Last week, EU commissioner Phil Hogan presented plans for future financing of agricultural budget, EU's largest budget item. In this guest post, former EU agriculture commissioner Franz Fischler from Austria and ex-agriculture Minister of Nerlands, Cees Veermann, analyse proposals.
Spätestensdann, when debate on future of financing European Union begins every seven years, same ritual is repeated every time: DieVertreter of agriculture are already proactive in defending status quo. The environmental and animal welfare organisations denounce ökologischenFußabdruck of agriculture. Consumer Protectionists deplore IhrerMeinung for high food prices and this at a time when dieAusgaben of households for food only account for just under ten. And staunch defenders of neoliberalism demand gänzlicheAbschaffung of agricultural policy.
Diesalles has become quite boring now. Wouldn't it be time to tell a new story on subject? A story that is understandable for dieBürgerinnen and citizens and refore has a good chance to survive politically and not to be in mills of various Interessensvertreterzermahlen.
Demnachmüssen finally from paradigm shift that was beginning this Jahrhundertsvorgenommen, necessary consequences are drawn. Instead of administering markets Mithilfevon market orders, y must finally be brought zumFunktionieren.
More transparency in all areasThis means above all: more transparency. It needs an EU-wide VerpflichtendePreisberichterstattung according to a uniform scheme, so that DiePreisentwicklungen can also be communicated throughout Europe. It is not enough to publish prices for Grundproduktezu, but also to be processing and Handelmiteinbezogen. But so far not even at DenGrundprodukten is necessary transparency. Worse still, we have in Europanicht once our own, EU-wide valid stock quotes, but use DieNotierungen from New York or Chicago. To this day, Europe has not brought about any europäischeWarenterminbörse. Who is still surprised that DerBörsenhandel, which could be an important tool for price stabilisation, is massively underdeveloped in Europe.
While markets are transparent, it would also be easier to get to grips with biggest disruptive factor, namely price volatility. This is dringendnotwendig because, with consequences of increasing climate change and expected consequences of protectionist measures, spontaneous Preissprüngehäufiger and negative consequences for all parties become more drastic. DiePreise could be stabilized by making our production systems, by BessereZüchtung, improved plant management, by technical protection Maßnahmenwie hail nets or by sprinkling, resilient.
An income insurance would be wrongTo Anderenmüssen unreasonable risks for farmer by appropriate Versicherungenabgemildert. Europe is well advised to offer effective risk management tools with aid of public resources. In doing so, Europe Abernicht can repeat mistakes of USA. In ir Derzeitiggültigen national Agrarförderprogramm, Americans have created an income insurance scheme in which y can assure mselves not only against natural events, but also against fall in prices or slump in demand. Although this may seem attractive to dieLandwirte, it is an instrument that can at end bring markets to a close.
Weiterenotwendige changes mainly concern competition law. Here, Esneue needs instruments which allow parties involved in processing undVermarktungsketten to create fair conditions for dieKontraktlandwirtschaft and which strengn role of farmer as a meistensschwächstes link in chain. For dairy sector, EU has already denMitgliedsstaaten such opportunities and allowed dassunter certain conditions to allow price fixing among farmers. Ähnlichesgilt also works for cooperation among producers in form of VonGenossenschaften and producer organisations. You see, with Verteidigungdes status quo you don't get far, nor with a naïve faith Andie self-regulating forces of market.
Dasgroße reform Project of European Commission, however, should be a complete reorganisation of entire agricultural support policy, including rural development. It is to be concluded that 80 percent derFördergelder to only 20 percent of farmers. Farmers are to be largely freed from vombisherigen bureaucratic stuff, Brussels wants to withdraw from rules of fundamental issues. The subsidies Sollenviel more on environment, sustainability, climate change, fight against DieÜberalterung, innovation and a rural development policy Ausgerichtetwerden. These are all noble goals, which are to be implemented in a completely new way.
Date Of Update: 06 June 2018, 12:02
