SPEECH/08/219

Mariann Fischer Boel

Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development




"Balanced rural areas and balance in the CAP"

Conference organised by Women's Food and Farming Union
Wales, 28 April 2008

[Ladies and gentlemen],

It's a pleasure to join you today in Wales.

When I agreed to come and speak to the Women's Food and Farming Union, I remembered some quite varied sorts of analysis that are available with regard to the situation of women in rural areas.

First of all, I remembered the formal papers that I've read. These hold many good ideas but sometimes put them in rather abstract language. "Integrating the gender perspective into policy" seems to be a common phrase.

Then I remembered some analysis expressed in a very different way: the British nursery rhyme called The farmer's in his den.

In the song, as you know very well, the first thing that the farmer wants is a wife. But then things develop from there, because:

• the wife wants a child;
• the child wants a nurse;
• the nurse wants a dog; and
• the dog wants a bone.

At the end of the day, everything seems to depend on finding a bone for the dog. So here's a recipe for happy rural communities!

Of course, real life is a little more complicated. Nevertheless, the nursery rhyme makes it clear that the farmer's first need is a wife. And this at least expresses one way in which women are essential to the well-being of rural communities.

More formal analysis confirms this importance, in many ways.

In 2005, in the European Union of 27 Member States, 26 per cent of farms were managed by women.

If we move below the level of management, women's contribution to agriculture is stronger still. In 2005, women made up 43 per cent of the regular agricultural workforce. Nearly half!

Then there's the work that women do in other sectors of the rural economy, many of which are growing – such as tourism.

Finally, everyone knows that women make social contributions which are hard to measure statistically. No community can survive without women – unless it's a monastic community! If the women leave, the community collapses.

In view of this huge importance of women, there are a number of points which should make us reflect.

First, although the number of women who manage farms is higher than it used to be, it's still relatively low. This does not automatically mean that women are hitting obstacles in agricultural careers - but we need to make sure that this is not the case.

Secondly, in many rural areas, the women are leaving – especially the younger women. This has created such serious problems in some communities that foreign women are being brought in by bus from distant countries to become farmers' wives. This is an inventive solution, but a solution born of desperation!

Thirdly, evidence suggests that some women living in the countryside are not aware of the rights which are theirs, or of the possible opportunities of which they could take advantage.

How should we respond to these concerns?

Personally, I'm not in favour of taking a "hard" approach to these issues: setting statistical targets and effectively telling women how to live their lives.

Rather, in my view, we must do everything possible to give women real opportunities, and encourage them to seize those opportunities – but without playing the dictator.

European Union policy already seeks to ensure this in several ways.

At a fundamental level: equality between men and women is written into the treaties which form the legal basis of the European Union.

Equality is also written into the rules which govern the European Union's rural development policy (this is Regulation number 1698 of 2005, if you're interested!).

Also, a number of the individual measures set out in those rules are potentially very useful for women.

Among other things, financial support for training or for setting up as a young farmer could be very beneficial.

In addition, under our so-called "Leader" approach to local projects for rural development, I have seen a large number of projects designed specifically for women.

For example, there has been support for rural women who want to set up and grow their own businesses.

Over the period 2003 to 2005, two in every three beneficiaries of Leader projects were women. And today, more women than men are managing Leader projects.

It's also significant that our rural development policy places a strong emphasis on diversification in the rural economy. This must be helpful to women as well as to men. Many women would like to have a job, but not necessarily in farming. And in fact, where new rural businesses spring up, it's often women who take the new jobs.

Beyond this, an essential contribution from policy is to help provide important services.

This is confirmed by comments that I hear from women again and again.

For example, it's a fact that women still usually do more of the work of raising children than men. But if they want a paid job as well, this becomes very difficult if the nearest kindergarten is 30 kilometres away.

I've seen some excellent examples of policy correcting problems like these. I've even seen a kindergarten which was actually on a farm. The children had a wonderful time watching the animals! And this sort of thing is also a good way of teaching children about food and about where it comes from.

So, overall, policy already offers quite a lot of help to women in the countryside.

Needless to say, it's not only women who face challenges in farming and the countryside – in Wales, or in the rest of Europe.

Among other things:

• Globalisation is constantly pushing European farmers and food-producers to raise their game.
• We need to put a brake on climate change and adapt to the changes which are already occurring.
• For this reason and others, making good use of bioenergy is an urgent priority. I know this topic is controversial, but it's important!

I could also mention problems of water management, but I don't think this is such a big issue in Wales! This country has a marvellous landscape fed by very ample rains – though of course it has to confront other problems of its own.

Equipping farmers and rural areas to face up to challenges and play to their strengths is a key aim of the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is currently in progress.

The Health Check is not a fundamental new reform of the CAP. It's about making the CAP work better and more simply in a European Union of 27 Member States instead of 15 – the number we had in 2003. And it's about adapting the CAP to the world of today.

The discussion has already been moving forward at a good pace for months, and on 20 May the Commission will put forward its legal proposals for how the Health Check could work. We then intend to get a final deal in November, so that farmers know before the summer of 2009 what's going to happen.

If all Member States negotiate with a forward-looking, positive attitude, through the Health Check we can expect to achieve a lot for the European Union and for Wales.

We can expect to improve our market instruments – for example, public intervention and aid for private storage – to make them more suitable for the world as it is now: a world of growing demand and strengthening prices.

These prices have created quite a media storm – and whereas some farmers see them with delight, others see them with horror.

I don't have time to examine the issue of high prices in detail today, but I will make three brief points.

First, a number of factors lie behind the increases.

Some are structural – such as increasing demand from countries like China and India. These countries are eating more meat. More meat means more feed. And let's not forget that the Chinese and Indian middle classes are growing by something like the population of Germany every year.

But others are not structural, and hopefully not permanent – such as bad weather in the European Union, Australia and other parts of the world. In fact, Australia has had two consecutive years of disastrous harvests. Also, don't underestimate the importance of speculation in pushing prices up and down.

I might add that our slowness to authorise various genetically modified products has not exactly been a calming influence on European feed prices.

(Let me also give a historical perspective. When I look at cereal prices over the last 30 years, their level in fixed prices has halved compared to that of 1975. The real problem is a sudden and steep increase.)

Secondly, we have taken a number of short-term policy steps to take some of the heat out of the markets: suspending cereal import duties, reintroducing pigmeat export refunds for a limited period, and suspending compulsory arable set-aside for this year.

Thirdly, the next step is to use the Health Check to free our farmers to respond energetically to the global need for their products, through further decoupling of direct payments.

With this in mind, the milk quota system is not what we need for the future. It has been decided that it will end in 2015. Now we must get to that point in an orderly fashion.

Also, arable set-aside has outlived its usefulness as a supply control tool, and we should discuss its possible abolition in the Health Check. Of course, if we did abolish it, we would have to retain its environmental benefits by other means.

On the other hand, we need to keep a number of our market instruments. But we must adjust them to work as a genuine safety net, not as a price-setter.

Also within the Health Check, we can expect to make the Single Payment Scheme a better tool for supporting farmers.

The benefits of decoupled direct payments are becoming clearer and clearer. Essentially, decoupling takes production decisions away from Brussels and puts them back where they belong – in the hands of farmers.

But we can still improve the system, making it more flexible and easier to handle.

For example, further work on cross-compliance will be important. We have already agreed improvements to the system of control and sanctions. Through the Health Check, we must make sure that the scope of cross-compliance is right. It should cover the important requirements effectively: nothing more, nothing less.

This is also the time to give Member States the opportunity to reduce the differences between payments to individual farmers. This is relevant to Wales, where decoupled payments are based entirely on historical payments.

Member States had a lot of flexibility when implementing the 2003 reform. It would now be right to allow them to move closer to flatter rates on their respective territories. But this would be an option, not an obligation.

A few minutes ago I mentioned a number of emerging challenges which confront our farmers and rural areas: fighting climate change, making good use of bioenergy, and managing water (outside Wales).

To this list I should add protecting biodiversity.

Farms and other country businesses will need policy support to confront these challenges. And that support will come mainly through rural development policy.

But this raises a problem. Our funding for rural development is already stretched very thinly, because the national governments of the European Union slashed €20 billion from the rural budget that the Commission requested for the period 2007 to 2013.

The money barely covers existing needs. If we ask it to cover additional needs, the situation will be very difficult.

You know my personal view on voluntary modulation. I prefer to have a level playing field for all farmers in the European Union. Because of this, and because of our need for extra funding, I am proposing an increase in compulsory modulation. This will of course be one of the more complex issues in the Health Check.

Overall, if we get the Health Check package right, it should be good news for Wales.

It will help give Welsh farmers the support they need in facing up to the various challenges that are coming their way, especially environmental challenges.

And it will give them the freedom and security to focus even more clearly on the issues that are important for them.

An emphasis on producing and marketing high quality is already well developed in Wales.

Welsh Lamb and Welsh Beef are already well known around Europe. The True Taste scheme is an excellent way of adding value in the agri-food supply chain and telling the world what Welsh food has to offer. And I'm very encouraged by the Food And Drink From Wales Strategy – and of course the Quality Food For All In Wales Strategy with its emphasis on health.

As we continue with the Doha Round of WTO talks, it's clear that we will find it difficult to compete on price with countries like Brazil. The European Union must compete on quality – and it must get its foot in the door of emerging markets for high-quality goods.

A future based more and more on good returns from high-quality production is certainly a future in which Wales can share, and I want policy to give you the help you need.

To finish, let me come back to the farmer sitting in his den. Or her den.

I would certainly like our rural communities to be healthy and stable enough for the farmer to find a wife or a husband without having to advertise for one in Russia.

This means having policies in place that create opportunities and give the right kind of support – to women and to men, in agriculture and outside it.

This is what I am trying to do.

Thank you!