dialogue would be to establish a consensus among the stakeholders a. that farmers are providing a service which benefits the tourist industry (and therefore the local and national economies) and b. that they should be paid for this service by recycling tax revenues. The dialogue (carried out through local fora) should aim to establish agreement as to c. what would be the features of the traditional landscapes, which required active management by farmers or landowners and d. what level of remuneration would be reasonable for carrying out these activities. The cost of running the fora should be covered by the EU Structural Funds. *** Proposal 3.2 for extending the scope of agri-environmental measures (CON2) ooo Summary: Agri-environmental measures have mostly been targeted at special areas and habitats. Here I propose (Proposal CON 2) that these measures are extended to cover all farmland wherever farmers after consulting local people wish to restore, recreate or protect habitats ooo Context - Biodiversity and habitat diversity have been undermined by the CAP. More recently the introduction of agri-environmental schemes (such as the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, etc.) have paid farmers to undertake more environmentally sensitive farming practices. Maintaining biodiversity is considered to have an intrinsic benefit as species diversity offers some insurance against plant and animal epidemics (by for example allowing the possibility of developing hybrids with old resistant cultivars, and by allowing biological control of pests). In addition promoting the diversity of wildlife is again of benefit to citizens who wish to enjoy nature and to the tourist industry. Most agri-environmental measures focus on areas which have particular significance for biodiversity. Areas which are not considered to be special, in particular areas of high productivity in river basins near centres of population, are often not covered by these schemes. However historically these areas used to provide a rich range of habitats for a wide diversity of species. Many of these used to be seen as “common species”, such as the “house sparrow” in England, but are now becoming rare. This proposal is aimed at restoring habitat diversity in more favoured agricultural areas. Reasons for proposing support - Favoured areas of agricultural production (particularly cereal growing areas) have been simplified by the removal of landscape features such as hedges, small woods, water meadows, and ponds. By simplifying the landscape and vastly increasing the size of fields farmers have been able to maintain their competitivity with respect to the most “efficient” producers of commodity crops in the world (e.g. the US mid-West). The removal of habitats has however led to significant losses of wildlife, in particular to the loss of “song birds”. Some of these species, once common, have become rare. Although some wildlife damages crops and are therefore seen by farmers as being pests, others have beneficial effects, particularly in reducing damage to crops by insects. Maintaining a healthy balance between a diversity of species can reduce the need for agrochemical interventions, when they are managed so as to achieve biological control. Who would be eligible? - All farmland which is not covered by existing agri-environmental schemes, but, in particular favoured farming areas where intensive approaches to cereal production are currently the norm. Conditions of support - Farmers would be required to draw up “whole farm plans” working with environmental NGOs and national environmental agencies, aimed at reintroducing landscape features where they have been largely removed in the last fifty years. These plans should be drawn up in such a way as to maximise the benefits to be gained from biological control. Local communities (within walking distance) should have opportunities to comment on these plans and they should be given limited access by footpath to some of the restored landscape features. Farms participating in the scheme should be required to adopt either organic farming techniques or the most environmentally friendly approaches to integrated crop management available to them. Levels of support - Farmers should be paid for the costs of reintroducing landscape features (i.e. reimbursement of their own time spent in planning; payment of consultants fees where specialist advice is necessary; labour time involved in digging ponds, planting hedges, etc.; cost of materials, such as the purchase of saplings etc.). These payments should cover the set up costs and pay the farmer for his time and effort. Once the features were established, farmers should be paid on-going compensation payments. These payments should be pro rata payments based on the hectarage of land taken out of production The level of payments should cover the ongoing costs of maintaining the features (e.g. hedge-cutting) plus an additional figure corresponding to the average profit which a farmer would have expected to gain if the land had remained in production plus an additional 10%. Source of financial support - Expansion of the agri-environmental budget of the CAP. Appropriate areas - Any areas not covered by existing agri-environmental programmes, in particular areas of high productivity where the emphasis in recent years has been on maximising productivity to the detriment of landscape features and biodiversity. Accompanying measures - This proposal could itself act as an accompanying measure to other proposals, most notably Proposal CON 5. Mechanism - Consultations between farmers, agronomists, Environment and Agriculture Ministry officials and concerned environmental NGOs (e.g. Birdlife International, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, etc.) in drawing up whole farm plans. Exposure of Whole Farm Plans to adjoining village communities to negotiate limited access. NOTE: A number of schemes have already emerged in the UK which attempt to take this kind of approach e.g. the Countryside Access Scheme and the Woodland Management Scheme. The intention of this proposal would be to draw these schemes together, integrate them in a whole farm management plan and provide opportunities for consultation with local citizens at the “Parish level”. *** Proposal 3.3 for Management of Water Catchments (CON3) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 3) aims to provide a mechanism whereby citizens and special interest groups can work together to develop more comprehensive water catchment management plans, mobilising communities throughout water catchments to regain control over this most vital feature of the local environment ooo Context for this proposal - In many European landscapes, farmland (particularly water-meadows) have offered protection against flooding. In recent years, the CAP has encouraged the engineering of rivers to maximise drainage and farmers have been encouraged to drain marshy areas and wetlands. This has led to an increase in downstream flooding instances in wet seasons and to drought problems in dry seasons (as the wetlands no longer act as a store for moisture, released slowly downstream during dry periods). It has also led to the destruction of freshwater aquatic habitats, loss of biodiversity and problems with water quality. Potentially the old function of agricultural enterprises and river systems working together to optimise water flows and quality could be restored. This would enhance the attractiveness of river basins to tourists, benefit householders living in areas which are currently prone to flood and benefit the insurance industry (by reducing the bills for insurance claims after flooding). Reasons for proposing support - The EU already requires Environment Agencies to draw up and execute plans for managing water catchments. Environment Agencies are also required to consult with local communities over these plans. However they have limited budgets to do this and the consultations undertaken are frequently minimal and ineffectual. In some cases the spirit in which consultations are carried out reflects the need for bureaucrats to fulfil statutory requirements (i.e. they must be seen to have consulted), rather than a genuine commitment to allowing the various stakeholders in river systems to have their say. River systems are one of the most important environmental features and most citizens have a view about drinking water quality and about the quality of river water itself. In many European rivers, oxygen levels are depressed and biological activity is well below acceptable standards. There are many stakeholders in river systems: farmers and riparian land-owners, walkers, fishermen, boat owners, waterside restaurants and bars, consumers of water (i.e. all local people), and water supply companies (whose expenses are greater because of poor water quality prior to purification). Different stakeholders in the river systems have different interests and concerns. There are real opportunities to improve the overall management of water catchments by achieving synergistic solutions, which cater to the needs of different stakeholders. However, all too frequently, the different stakeholders have no way of communicating their points of view to each other and arriving at compromise solutions. (For example farmers want good drainage and the engineering of rivers plus the right to remove water for irrigation. These approaches destroy spawning grounds for fish and make rivers too sluggish to support life. Fishermen on the other hand want diverse freshwater habitats and spawning grounds for fish. In many river systems there is no way that these two constituencies can meet to arrive at shared and creative solutions which will meet both their needs. To give another example: water companies spend large amounts of money removing pollutants caused by poor farming practices; cooperation between farmers and water companies can reduce overall costs and environmental impacts) There is a need to set up a mechanism whereby all stakeholders have the opportunity to express their points of view and meet to develop synergistic solutions. A river system may be over a thousand kilometres long or more from source to estuary. There is therefore also a geographical problem in achieving communication between stakeholders at different points along the river. This accounts for the precise nature of the proposal below, which entails the creative use of web sites. Who would be eligible? - NGOs or groups of NGOs who have a track record of working on environmental matters and facilitating stakeholder dialogues. Conditions of support - NGOs or coalitions of NGOs would receive support to set up stakeholder dialogues throughout water catchments. These dialogues would involve all the stakeholders who had an interest in the river system. The NGO would establish a website, dedicated to the water catchment. This would provide information about the way the river system worked, points of difficulty or concern (poor water quality and flow for example, downstream flooding risks, etc.), and on-line fora to discuss cooperative solutions between actors or stakeholders operating at different points in the catchment (for example farmers in flood planes can help reduce flooding incidents downstream). The on-line fora would be supplemented by face-to-face meetings at key points in the dialogue. The NGO or NGO coalition would also be responsible for publicising the web debates and the results of stakeholder meetings through local press and media, so that citizens without internet access are not denied the opportunity to participate. Levels of support - This would vary according to the river catchment involved. For example, consultations in a small river catchment (such as the River Yare catchment in Norfolk, UK) would require only two full time workers and associated expenses to manage this process of consultation. A massive river like the Rhine or the Danube would require a number of facilitators to work at different points along the course of the rivers (with, for example, at a minimum of two facilitators for each country through which the river flows and a team of at least three people to run the web site.) In-team translators would clearly be vital for such a project where the river flowed through several countries with different national languages. Source of financial support - Regional funds from the EU‟s Structural Funds (RDR) Appropriate areas - All river systems or water catchments in the EU Accompanying measures - The stakeholder dialogues and consultations would lead to the identification of synergistic solutions to problems in the water catchments. These would lead to specific action plans on water quality, water flows, freshwater habitat protection or development, flood control policies involving farmland etc. Each of these would bring with them the need to pay for new services. For example, if farmers were to help in flood control management by abandoning arable production adjacent to rivers, and reintroducing mixed farming, with water meadows and cattle along river banks, they would have to be paid to make these changes. In many cases farmers no longer have buildings for stock, having been encouraged by the old CAP to specialise in arable production. Modifying their farming systems in these cases would clearly be expensive. However the long term implications of reducing downstream flooding in towns and cities could well make such a policy economic overall. A variety of measures and sources of funding could help to make such changes. Municipal authorities in towns prone to flooding and private insurance companies, for example, might be prepared to meet part of the costs of changing the overall management of a river system in preference to spending large amounts of money on “hard flood defences” i.e. engineering solutions (many of which have failed recently). Mechanism - The mechanism for consultation involving a web site for the catchment, on-line discussions and periodic face to face meetings is described in 4 above. *** Proposal 3.4 for Managing the EU's energy balance and carbon balance (CON4) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON4) provides a mechanism for allowing the EU to use agricultural land to achieve an equitable carbon balance ooo Context for this proposal - The countryside already contributes a small percentage of renewable energy to meet the EU's demands for energy, in the form of wood, composting systems, wind power and to a lesser extent through bio-fuels. The EU needs to reduce its levels of CO2 emissions to comply with the Kyoto protocol (notwithstanding the present US rejection of the protocol). There are also strategic benefits from reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. Re-establishing woodlands would allow the EU to improve its carbon balance in the short term by developing "carbon sinks". In the longer term sustainable management of diverse woodlands would allow much of the continent's electric power to be derived from burning wood - a process which is neutral in terms of the carbon cycle (as old trees are burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, young trees are absorbing CO2 at the same rate from the atmosphere through photosynthesis), Reasons for proposing support - It is now generally accepted that global warning is going to lead to immense problems (for example the displacement of about 20 million Bangladeshis within 10 years in a country which is already over-populated). There is a need to undertake radical action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto protocol is inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem but the US has refused to sign up even to this very modest agreement. The reaction of the global community to global warming is characteristic of its reaction to a great many problems. On the one hand it is acknowledged that we face very serious problems. On the other hand we are simply not prepared to deal with them. In the case of global warming, much of the developing world, including China is not happy with the Kyoto agreement. Under this agreement, every country is supposed to reduce its levels of emissions. However the European Union already releases very high levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per capita compared to China, for example. The US is, of course, a much greater offender in this respect than the EU. Developing countries ask why they should be prevented from increasing their emissions when developed countries will be allowed to continue polluting at a much higher level than developing countries will ever attain. The only way to get China and other developing countries to become enthusiastic about the protocol (and therefore to challenge the US position) is for the EU to agree to set a much more radical (and more equitable in global terms) target for reducing emissions in future. The aim should be for EU citizens to have the right to consume a limited amount of carbon based fuels based on a simple formula: Total current world production of carbon dioxide emissions/ world population. Beyond this EU citizens should provide (through appropriate taxes) mechanisms for removing excess carbon dioxide emissions. The only practical way of doing this is through the planting of forests, which act as carbon sinks (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow). Who would be eligible? - Farmers and landowners Conditions of support - Farmers would be paid to plant woodland, to act as a carbon sink. These should be mixed woodland, using indigenous species and they should be integrated into the landscape in a way which does not detract from its touristic value. In the long term, mixed woodland should yield high value timber for construction, furniture making, etc. as well as off-cuts (and thinnings) which can be burned in power stations Levels of support - In former years, when farmers thought that their descendants would stay on the land, farmers often planted trees. They knew that the woodland they created would have no commercial or other value for 30, 40 or even 50 years, but they knew that it would provide income or useful timber for their descendants at some time. Farmers today are much less certain of the future and are less inclined to invest in the future. The financial support provided under this proposal would have to be arranged so as to provide farmers with incomes in the transitional periods as woodland became established. The lead in time before woodland can yield an income can be reduced by supplementing long term plantings with short rotation coppice in order to yield transitional incomes, derived from selling wood chips to power stations (see 8. below). Once woodlands are well-established, their sustainable management should ensure a long-term income for farmers and land-owners. The support in this proposal is therefore envisioned as being short term. Currently a timber-fed electricity generating station cannot compete with cheap fossil fuel based generators. However in the longer term as carbon based fuels become scarcer (and by the time that woodlands have reached maturity), they will be able to compete in open energy markets. Source of financial support - Environmental NGOs often call for higher taxes on fuel (for cars). The problem with this approach is that it penalises the poor and has little impact on the consumption patterns of the rich (as they can easily afford to pay a bit more for petrol and therefore do not reduce their use of automobiles). In particular it penalises the rural poor who have to travel long distances for basic services. In many parts of the EU the use of cars to go to work, to take children to school and to get the weekly shopping is virtually unavoidable. An alternative approach would to be to set differential road taxes for vehicles, according to their consumption of petrol or diesel per kilometre. The differentials should be great, with a vehicle a low fuel consumption paying, for example, 100 Euros per year and a vehicle with high consumption (few kilometres per litre) paying a very high tax, for example 1000 (or even 10,000 for the most fuel inefficient classes of vehicles!) Euros per year. This would encourage citizens to use more fuel efficient vehicles but would not deny poorer people, particularly poor rural people access to essential transport where public transport systems are not and cannot easily be established. The basic taxes on fuel could remain unchanged and vehicles which used carbon neutral fuels (such as biofuels) would pay the lowest level of vehicle tax regardless of engine size. The extra revenue generated could be used to finance the establishment of more woodland. Ideally the level of extra tax paid should balance the cost of excess fuel consumption (i.e. if you choose to buy a large, fast car which uses unnecessary amounts of fuel, and therefore generates unnecessary emissions of carbon dioxide, you sponsor the establishment of carbon sinks i.e. woodland, which will exactly remove the excess CO2 generated.) The extra tax could be imposed immediately for new cars but would need to be imposed progressively over a period of time for old cars, in order to avoid penalising poor people with large old cars. Appropriate areas - In particular mountainous and marginal areas, after consultation with local populations and tourist industries. [Areas which were polluted as a result of the Chernobyl melt-down may be usable as a carbon sink (although care would have to be taken in the long term to retrieve radioactive materials from the emissions if the resulting wood was burned in power stations).] Accompanying measures - Development of wood burning power stations to generate electricity, as woodland becomes useable. A mix of approaches to establishing woodland can be used in order to bring forward the construction and use of power stations. “Short rotation coppice” of species like willow or hazel provide burnable biomass (in the form of wood chips) within about 5 years of planting. Plantings of other species which yield over longer periods can replace “short rotation coppice” in subsequent periods, giving a continuity of supply to the power stations, once they are established. Additional support could be provided for the establishment of wind turbines and other renewable energy sources with a view to establishing better on-going energy balances and carbon balances. Low vehicle taxes of vehicles which used bio-fuels could provide opportunities to develop the bio-fuel sector. Mechanism - Approval of such a radical policy as this would need to be put before the EU electorate. *** Proposal 3.5 for landscape conservation/recreation close to urban centres (CON5) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 5) simultaneously provides spaces for recreation and “unwinding” for citizens who live in urban areas (particularly for the excluded and poorer sections of society who cannot afford expensive “weekend breaks” in remote rural areas) and allows farmers to escape from the “treadmill” of commodity production for depressed global markets ooo Context for this proposal - Health and social stability. Modern city life can be highly stressful. Many citizens rely on the tranquillity of the countryside to "unwind" and to "recharge their batteries". In some cases, entrepreneurs have formalised the delivery of therapeutic services by setting up health spas, clinics or other services in the countryside, aimed at particular social groups. While these entrepreneurs are paid for by their clients or in some cases by the state, the managers of the countryside who provide the context or setting for these enterprises do not receive any direct benefits. The potential therapeutic effects of a tranquil countryside, whether enjoyed informally by a visit or formally by attending a clinic almost certainly enhances mental and psychological health and contributes to social stability in stressful urban centres. The people who live in the least pleasant parts of cities tend to be the poor, the unemployed and the excluded. They, more than other city dwellers, probably have the greatest need to periodically escape from the city. However, they often cannot afford to pay for travel to distant rural areas and overnight accommodation. Many rural areas, close to urban centres (e.g. parts of the Paris and London Basins) have fertile soils, which have traditionally been associated with high levels of cereal production. As they have industrialised in the post-war periods, farms have become increasingly mechanised and have operated at larger scales. To facilitate industrialisation, many features have been destroyed in many areas, producing uniform and featureless landscapes. As food production and distribution have become globalised, the links between cities and the surrounding countryside have often become very weak. Farmers are driven by market pressures to adopt ever more brutal approaches to land management. Meanwhile the urban population, formerly the farmers‟ clients, see the countryside around the cities becoming ever less attractive. The purpose of the support in this proposal is to provide mechanisms, whereby urban dwellers can reconnect with the countryside around the cities, giving them easy access by public transport (ideally by rail) to rural areas and laying the foundations for the development of direct marketing of rural products to urban communities. Providing ways for city dwellers to leave stressful cities easily is likely to have psychological benefits to city dwellers and also benefit to its social fabric. Reasons for proposing support - Farms near urban centres which produce agricultural raw materials for depressed global commodity markets are not taking advantage of the economic opportunities available to them. Commodity producers employ ever fewer people, leading to low levels of rural employment. Houses become increasingly occupied by commuters and rural communities and services go into decline. The kind of landscape and communities which result from large-scale commodity production are usually hostile to urban dwellers. They tend to travel further to visit the countryside in less industrialised areas of production. This increases fuel use, pressure on transport networks, pollution and stress. Helping farmers to provide a different kind of service to local urban communities – places where they can go for a walk, and visit a restaurant or bar before returning by train to the city – could allow some farms to become more profitable, employ more people and encourage the development of independent small businesses in rural areas around cities. Who would be eligible? - Farmers within half an hour‟s travel time from the edge of cities and large towns. It must be stressed that a scheme of this nature would as yet appeal only to a minority of farmers and the proposal is to offer an alternative option to farmers to change the nature of their businesses. Conditions of support - Farmers would have to engage in a dialogue with city dwellers, negotiating with them the payments to maintain or re-create agricultural systems, in ways which would make them welcoming and attractive to city dwellers. Farmers would have to provide good access to visitors, including some access for disabled people. Farmers near railway stations could be favoured. Public transport would need to be provided between railway stations and the farms. Access to participating farms should be free, with the costs born by city revenues, so that the poor and unemployed would not be denied essential opportunities to escape uncongenial urban environments. Levels of support - To be negotiated between city residents and a farmer or group of farmers. A farmer could continue to farm largely as before, but with the addition of a few landscape features (hedges, ponds, woods, water-meadows) and better access to the public (footpaths, bridleways and disabled access). In this case the payments made by the city would be fairly modest. Another farm might decide to undertake much more radical changes (e.g. reintroduction of mixed farming systems, organic conversion, high value crops for direct sales to the urban community, etc.) In this case a city could decide to sponsor the conversion costs and transitional periods with more generous support. Source of financial support - Local tax revenue raised by the city or town, co-financed with structural funds. Appropriate areas - Primarily around major cities and towns or in highly populated conurbations. Accompanying measures - Municipal authorities should ideally subsidise public transport to the farms. They should be able to negotiate very favourable terms with railway companies, as visits to the country would often entail the use of empty commuter trains, returning to the outlying areas to pick up more commuters. With more urban people visiting the country, new marketing approaches for locally produced fruit, vegetables, meats and value-added products are likely to emerge. New small-scale enterprises could be encouraged by rural development grants. Urban citizens could also be offered individual shares in new enterprises, increasing their sense of commitment to the local countryside. Alternatively city authorities could invest on behalf of citizens. A series of food scares has made organic production increasingly attractive to city dwellers. Development of more direct sales of organic produce could be encouraged as an adjunct to this scheme. Mechanism - EU support for the development of dialogues between cities and their adjacent countryside, focussing on the following questions: what do city dwellers want from the surrounding countryside; how much are they prepared collectively to pay for new services. The emphasis should be on free access rather than on access for a fee, as classic “farm attractions” exclude poor city dwellers. Classic attractions also already have opportunities to develop in the free market. *** Proposal 3.6 for integrated waste management (CON6) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 6) supports approaches to waste management which would simultaneously dispose of urban waste and allow soil fertility to be rebuilt ooo Context for this proposal - Waste materials, such as sewage sludge and other organic material, are applied to the land. Soil organisms have a capacity to break down and recycle waste products. Care needs to be taken to avoid damaging soils (by for example building up high levels of heavy metals). When properly arranged, the countryside can function as a disposer of waste for urban communities and, at the same time, use this waste to build up soil fertility. Urban centres produce enormous amounts of waste. Much of this is disposed of in the countryside but this is often carried out without delivering any benefit to the countryside. Cereal farms near cities often have depleted soils with low organic matter contents (below the 2% minimum required to retain good soil structure and functioning). If urban citizens are prepared to sort their waste, the organic material they throw away could be recycled through composting to rebuild damaged soils. Some materials could also be burnt in electricity generating stations and nutrients from human sewage could also be reclaimed through the use of osier and comfrey beds. Reasons for proposing support - Currently nutrients are being wasted and landfill sites are becoming increasingly hard to find. Disposal of waste in landfill sites also endangers water quality and public health. Who would be eligible? - Citizens who were prepared to sort waste to high standards would receive a rebate on their local taxes. Farmers and landowners, who set up recycling systems around towns and cities would receive support for set up costs and be paid to run composting plants and osier beds. Farmers could be involved in a number of complementary schemes, including those described in Proposals CON 5 and 10. Farmers, downstream of cities, could develop osier and comfrey beds to recapture nutrients from sewage. Osiers can be burnt in generating stations and have other uses. Comfrey can be easily converted into "liquid manure" for organic farming systems. Conditions of support - Participating farmers and landowners would have to apply effective and efficient recycling methods. Citizens who participated and who received local tax rebates, would have to accept the possibility of periodic spot checks, on their waste disposal practices. Levels of support - Set up costs plus appropriate remuneration for the on-going work involved in recycling. Citizens would receive local tax rebates, which were sufficient to provide incentives for them to co-operate. (To put the matter the other way round: people who were not prepared to help to deal with their own waste, would pay more local tax to cover the long-term environmental costs of cruder systems of waste disposal) Source of financial support - Structural Funds for set up costs and, at least initially, for compensating municipalities for the increased costs involved. On-going payments to farmers and other participants should be paid for by the municipal authorities (local taxes). Appropriate Areas - Farms close to towns and cities. Accompanying measures - Support for the establishment of small-scale electricity generating plants around cities for material which could be safely burned but not composted or reclaimed. Mechanism - Negotiation between farmers and local city or town authorities. Vote by city population, as to whether or not they wanted collectively to participate. NOTE: Schemes like this already exist in some EU cities (particularly for recycling organic wastes from public park, leaves from city trees, etc.) *** Proposal 3.7 Recycling revenue from environmentally damaging recreation (CON7) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 7) aims at using tax revenue, raised from rural pursuits which are environmentally damaging, to support rural pursuits which are environmentally friendly ooo Context for this proposal - Citizens pursue a number of recreations and sports in the countryside including walking, cycling, canoeing, horse-riding, fishing and hunting. Some of these may directly benefit farmers and landowners (such as hunting). Others, like walking and horse-riding, may benefit some individual entrepreneurs (e.g. owners of riding stables) but are largely parasitic on the farming community (whose lands they cross and enjoy but to whom they provide no financial support - indeed it is the responsibility of landowners to maintain footpaths and bridle-ways at their own expense, meaning that, far from being paid for their work, they actually have to subsidise these activities). Other forms of recreation occur in the countryside, which are environmentally damaging in various ways, the most obvious cases being any form of racing of motorised vehicles, particularly over rough terrain or on inland waterways. Typically these activities create noise and exhaust fumes, often destroying the terrain and they use considerable quantities of fossil fuels. These activities often generate high incomes for participants and owners of facilities, which in turn provide states with tax revenue. Reasons for proposing support - Sports carried out in the countryside often provide few benefits to local communities. In fact, from the point of view of rural communities, they are often merely disruptive, especially when they involve events which use motorised vehicles of any kind. The intention of this proposal is to recycle 50% of the tax revenue gained from these (often highly profitable) disruptive events as grants to local communities, so that they receive a benefit and can use the revenue for collectively agreed goals. Who would be eligible? - Villages and rural communities within 15 kilometres of sites where motorised racing events occur frequently (but excluding long distance events, which produce a very limited period of disruption over very large areas). Conditions of support - Farmers, landowners and village councils should use the tax revenue to enhance their local environment to compensate for the environmental nuisance entailed. The aim should be to enhance the attractiveness of other less disruptive rural pursuits in the area, such as walking, horse-riding and canoeing. Facilities for these could be sponsored to encourage young people to take an interest in these more healthy types of pursuits as well as or instead of motor sports. Levels of support - 50% of tax revenues, which can be directly attributable to the running of motorised or other disruptive events, staged in the countryside would be paid into a regional fund. Local people or communities could apply to use these funds for the purposes outlined in 4. above. Source of financial support - Recylcing of tax revenues (local business taxes and national income tax.) Cofinancing from the structural funds. Appropriate areas - Areas near to locations where environmentally disruptive sporting events are carried out. Accompanying measures - Cheap access to non-disruptive recreation in the countryside could also be provided from the regional funds, targetted and organised by urban schools (see also Proposal CON 10) Mechanism - Regional referenda to decide whether or not the principle of recycling taxes in this way was fair. Community consultation in relevant areas, focussing on the question of whether a local community believed it would benefit from this approach and if so, what it would like to do with the funding available through the regional fund. *** Proposal 3.8 for financial support for the promotion of healthy diets (CON8) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 8) lays the foundation for imposing taxes on unhealthy foods and providing financial support for marketing healthy products ooo Context for this proposal - Promotion of healthy diets. Farming has been under pressure to minimise costs and to produce for mass markets, which are heavily influenced by marketing campaigns. Farmers who try to hold out against these pressures by producing high quality, healthy products, such as organic foods have to bare the cost of counteracting such marketing. To the extent that they are successful, they contribute to the health of EU citizens. The increasing domination of life by corporate capitalism has a strong effect on the lives of citizens. Advertising in the food market aggressively promotes prepared foods, which often have high fat, salt and sugar contents. These are designed to stimulate the taste buds and capture the market, focussing particularly on children and young people. There are already signs that early habituation to poor quality foods of this nature have negative implications for public health (for example causing hyperactivity in children and obesity in later life). Much of the advertising is fundamentally misleading and cynical. However, any attempt to control advertising is likely to lead to complaints that civil liberties (of the food companies) are being infringed. Nevertheless, citizens should at least have the right to challenge the fundamental human right (??)of corporation men to cynically recruit new generations of customers. The restrictions of advertising on tobacco show that it is possible to stand up to corporate interests in this way. A less contentious option is the provision of more support to those who wish to educate consumers into healthier life style choices. Reasons for proposing support - Advertising of convenience foods and fast foods encourage people (particularly youth) to adopt what appear to be unhealthy diets. Producers of "high quality foods", such as organic foods believe that their products are safer and better for human health. However there is little scientific evidence available to support or to refute such beliefs, which are increasingly shared by larger numbers of EU citizens. There is a need for more publicly funded research to establish whether or not claims of this kind are true. If they are then there should be additional help for marketing healthier foods and more controls on the promotion of unhealthy foods (or alternatively additional taxes on these foods which can be recycled into the provision of health care to deal with the long term health costs). Who would be eligible? - Groups of producers, food processors and marketing organisations which genuinely attempt to promote or develop safer and more wholesome foods (particularly those involved in organic food) together with suitably qualified research organisations, interested in investigating the health implications of different diets. Conditions of support - Participating producers would have to cooperate with researchers to test their claims for additional health benefits of particular foods, or ways of growing or preparing them. Once the research was done, subsequent advertising campaigns by producers and traders should be consistent with the scientific results (i.e. no false or misleading claims should be made). Levels of support - National funds should be set up to sponsor scientific research of this nature. The level of funding for research should correspond to at least 5% of the national tax revenue gained through taxing the profits of companies which market convenience foods. Source of financial support - Recycled tax revenue Appropriate areas - All areas Accompanying measures - Governments should encourage national debates on whether or not restrictions should be imposed on misleading advertising of convenience foods and fast food chains (and whether the use of promotional gifts to attract children should be prohibited. Mechanism - National Dialogues about advertising standards. Establishment of research funds. Applications for funding for research by interested groups, co-operatives or consortia. *** Proposal 3.9 Support for distinctive regional food cultures (CON9) ooo Summary: This proposal (Proposal CON 9) aims to support the promotion of foods associated with distinctive regional and cultural identities ooo Context for this proposal - producers of specialist foods associated with particular European cultural traditions, have to educate the public and promote their products in order to survive in competitive markets. While these activities are undertaken in order to ensure the survival of their own enterprises, they are at the same time acting as promoters of particular food cultures and, as food has traditionally played such an important role in different national and regional identities, in perpetuating wider national or regional cultures. Reasons for proposing support - In recent years, producers outside the regions which originally developed these foods have attempted to replace regional foods with their own products (which imitate the original), often produced to lower standards and undermining the ability of regional foods to control quality standards. The result of this has been to threaten the distinctive farming systems and associated cultures which produced the original foods. Who would be eligible? - Farmers and food processors in the regions which originally produced the culturally distinct foods. Conditions of support - Farmers would have to maintain the distinctive regional approaches to food production, and ideally return to organic approaches which characterised the original tradition of food production, so as to regain the competitive edge in terms of quality relative to new producers outside the region. Levels of support – Maintenance or slight enhancement of producers' incomes during transitions to organic production. Help with marketing. Source of financial support - Regional Development Funds. Appropriate areas - Regions with distinctive food traditions. Accompanying measures - Support for cultural festivals associated with food traditions. Support at WTO for retention of the principles of regional labelling (e.g. apellation controlle). Challenges at international level to piracy of intellectual property. Mechanism - Consultation with producers in regions. *** Proposal 3.10 for support for Educational projects on farm (CON10) ooo Summary: Proposal (CON 10) for support for Educational projects on farms ooo Context for this proposal - Life in cities is so insulated from nature that it is easy for city dwellers to forget that even cities rely on maintaining workable balances with nature in order to survive. Farms potentially can help to educate urban dwellers about these balances and hence make a contribution to the overall sustainability of urban societies. Reasons for proposing support - Young citizens need to understand the principles of sustainability if the future viability of EU societies is to be ensured. Farms are a microcosm covering many areas which are relevant to sustainable development, including food production, energy production and consumption, waste management, social relations, etc. Who would be eligible? - Farmers, particularly those close to urban centres, who used sustainable methods (see Dossier of Sustainable Production Systems). Conditions of support - Farmers would have to be able to demonstrate principles of sustainable production in their own farming systems. Farms with diverse systems, able to illustrate a wider variety of themes would be favoured. Levels of support - Set up costs to be provided by local educational authorities (co-financed by structural funds). Payments to be negotiated between educational authorities and service providers (farmers). Source of financial support - Set up costs of converting buildings and developing educational materials to be provided from the education budget, co-financed from the structural funds. Payments for visits by education authorities or schools (depending on national systems for funding education) would provide on-going income for farmers. Appropriate areas - Particularly farms close to urban centres (see also Proposal CON 5) Accompanying measures - Development of school curricula to include a stronger emphasis on sustainable development. Mechanism - Negotiations between educational authorities and farmers who would like to join the scheme *** Proposal 3.11 Conditioning European aid to the maintenance of paths Problem - The support given to agriculture has been partially justified for a long period by its role in territorial development and maintenance. It was a postulate. However, aid linked to efforts to concretize this territorial development are rare and no criteria have been established to evaluate this service to the community. Unfortunately, the facts show that the agriculture that has received the most aid has destroyed the most paths (such as cereal production), whereas the most environmentally respectful types of farming have been penalized exactly because of their respect. Lastly, if agriculture is to play a role in development, whom does it benefit? In what way can the entire community benefit from territorial development? One of the roles expected from the territory thus “developed” is for it to provide a space for walking and leisure. How can this role be ensured? Proposal - The best measure of a territory‟s openness is the distance taken by paths per hectare! It is sufficient to measure the number of miles of paths (private and public but nonetheless open to the public) which cross it. Of course, by path is meant a thoroughfare in good condition, though not asphalted, with a minimum width of 3 meters. To give an idea, on a relatively open farm in the Ile de France region (an outer urban zone subject to strong demands for leisure) nearly 35 meters of path per hectare were calculated, i.e. 3.5 kilometers for a hundred hectares. With the exception of areas under ecological preservation orders for which public access is limited, entitlement to public aid should carry the proviso for a minimum of 20 meters of path per hectare. Comment - As in European cities, where increasing consideration is given to converting roads for traffic into pedestrian walkways, a large proportion of the paths running through rural Europe has disappeared due to covering over with asphalt or by regrouping lands. Any discourse on revitalizing rural areas (children dare to go school less and less by foot) or on their cultural role is hollow if no real attempt is made to restore a network of paths not intended for cars. Implementation - this measure would benefit from massive support from territorial authorities, professionals in the tourist industry, hikers‟ and bicyclists‟ associations and many farmers who already keep their land open at their own cost. This could become an integral part of the Common Agricultural Policy in the same way as ecological compensation areas are part of the current Swiss law on farming. *** 4. The EU and other countries Implementing a rural policy in the EU implies consequences for non-EU countries. From the standpoint of EU rural policies, countries can be classified into six categories:  Firstly, there are the countries that already belong to the EU and which want to preserve or reform the current situation which has an impact on their economies. However they all currently have the same target which is to pay less. Extending the CAP to Central and Eastern European countries does not appear to be an option since it would be in contradiction with the aim mentioned previously.  Secondly, the countries which will become Union members in the near future. These are essentially the Central and Eastern European countries. The question for them is to know whether the current members of the EU will ask them to accept the benefits of community membership with certain adaptations or whether enlargement will be conceived as the union among equals of two brutally divided Europes. Enlargement or reunification, that is the question.  Neighboring countries, especially Mediterranean ones, who may fear that the union of the East and West will put them on the spot.  The agricultural powers, in particular the Cairns Group of Canada, New-Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, etc.) and the USA which fears a return to European protectionism.  Other trading partners which, as a function of specific contracts (as with the case of bananas), can follow such and such an aspect of European policy.  Lastly, a group with few agricultural trading relationships but which may observe Europe's position with interest, since it reflects their own problems (e.g., Japan). The most sensitive issue at present is that of enlargement. It has been ten years since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, but membership of the EU is postponed year after year, changing initial enthusiasm to disillusion. The major reasons for this slowness are the EU's agricultural and structural funds (regional development funds) policies.  Half of the EU's budget is taken up by its agricultural policy, which will be affected by any enlargement. Its cost will increase by 10 million Euros if it is maintained as it is and extended to the new members. However, the net contributing countries (those which give more than they receive, i.e. the Netherlands and Germany) no longer want to pay. As for the other countries, they go as far as refusing to contribute ("I Want my money back"). The suggestion has been made to enlarge Europe without extending the CAP, though this proposal is ludicrous. Agriculture and the rural economy in general are still a basic component of the economy and thus of social harmony in countries such as Poland and Romania. For them, opening up their borders to subsidized agricultural produce without having the means to subsidize their own would lead to economic and social disaster with dire consequences.  The main beneficiaries of the structural funds are most Spain, Greece and Portugal which all fear the rerouting of the funds they receive to the East. To sum up, those who pay do not want to pay more, whereas those who benefit from community aid do not want any of it to slip away. However, the debate does not stop there. Since the debate on the nature of Europe (will it become simply a single market, a confederation or a federation?) will decide the nature of the policies formulated. Will there be a European rural policy? Or will each State, region or municipality be individually responsible for the choices it makes in terms of projects and economic development? If the Union's members continue to refuse raising the agriculture budget, thinking must take a different direction: 4.1 Give precedence to political union rather than to economic union. 4.2 Develop a common rural policy intended for every State whatever their duration of membership. 4.3 Develop tools guaranteeing financial transparency to permit the constitution of a European civil society. 4.4 Ensure food security, since food remains a major strategic issue (more than economic). Proposal 4.1- Political union before economic union Context and reason - Historically, the construction of the European Union has been based on economic union that has taken precedence over political union. This approach was a last resort for Europe's founding fathers in the face of stubborn refusal by States to give up any of their sovereignty. Germany has now raised the question of a federal Europe, spurring a response for project for a confederal Europe. However, in 1950 the idea of political union was practically unmentionable (and still is for certain countries). This 'historical necessity' of giving precedence to economic union over political union has become a routine rule now applied in the case of union with the countries of the East: economic union first. However, the divergence between their economies is such that convergence can only be achieved by long term efforts (several decades). The recent example of German reunification has shown that brutal economic union is a traumatizing experience, even when huge resources are brought into play. This strictly economic vision of the union leads to the regular postponement of these countries joining up, in turn leading to considerable bitterness. It is paradoxical that at a time when a large core of fifteen countries becomes aware of the need to politicize their economic union they should subordinate political union with the east to economic union. However, history abounds with cases in which political union has preceded economic union. France, Great Britain, Spain, the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom, etc. are all political entities whose formation preceded economic union. The relationship between Western and Easter Europe has nothing to do, for example, with the integration of Great Britain into the Common Market in 1979. It is first and foremost the political and cultural reunion of the continent, even if economic convergence must occur in time. Therefore it is necessary to act now without waiting for political union (whether in the form of federation or a confederation) with economic union occurring in this framework and through time. Mechanism - Europe must accelerate its political union while maintaining temporary internal economic borders, which will fall progressively. Thus the representatives of all the countries will be led to speak out on the policies and decisions to be made (for example, a new rural policy, new procedures for financing the union, new water protection standards, a common position at international level, etc.). The fifteen current members would conserve the advantages that will change progressively through time. Economic convergence (lowering of customs barriers, convergence of standards, the benefits of exiting policies) would occur in harmony according to the principle of trading the disappearance customs barriers against the disappearance of subsidies. Implementation - The forthcoming legislatures of the European Parliament should bring together parliamentarians from every European country. The balance of commissioners should remain the same for one more legislature before setting up a commission elected by parliament in the same way as the Swiss federal council elects its ministers (a number of commissioners proportional to the weight of each group in parliament). The decisions taken by parliament would then be valid for all the Union's member countries, and decisions taken later would be valid on a transitional basis for the fifteen current members and then renegotiated in future decades (twenty years for achieving economic union seems reasonable). *** Proposal 4.2- A European rural policy Context and reasons – Given the current political and economic context, extending the CAP to the east seems impossible. The fifteen do not want to pay more, certain countries such France refuse to renegotiate milk quotas, etc. The CAP in its entirety is inappropriate for the countries of the East. Conversely, it is difficult and not necessarily desirable for countries such as Poland, 27% of whose population works in agriculture, to undergo in five years the changes that have taken in France in the last fifty years. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the rural vitality of Eastern countries is such that many regions of Western Europe can only envy them. Regarding rural development, the divide is not easy to estimate. Rather than destroying this potential, it should be given support. It would be absurd to observe in the West that we have gone too far with industrializing agriculture and dismantling the rural fabric and impose the same excesses on the East with respect to rural development. Union between the two Europes is a very valuable opportunity for rethinking the whole of rural development, the balance between urban and rural relationships and the management of common territory. The objective is therefore to set up a rural policy at European level that is not solely devoted to agriculture. This policy would be implemented from the outset of territorial union in Europe and be consolidated in the years to come. The CAP maintained temporarily for the fifteen countries would be harmonized at the same rhythm as the borders between the East and West fall. (The principle for setting up single markets should be the reduction of tariff barriers against the reduction of subsidies.) Mechanism – The CAP development funds (the second pillar of the structure!) should merge with part of the structural funds in order to set up a rural policy whose objective are to:  maintain rural population levels;  preserve vital natural resources constituted by soils, water and biodiversity. Privileged partners – Instead of the agricultural community which is made up of a professional category (which is difficult to define in areas where multiple activities exist or persist) a rural policy would be aimed at all projects intended for implementation in the territory as whole. In this framework, territorial authorities (municipalities, groups of municipalities, etc.) would be the privileged partners of this European rural development policy, or at least regarding its major orientations. The chapter concerning the regulation of CAP markets, which currently takes up most of the budget, must be given a "harmonization schedule", the alternatives being:  either total disappearance (the more prices are supported, the more quotas there are, and the more markets are regulated), but this appears neither realistic or desirable,  or the setting up of community policies that maintain the CAP extended to all countries. This solution implies that Europe is capable it international level of explaining and justifying such an "agricultural exception". *** Proposal 4.3- Strengthening democracy by improving transparency Context and reason – The effective capacity for democracy at European level is weakened by increasing the number of member countries, institutional blurring and the multiplication of administrative levels and also by the absence of representation by civil society. Even though the countries of Eastern and Central Europe are starting from a situation where civil society is almost absent, this problem is shared by the rest of Europe. At present, control over the use of European funds by citizens is complex, due in many cases to the attitudes taken by member states. Obviously, it is out of the question for Europe to go over the heads of national and regional structures to encourage setting up civil society where it does not exist. Given their present sensitivity, few national governments would tolerate what they would consider as interference. Furthermore, massive intervention by the European Union would create new risks of loss of control, i.e. the creation of a "clientele" civil society, etc. What is more, civil society has different forms depending on the country and it would be ridiculous to brutally impose one country's system on another's. Each population creates original systems of civil society in comparable democratic frameworks. To take only the examples of France and Great Britain, France's 36,000 communes attract a large share of voluntary work done on behalf of municipal councils, whereas in Britain this voluntary work is done for NGOs. Whatever the procedures, what counts in the end is the number of persons involved in public life. We must simply strive to create an environment that encourages civil society that functions well by placing trust in Europeans to set up movements and organizations themselves. One of the keys to this environment is plenty of good information. Mechanism and implementation – Citizens should have access to all information on the use of European funds at every level. Thus the union and each beneficiary of European funds (with perhaps a minimum of 1,000 Euros received in a year), should prove the use of such funds (e.g., to the nearest 100 Euros, as smaller amounts would make reading difficult). The European Commission would draw up a report on the type of expenses municipality by municipality, county by county and region by region. This report would be available on the Net and it would be possible to request copies specific to a municipality, a region and a State. The EU could also support setting up a computer network (1 workstation per municipality or per 1,000 inhabitants) dedicated to the transparency of European fund utilization. Thus any European citizen or group of citizens could obtain information on the European fund assigned to his or her territory or for any other part of Europe. The persons involved – Any private or public structure receiving more than 10,000 euros per year would be bound to make a one page report (or one page per sum of 5.000 euros, etc.) containing: 1- an explanation of the actions carried out and their results, 2- an account of the expenses (to the nearest 100 euros). These reports would be handed over to the Union, which would be responsible for transforming them into a single report. (Nb: states and regions and projects using more than 150.000 Euros would have to translate their report in English, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish and French). Finance – Each DG would make a pro rata contribution of its budget to setting up a network of workstations. The beneficiaries of the European funds would be responsible for writing the reports. *** Proposal 4.4- Food security Problem: Food security is a legitimate concern of populations and their governments. However, reality can be deceptive. Producing a lot does not mean that one is self-sufficient if imports of intermediate products were needed to achieve. These intermediate products are animal feed, petroleum which we don not produce and on which we are dependent. This is the case of Europe today! To this must be added the fact that the food required by a population does not depend only on production levels but also on logistics (transports, etc.). At present one can prophesize with reasonable certainty that in the case of a crisis comparable to World War II, Europe would suffer more from famine malnutrition than from 1940 to 1945. A food security policy must set more serious and complex objectives than supporting production. Stock must be taken of the reality of current agricultural production: a link in the food production and distribution chain. Furthermore, a policy that consists of confusing food self-sufficiency and maximum production naturally generates surpluses, with the result of eliminating economically weaker production systems and increasing the risks of famine! The fear of hunger of some creates the risk of famine for others. Proposal - A food security policy is not one of creating structural surpluses, especially when these surpluses waste resources. On the contrary, a policy can include shortages made up by imports provided two objectives are followed: the first is a policy of product storage to offset temporary shortages (poor harvests, conflict, trade wars). This is the logic of Pharaoh. The second objective is to maintain production and distribution capacities (soil, water, skills, qualified and plentiful labor, transport modes and conservation) and a plan for mobilizing these capacities in cases of emergency (a state of food emergency). At present there is no crisis scenario on which to base such a procedure. Comment: Sustainable agriculture already represents considerable progress towards the objective of food selfsufficiency since it places emphasis on reducing the consumption of natural resources. Producing with fewer imports would certainly be step towards food security. Implementation: This type of measure may be difficult to implement without the support of public authorities. In truth, the food security of all is a public right. As for the subject of over-production, Europe has been obliged in the past to manage the storage of stocks for socially questionable purposes. It is difficult to see why it cannot do so for unquestionable ones. Regarding maintaining production potentials as they are, these vary for different reasons. From the environmental point of view, they essentially concern environmental protection measures. From the technical point of view, it is enough to maintain part of the territory as arable land. Lastly, from the human point of view the aim is to preserve farming know-how.