Spinelli-+Food

The Common Agricultural Policy from spinelli to 2010. 1) Introduction.  //In the first part of my paper I’ll analyze the core idea of Spinelli: the Europeans need to put together Coal Steel and Agriculture, in this way there will be no more wars in Europe.//  //In 1958 the Stresa Convention created the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In the first decades of creation the Common Agricultural Policy has subsidized in particular big farms. This approach is against the Spinelli’s original view because the goal of the Author was to guarantee good wages for the poorest party of the society, the farmers. Nowadays this approach is changing (2010),the CAP has to subsidized small farmers because they are more sustainable for the environment and they produce better products. The CAP has to defend two important “commons”, food and environment.//  In 1941 Altiero Spinelli wrote, during his imprisonment (he was antifascist),: “il Manifesto di Ventotene” supporting “federalism” as a way to re-build Europe after WWII in a more social, fair and sustainable way. Spinelli wrote: //“Le forze conservatrici, cioè: i dirigenti delle istituzioni fondamentali degli Stati nazionali; i quadri superiori delle forze armate, culminanti, là dove ora esistono, nelle monarchie; quei gruppi del capitalismo monopolista che hanno legato le sorti dei loro profitti a quelle degli Stati; i grandi proprietari fondiari e le alte gerarchie ecclesiastiche che solo da una stabile società conservatrice possono vedere assicurate le loro entrate parassitarie; ed al loro seguito tutto l’innumerevole stuolo di coloro che da essi dipendono o che anche sono solo abbagliati dalla loro tradizionale potenza; tutte queste forze reazionarie già fin da oggi sentono che l’edificio scricchiola, e cercano di salvarsi. Il crollo le priverebbe di colpo di tutte le garanzie che hanno avuto finora, e le esporrebbe all’assalto delle forze progressiste **[1]** .”// The Spinelli’s idea was clear. If the Europeans will have Coal, Steel and Agriculture together, there will be no more wars, because the Europeans industries (that needs Coal and Steel) and the farmers, will have the same interests. One reform that aided to create an “effective” Europe was the Agricultural one. In 1958 the Stresa Convention built the Common Agricultural Policy. However as Maria Gemma Grillotti di Giacomo explains in her paper “//La riscoperta del territorio e della geografia nella più recente evoluzione della politica Agricola Comunitaria// //**[2]**// ”, in the first years the Common Agriculture Policy subsidized especially big farms. Why? Because Europe needed food after WWII. At the beginning the CAP’s most important goal was to increase production. However this policy has created serious problems. It had determinated surplus in the production of agricultural goods and was necessary to stop the production and pay farmers to don’t produce. There were many strikes against this “no production” policy in Europe also because “//there are millions of people that are dying all over the world and the European Union is paying the European farmers to don’t produce food?// ” [3]. This is why, nowadays, the ideas of Spinelli are so important, because is necessary to come back to a regional Agricultural policy, more sustainable and able to produce high quality of food in a way that respect the environment. These are the main directories of the CAP reform in 2013. The movement “slow food” (here in Turin there was the meeting last week!) has grown in the last ten years. We can see ,today, the realization of what Spinelli “in nuce” was supporting, more than sixty years ago. High quality food, good wages for the producers, (also non EU producers) a sustainable way of production, the difference of each region as richness. 2) The 80’s and 90’s  //In the second part I’ll analyze the Common Agricultural Policy in the 80’s and in the 90’s. These decades were fundamental because there were many agreement with third States (development States) to permit them to export they products in Europe (Lome and Cotonou Convention). This approach is the Spinelli’s one, because the Agriculture Policy was orientated to help not only the Europeans farmers (that in the 80’s and in 90’s were already very rich) but also the farmers of the poorest countries.(ACP countries)//  In the 80’s and 90’s the question that some Scholars posed was: “//After 52 years of Common Agricultural policy **[4]**, the dream of Spinelli is still alive or the common Agricultural policy is only one of the new way to perpetuate injustice between Europe and the rest of the world? A reform that is born to help the poorest party of the society has created more justice or injustice in the rest of the world//? “ As we have seen, briefly, in the first paragraph of my paper, the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the most important European policy. It absorbs (2010) the 34% of the European budget. The article 2 of the Rome Treaty affirms that the Community has to promote a common market trying to harmonize the economic policies of the Members State. To achieve this goal was necessary, for example, to have a common policy in the transports and in the agriculture. The Stresa Convention goals’ (1958) were on one hand, give to the Europeans citizens food at reasonable price and on the other hand give to the farmers a good standard of living. The CAP had two main goals. The first one was to give to the farmers a good price. The second one was to make any efforts to aid industries to increase productivity. At the beginning the problem of the Europeans politician was also to be sure that there was sufficient food for the 6 founding Member States (Germany, Italy, France and Benelux.) The PAC’s core principle (also today) is the support of prices. The agriculture products can be sold freely inside the Eu. The imported products has to be taxated if they are cheaper and the European exportations are subsidized if the world price is lower than the internal price. The CAP has been roundly criticised since from the beginning. Criticism has been wide-ranging, and even the [|European Commission] has long been persuaded of the numerous defects of the policy. This is why, the European Commission is discussing a Cap’s reform for the 2013 [5]. Criticism of the CAP has united some supporters of [|neoliberal] [|globalisation] with the [|alter-globalisation movement] [6]. The [|West] spends high amounts on agricultural subsidies every year, which amounts to unfair competition. To answer at that critique the Eu has signed some agreement with developing countries. At the same time, however, the EU remains the world's biggest importer of farm products from developing countries [7]. This is further encouraged by a preferential market access agreement for products from developing countries. Today, around 71% of the EU's agricultural imports originate from developing countries [8]. The 'Everything But Arms' programme, gives the world's 50 least-developed countries duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market. Under the Economic Partnership Agreements, countries from the African, Caribbean and Pacific group enjoy full duty-free and quota free access. The first Lomé Convention (Lomé I), which came into force in April 1976, was designed to provide a new framework of cooperation between the [|European Community] and developing [| countries] [9]. It had two main aspects. It provided for most ACP agricultural and mineral exports to enter the EC free of duty. Preferential access based on a quota system was agreed for products, such as sugar and beef, in competition with EC agriculture. Secondly, the EC committed 3EU billion for aid and [|investment] in the ACP countries. The convention was renegotiated and renewed three times. Lomé II (January 1981 to February 1985) increased aid and investment expenditure to 5.5 EU billion. Lomé III came into force in March 1985 (trade provisions) and May 1986 (aid), and expired in 1990. Lomé IV was signed in December 1989. Its trade provisions cover the ten years, 1990 to 1999. Aid and investment commitments for the first five years. In all, some 70 ACP countries are party to Lomé IV, compared with 46 signatories of Lomé I. One Author explained [10] that: “//By adding import tariffs to agricultural goods exported by farmers in developing countries, whilst at the same time undercutting them in their domestic market where European oversupply is "dumped" uninhibited by import levies, it is argued the CAP is throttling agricultural business within these countries whether national or global and forcing them back into an economically stunted// // [|subsistence lifestyle] //”. Many African and Asian dairy, tomato and poultry farmers cannot keep up with cheap competition from Europe, thus their incomes can no longer provide for their families. They end up relying heavily on imports, which are often the EU's substidized exports [11]. According to the 2003 Human Development Report [12] the average dairy cow in the year 2000 under the European Union received $913 in subsidies annually, whilst an average of $8 per human being was sent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa. The 2005 HDR described the CAP as "//extravagant ... wreaking havoc in global sugar markets//". The report also states "//The basic problem to be addressed in the WTO negotiations on agriculture can be summarized in three words: rich country subsidies. In the last round of world trade negotiations rich countries promised to cut agricultural subsidies. Since then, they have increased them//" an outcome hinted at in HDR 2003. A common view [13] is that the CAP has traditionally promoted a large expansion in agricultural production. At the same time it has allowed farmers to employ unecological ways of increasing production, such as the indiscriminate use of fertilisers and pesticides, with serious environmental consequences. However a total re-focusing of the payment scheme in 2004 now puts the environment at the centre of farming policy. This forces strict limits on the amount of nitrogenous fertilisers which can be used in vulnerable areas. Strict environmental requirements must also be observed to maintain any subsidy payments. The federalist Authors [14] analyzed all these problems and propose a new global organization able to create a system that give to the farmers good wages, that produces food to increase production at global level but in a more sustainable way. 3) The Global Climate Community  //In the third part I’ll analyze what the federalist movement propose today, the creation of a Global Climate Community that will be able to save the farmers interests and the global environment.//  In the first half of the twenty century, Europe, that had invented the “westfalian system”, (every state is sovereign), was the theatre of two World Wars. However, since 1945, Europe has became the safest area of the world, thank to a process of gradual federalism that has slowly replaced the sovereignty of each State [15] . The States nowadays are interconnected and they are not able to solve their problems alone.  The integration sectors were especially Coal Steel, Agriculture and in the last years also the Environment. At the beginning the sectors were integrated to avoid future wars. We can see, today, that this program has worked properly. John Pinder stressed in his book: “//Una Comunità mondiale per il clima come tappa vesro una Federazione mondiale//” that the world is today very unsafe: wars, terrorism, migration and the destruction of the environment are common. He proposes to create a Global Climate Community. The Author starts from the Spinelli federalists’ approach to solve at global level, the same problem that the Europeans had in 1945. Pinder is sure that there are conditions to achieve this goals. He explains that there are a sufficient number of States that like the idea of a Global Climate Community (GCC). If six members were able to create the European Union after WWII, why some “like-minded States” should not be able to create the GCC? The European Union with her knowledge in building federalist institutions, should start to try to create this new organization that will have the goal to save the Environment. One of the first reform of this organization should be the Agricultural one. It is easy to imagine how the planet will benefit from a reform that give good wages to the farmers (one of the poorest social categories in the world) and subsidize a way of productivity that is compatible with the environment. Pinder affirms that to create this organization, there are some necessary conditions (part 3 of my paper). a) The goal of the control of the climatic change.  The European experience has shown that the safety is the fundamental reason to convinces States to divide the sovereignty. Economy, Agriculture and Environment are the sectors were the sovereignty is easily integrated. Today, the climate change is the most dangerous problem for the humanity, probably more than wars. The EU is able to fight against the climatic change. The European union, in fact has to reduce her emissions of the 60% from now to the 2050 [16] . The EU is also, the only member of the International Community that could accept the equality principle [17] . To create the GCC without this principle, the development countries will never accept to build a GCC.   b) Federal instruments. Chrystofer Layton [18] has shown as the European system for the emission, the //Emission Trading Scheme//, is the principle instrument for the reduction of the emission of CO2. The European Union is utilizing the market mechanism to achieve the goal of the control of climatic change and the economic rationality. However, in the prospective of my paper, I think that also a policy that help first to conserve forest, and second to subsidized small farmers, will aid the Environment more than a complex market of emissions. c) Federal Institutions.  To achieve her goals the Global Climate Community needs some institutions able to take difficult decisions. The European experience [19] shows that the formation of a political consensus needs at least three core institutions. A Government that should be able to vote with a majority system. An assembly, because the decision of the GCC need the citizens consensus’. A Court of Justice, the acts of the GCC in fact need to be controlled by a communitarian judges. Pinder stresses in particular the idea that, the institutions must be based on the principles of the federalist democracy, with a Government that need the approbation of the Assembly to be legitimize and work. Is also necessary an independent judiciary system that guarantees the respect of the laws.   d) Member States The States who want to participate at the Global Climate Organization must be ready and able to do that. Ready and able to achieve this goal, in Pinder perspective (but is the same in Spinelli, the only difference is that Spinelli was talking about European States in 1941) means that they must be liberal democracy because the citizens must be at the centre of this project. The authoritarian regimes can’t be part of this project. E) The European Union and India as first members.  The agreement between France and Germany was at the core of the creation of the European Union. Germany and France had the same economic dimension and they represented the nord and the south European interests. This two nations together were able to give international credibility to the project that they wanted to create.  The global emissions of CO2 in the next years will be dominated by the European Union, China, India and United States. The first step in the creation of a Global Climate Community need to be done from one of these countries. China today is not ready to split his sovereignty with others states because it is not a liberal democracy (also the Uk at the beginning was not able to join the six founding members of the European Union). The US not seems to be ready to create a GCC with a federalist approach.  Pinder suggests that the European Union and India, have the same core principles regarding democracy and they have a guide role in the Kyoto agreements. The Author [20] is sure that the European Union and India are ready to create the GCC. Together, these States have the 25% of the world’s populations. The federalists scholars now must be able to convince these two nations to create the GCC. F) The GCC must be created with a very long process.  The European Union has created a very effective method to build a federal community. First it has created federal institutions and secondly it has introduced new Member States during the years. This one should be the same approach to build the GCC. At the beginning will be Europe and India that will create this new institution and then, if it will work, other States will join it.  As Spinelli said at the Italian Parlament the 10 february 1977, in his speech reguarding the direct election of the European Parlament: “ //the built of Europe will be done progressively with many other steps as this one.//”  The Italian Author since the 1952 had identified the federalist elements needed by the European Union. However, the Spinell’s dream was a Global federal Union, the European Union was only the first step to reach this bigger goal.  Today is possible to start to talk about a Global Federal Union. The goal of this organization will be fight against climate change. The Agriculture reform will be at the core of the GCC program (as it was for the CAP in Europe). The goals to have good wages for farmers, good products to eat, a productivity that respect the Environment are not only the goal of Europe but of the entire world. The “Quaderni di Ventotene” are still at the centre of the political arena, after 69 years. Conclusion. Half of my family died during the wars between Europeans. After the two World Wars my grand parents’ generation started to think how to solve the poverty of the lower social classes and how to avoid future wars and they have created the European Union. Nowadays the problem is the environment. Our stile of life is destroying the planet, is necessary to do something to preserve the future generation. We could start with a Global Climate Community very concerned about environment and agriculture, to try to save the most important “common” that we have, our lives. Bibliography Albertini,M., Pistone//,S., IL FEDERALISMO**,** LA RAGION DI STATO E LA PACE, in// Altiero Spinelli Institute for federalist studies, 2001, p. 55 Fanfani, R., //L’agricoltura in Italia- Dalla riforma agraria alle quote latte. Come era e come è la nostra agricoltura//, Bologna, il Mulino. Frandsen, S. //Expanding 'Fortress Europe': Agricultural Trade and Welfare Implications of European Enlargement for Non-member Regions//, [|The World Economy], 3 March 2000 Grillotti di Giacomo Maria Gemma, La riscoperta del territorio e della geografia nella più recente evoluzione della politica Agricola Comunitaria, in [|www.gecoagri.it/materiale/agricoltura_it.pdf]. Layton, C., A Community of the Willing: Hoe Europe and South can lead the World’s Response to Climate Change, European Essay n. 15, Federal Trust, London Pinder, //Una Comunità mondiale per il clima comee tappa verso una Federazione mondiale//, in Altiero Spinelli Institute for federalist studies, 2000, p. 45. Spinelli, A., E. Rossi., //Il Manifesto di Ventotene,// Istitututo di Studi Federalisti Altiero Spinelli, Ventotene (Ristampa 1991), p. 29. Corriere della Sera//, Quote latte i trattori ad arcore//, 2 March 2009. Useful web sites. http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_it.htm

[1] A. Spinelli, E. Rossi., //Il Manifesto di Ventotene,// Istitututo di Studi Federalisti Altiero Spinelli, Ventotene (Ristampa 1991), p. 29. [2] Maria Gemma Grillotti di Giacomo, //La riscoperta del territorio e della geografia nella più recente evoluzione della politica Agricola Comunitaria,// in www.gecoagri.it/materiale/agricoltura_it.pdf. [3] Just for example, read the article on the Corriere della Sera//, Quote latte i trattori ad arcore//, 2 March 2009. [4] R. Fanfani, //L’agricoltura in Italia- Dalla riforma agraria alle quote latte. Come era e come è la nostra agricoltura//, Bologna, il Mulino. P. 150 [5] An initial step in the debate has been the Budget Review conference, organised by the European Commission, in November 2008. A year later, in November 2009, some leading agricultural economists from all over Europe have published a declaration advocating “A Common Agricultural Policy for European Public Goods“. In April 2010, the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural development, Dacian Cioloş, launched a public debate on the future of the CAP. The purpose of the debate was to have different sectors of society taking part. “The Common Agricultural Policy is not just a matter for experts. It’s a policy for all Europeans”, said Commissioner Cioloş. The online debate focussed on 4 questions: Why do we need a common agricultural policy? What do citizens expect from agriculture? Why reform the CAP? What tools do we need for the CAP of tomorrow? The debate received almost 6000 contributions from citizens, stakeholders and think tanks, making it the largest EU debate conducted by the European Commission so far. The contributions were summarised in a report, produced by a group of independent experts. In March 2010 the [|European Commissioner for the Environment] [|Janez Potočnik] called for a //Common Agricultural and Environmental Policy//, saying that the CAP should be greened; that is should improve sustainability, soil quality, water quality and efficiency. The policy should contribute to //global// food security and provide green products [6] S. E. Frandsen, //Expanding 'Fortress Europe': Agricultural Trade and Welfare Implications of European Enlargement for Non-member Regions//, [|The World Economy], 3 March 2000 [7] On average, over the period 2006-2008, the EU has imported € 53 billion worth of goods. This is more than the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined [8] http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_it.htm. [9] In particular former British, Dutch, Belgian and French colonies. [10] F. Pocar, //Diritto dell'unione e delle comunità europee//, Giuffrè, p. 340 [11] [|Hunger as an alibi]. In June 2000, after a quarter of a century of the Lomé Convention being the cornerstone of trade and aid between Europe and the developing world, a new trade and aid agreement was reached between the EU and 71 ACP countries. The treaty, which replaced Lomé IV, became known as the [|Cotonou Agreement], after [|Cotonou] in [|Benin] , where the convention for the agreement was held. The convention was scheduled to be held in [|Fiji], but this plan had to be revised due to domestic political difficulties. The Cotonou Agreement is expected to run for 20 years. The new deal transforms the previous convention into a system of trade and cooperation pacts with individual nations. Some of the poorer ACP states will continue to enjoy virtually free access to European markets and there will be regional free trade agreements between the EU and better-off developing countries. The Cotonou Agreement has been criticised for moving from partnership, to excessive and unhelpful [|conditionality] upon ACP countries. The ACP countries the Lomé Convention initially helped were economically hindered as the Cotonou Agreement was not particularly advantageous to the ACP countries. [12] Found on: hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2003 [13] F. Pocar, op. cit. in note 10, p. 341. the translation is mine. [14] For example, M. Albertini, S. Pistone//, IL FEDERALISMO**,** LA RAGION DI STATO E LA PACE, in// Altiero Spinelli Institute for federalist studies, 2001, p. 55 [15] F. Pocar, op. cit. in note 10, p. 200 [16] Found on: http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_it.htm [17] This principle is essential if the currently less-developed are to accept the constraint of limiting the growth of their low carbon emissions, by the commitment of richer states with currently higher emissions to converge on a share of global emissions based on the principle of equal emission rights at a sustainable level for all citizens [18] C. Layton, //A Community of the Willing: Hoe Europe and South can lead the World’s Response to Climate Change//, European Essay n. 15, Federal Trust, London [19] R. Fanfani, op. cit. in note 4, p. 167. [20] J. Pinder, //Una Comunità mondiale per il clima comee tappa verso una Federazione mondiale//, in Altiero Spinelli Institute for federalist studies, 2000, p. 45.