Mariann Fischer Boel, Lid van de Europese Commissie, verantwoordelijk voor landbouw en de ontwikkeling van het platteland, over berggebieden in het beleid van de Europese Unie, de 6de Europese bergconventie, Brig, Zwitserland (en)

Mariann Fischer Boel

Member of the European Commission responsible for agriculture and rural development

Mountain areas in European Union policies

6th European Mountain Convention

Brig, Switzerland, 9 October 2008

SPEECH/08/512

Mariann Fischer Boel

Member of the European Commission responsible for agriculture and rural development

Mountain areas in European Union policies

6th European Mountain Convention

Brig, Switzerland, 9 October 2008

[Ladies and gentlemen],

First of all, many thanks to Euromontana and the Swiss Group for Mountain Regions for inviting me to this Sixth European Mountain Convention – and therefore, for giving me the chance to visit this wonderful region.

Unlike many of you here, I can't claim to have grown up among mountains. My home country of Denmark is not exactly the most mountainous state in Europe. Its highest hill is just 170 metres tall! At this Convention, I suppose that would classify not as a "hill" but as a "molehill"....

But don't think, just for this reason, that I'm feeling any altitude sickness today – literally or politically. I'm very much at home in the mountains.

If you want proof, I invite you to look at some rather nice photos on the website of the French Presidency of the European Union. There you'll see me at the Informal Agriculture Council meeting in the region of Haute-Savoie, with Michel and other ministers. Both of us are striding ahead boldly, with our best foot forward, right at the front of the group!

During that Council meeting, I greatly enjoyed visiting mountain farms and talking to the farmers about the conditions under which they work.

The visits gave some vivid illustrations of what everybody here knows: that mountain farming is the vital ingredient in the stability of many of our most beautiful and valued mountain landscapes. And of course, it produces some rather tasty products – quite apart from helping the skiing industry by keeping the grass short!

I remember that, at one point during my time in Haute-Savoie, the cloud cleared a little and I looked down onto the plain. It almost seemed like a different world!

But of course, that sunlit plain and those farms perched high in the Alps belong to the same world – and European Union policies must reflect that. Our policies must do justice to the particular concerns of mountainous areas, but they should not treat them as a world "set apart".

At a fundamental level, I know that Euromontana has concerns about how policy with relevance to mountains is divided up and organised.

Yes, it's split between various policy portfolios. Regional policy, and agricultural and rural development policy, are just two portfolios with relevance. And I know that Euromontana would like to see a more "territorial" and unified approach.

I can't say too much about regional policy, because this isn't my personal responsibility. But from my point of view as Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, I do see advantages to our current approach.

First, many of the European Union's mountainous areas are quite different from each other, even though they have points in common. This makes it difficult to take a "one size fits all" approach.

Secondly, the fact that rural development policy forms part of the Common Agricultural Policy means that significant sums of public money are spent on rural areas in mountainous regions - instead of being drawn to the urban magnets of those regions.

Nevertheless, the issue of coherence between different areas of policy is raised in the Commission's Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which was published at the start of this week. Do have a look at this and contribute your thoughts!

But today I would like to focus on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in relation to mountainous regions.

Mountains are certainly not overlooked by the CAP.

Obviously, mountain farms have access to all the "usual" tools to be found in both pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the CAP.

More specifically:

• - 

  rural development policy provides support for mountainous areas as Less Favoured Areas;
• - 

  through agri-environmental schemes, it supports practices like the transfer of livestock between grazing grounds from season to season;
• - 

  it supports various types of scheme to add value – for example, quality schemes; and
• - 

  it supports on-farm diversification – for example, into tourism.

So I hope that mountain farmers don’t feel neglected by policy!

But of course, policy changes as the world changes. And as this happens, we need to make sure that the voice of the mountains is still heard.

One area of policy discussion which has caught attention is that of Less Favoured Areas (LFAs).

The essential point here is that no-one is planning to change the framework for payments for mountainous LFAs. The system will carry on as at present.

On the other hand, yes, we are in the process of revising definitions of so-called "intermediate" LFAs. This is important, because our method for defining these areas has been very vulnerable to criticism – notably from the European Court of Auditors.

A new definition will make our system of LFA payments more transparent and easier to defend. But perhaps it need not necessarily mean enormous change. (I say this without prejudging the final outcome of the exercise.)

In any case, I would like to thank Euromontana for its active role in the consultation process. And I should mention that the timetable has evolved. The Commission now expects to make its proposal in the first quarter of 2009. I expect the discussions in the Council to start during the Czech Presidency, and on that basis I hope we will have an agreement by the end of 2009.

What about the CAP Health Check, for which we're now moving towards the end game in the Council?

Some mountain farmers have felt threatened by certain aspects of the Health Check. But I really think we can put together a final Health Check package which gives us a better, fitter CAP, without marginalising our mountainous areas.

Decoupling is of course an issue of concern.

As I've said many times, I'm basically a fan of decoupling. I think it's doing good things for our farmers, good things for our internal market and good things for our position in world trade talks. So a widely accepted basic principle is that we should move closer to full decoupling.

However, principles are principles – they're not necessarily absolutes. And yes, the Commission's analysis shows that full decoupling could have a negative impact on livestock farming in some regions which have few alternative activities available.

Decoupling should be an instrument of progress. If there are areas in which a coupled payment is really the only way of avoiding serious environmental, economic and social problems, then so be it.

This is why, under my Health Check proposals, Member States would be allowed to keep the status quo for the suckler cow premium and the sheep and goat premium.

Of course, the dairy sector has very particular concerns. Many dairy farmers working at high altitudes fear that a European Union without milk quotas will not be a European Union for them.

I certainly don't intend to go down in history as the Agriculture Commissioner who gave the final kick to all those mountain dairy farms which do such essential work to maintain the fabric of much of our countryside. But the answer to their anxieties cannot be to keep the milk quota system – which is such a heavy rock around the neck of our dairy sector, at a time when the world needs more dairy products.

So my answer to these fears comes in several parts:

First, we need to increase milk quotas in steps before the quota system ends in 2015 – to give producers time to prepare.

Secondly, under Article 68 of the Health Check proposals, Member States would be able to take money from the Single Payment Scheme and use it to help dairy farmers.

Thirdly, although I can't say yes to a "dairy fund" of the sort that some farmers have called for, it may be possible to make greater use of rural development policy to help the dairy sector to restructure. We're looking into this.

Finally, it will be more important than ever for mountain dairy farmers to win the quality game, trading on their highly attractive production methods and image. I'll come back to this issue in just a moment.

Before I do that, I should mention that climate change is also an important theme in the Health Check.

Climate change is a serious threat – this is certainly true in mountain areas! Like other sectors, farmers must help to cut the European Union's overall greenhouse gas emissions; and they must also adapt to the climate change which is already coming.

I want to use policy to support farmers in doing these things. This is why, through the Health Check, I have proposed to transfer extra funds into rural development policy to help face up to climate change and other new challenges.

Now let me return to the topic of quality, which is of course essential for all farmers – not just the dairy sector.

I talk a lot about "quality". But in the European Union's agri-food sector, "quality" is certainly not must a matter of talk. We really deliver – more than any other agri-food sector in the world.

We work very hard to find out what consumers want, and give it to them – the right products, with the right characteristics, at the right prices.

We give them the highest standards of safety – that goes without saying. We give them fantastic tastes. We give them guaranteed origins. We give them organic products. We give them an assurance of high standards of environmental care. And in many cases, we give them a breath of mountain air – with Tiroler Bergkäse or Beaufort cheese, for example.

To a large extent, our agri-food industry competes on quality – both in its European sales and in its € 70 billion of annual exports.

As you know, the European Union has a "quality policy" which covers a broad range of issues – like geographical indications, other kinds of certification schemes, marketing standards and organic produce.

This policy helps our agri-food sector to meet consumers' expectations. And it helps give confidence to consumers that they really are buying what they think they're buying when they take out their wallet.

Now it's time to take a fresh look at our quality policy.

Is it giving the best support that it can to our agri-food sector? Which elements work well? What should be changed? What should be added? These are the general questions which will be asked in a Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality, which the Commission will adopt on 15 October.

I can't say too much about the Green Paper before my fellow-Commissioners give their final approval. But I can tell you that there will be plenty of material which will be very relevant to mountain farming.

For example, the Paper will almost certainly ask about possibilities for new EU-level certification schemes. There are a number of candidates – including schemes to indicate "EU origin" or to indicate products of high nature value. We've also heard suggestions about a scheme for mountain areas. With regard to this last idea: we will certainly take a look at it, but beyond that, I can't make any promises today.

Another important theme: the Paper will ask questions about Protected Designations of Origin, Protected Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed. Are these schemes helpful? Could they be improved?

Another topic for the Paper will be other certification schemes. We will almost certainly ask how to reduce the cost of belonging to these schemes, and whether European Union guidelines could be helpful.

The Green Paper will launch a debate - in which I warmly invite you to take part. That debate will help give us a better quality policy. And that improved policy will mean better opportunities for farmers and food producers who work in the mountains.

When it comes to food, the image of the mountain is a very positive image indeed – I don't think anyone would deny that. People associate it with cleanness, with freshness, with "natural" production methods.

These positive associations are a resource of enormous potential value. Some of that potential is already being unlocked. But I'm certain we can release more of it. We can use an improved quality policy to make sure that farmers and food producers in mountainous areas reap the full benefit of what their production methods can offer.

This is a cornerstone of my thinking about the future for mountainous areas.

Yes, in the future, it will still be important to use public money to pay for public goods – in the mountains as in the plain. Hard work in the service of the environment must be rewarded.

But I know that the farmers of Europe's mountains also want to earn a good living in the marketplace. We must give them the right policy support to do this – not by distorting that market, but by helping farmers to distinguish their excellent products from those of their competitors.

So, overall: public money where appropriate, so that we can hand on a beautiful and undamaged mountain heritage to our children; but also creative, resilient farms and other businesses, which turn their special advantages into a healthy profit.

This is my vision for the mountainous areas of the European Union. And I promise you that, even if I can't physically see Europe's mountains from my office in Brussels or from my home in Denmark, this vision will stay very much in my mind's eye in the months ahead!

Thank you.