Flying the flag for UK

Agriculture is unique among European industries.

It is the only sector to have a common policy applied across all member states and, with 25 nations and numerous regions vying to influence the CAP’s direction, strong and respected representation is vital if a country’s farmers are to have their voices heard and opinions taken on board.

Never has this been truer than today when the CAP which, for six decades has shaped the direction and progression of European agriculture, is coming under intense pressure to be reformed.

Fortunately, the UK’s interests are both well represented and well received in Brussels, where the Bureau de l’Agriculture Britannique (or BAB, as it is better known) has held a permanent office since 1972.

Although staffed by the NFU, BAB represents the interests of NFU members in England and Wales, NFU Scotland and the Ulster Farmers Union.

The team consists of seven permanent staff made up of one director, three assistant directors, two administrative staff and a graduate student.

Farmers Weekly’s day with the team began at 7am with a pre-breakfast briefing with BAB director Maeve Whyte. Ms Whyte has been with the NFU for five years after completing an MSc in environmental technology in which she specialised in water.

She moved to Brussels in January 2005 as an assistant director and has been director of the Brussels office since February.
Having explained the day’s schedule of events would run until 4pm, we left the office to go to a breakfast attended by Mariann Fischer Boel’s chef de cabinet and fellow Dane, Poul Skytte Chrisstoffersen.

Hosted by the Brussels office of the British Chamber of Commerce, Mr Chrisstoffersen was invited to give a brief talk about Mrs Fischer Boel’s priorities for her tenure as EU agriculture commissioner.

Continued reform

The breakfast was a small affair with only seven others attending. The interests represented varied widely from lawyers concerned with changes to legal interpretation to lobby groups concerned with ensuring their voice was heard.

“She’s determined to leave her mark on the CAP,” said Mr Chrisstoffersen, describing how Mrs Fischer Boel is keen to see more funds directed away from market support measures to rural development and environmental protection.

But of greater concern to those in the UK with large acreages, Mrs Fischer Boel also remains in favour of earlier proposals to see CAP payments limited by the size of farm, he said.

However, at the time of Farmers Weekly’s visit in July the overriding concern was the lack of progress being made on the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organisation talks.

The head of cabinet explained that failure to ratify the proposals would severely damage the future position of European agriculture.

Were the Doha Round to collapse, he said, the EU would be forced to pursue bi-lateral agreements with its trading partners, the net result being a worse deal for Europe’s farmers than would be the case if agreement could be reached at Geneva.

But he was adamant that the EU should resist sacrificing its agriculture simply to guarantee the success of the Round. Instead, he said, the world should look to America for an explanation as to why the talks were stuttering.

After talking candidly for half an hour there was time for questions. The topics raised varied hugely in their relation to agriculture, with vodka featuring highly.

But of greatest relevance to the interests of UK farmers were Ms Whyte’s questions regarding the EU Commission’s plans to tighten cross-compliance regulations. With the UK currently applying cross-compliance regulations more rigorously than any other member state, concerns that they might get tighter are fully justified.

Fortunately Mr Chrisstoffersen’s answer seemed to suggest that the commission’s attentions are not directed at the UK. Instead, it wants all member states to follow the UK’s approach to cross-compliance enforcement and will pursue ways to ensure that this is the case.

Parliament

With Ms Whyte’s fears eased, at least for the time being, it was off to the European Parliament building. Next in her diary was a brief meeting with Owen Strange, a parliamentary assistant to all EU Conservative MEPs, to hear what the initial reaction was to proposals regarding the introduction of voluntary modulation.

The 10-minute walk to the Parliament building emphasised the sheer size of the EU machine.

To me Brussels is one massive building site – just as you think it is nearing completion more countries join the party and new buildings are commissioned in which to hide them.

The 20-minute meeting with Mr Strange, conducted with the complete trust of both parties, was totally off the record. With BAB receiving honest feedback on current and forthcoming issues the meeting served as a great illustration of how successful policy formulation, or disruption, as the case may be, can be conducted in Brussels.

Afterwards, it was back to the office for Ms Whyte to refresh herself with the latest amendments to the Water Framework Directive ahead of a Committee session where it was to be debated.

Grabbing a gap in her busy schedule, I seized the opportunity to ask Ms Whyte directly about the work of BAB. As she explained, much of what BAB’s work is about is to improve proposed legislation, in the cases where it is understood to be necessary, or fight it in a constructive and lucid manner where it is not.

Conducting itself with professionalism has won BAB the respect of many MEPs and members of the Commission.

Consequently, she said, it is trusted to receive leaked documents for review long before the intended publication date, which gives the UK the opportunity to shape policy from the outset.

As an example of where BAB has been successful in its efforts, Ms Whyte cited the fact that BAB’s intervention has been instrumental in delaying plans for an EU soils strategy.

“We have been working on this piece of legislation for three, maybe four, years. It’s a piece of legislation that as an organisation we don’t agree with,” she said.

“We think there is enough legislation out there on soil protection, particularly with our cross-compliance requirement and the Water Framework Directive.

“We did some excellent lobbying a couple of months ago when we decided to go broader than the commission’s agriculture and environment people and go to places like Enterprise and Competition.

We said to these groups ‘why is this needed, we have other rules in place already?’. We then explained its cost to farmers and emphasised that this did not meet the EU’s drive for better regulation.”

Ms Whyte conceded that BAB’s efforts resulted in a postponement, rather than complete abandonment of the soil strategy. But she claims that this is an achievement in itself.

“If in a year’s time it comes out as a better piece of regulation and one that makes people think harder and longer about its effects then that’s a win for us.”

Her basic point is that success comes in many guises. Unfortunately legislation is introduced that is against the interests of UK farmers, despite the efforts of those at BAB.

But she says that if the final document is a substantial improvement on the initial offering then it is considered a success.

EU presidency

That afternoon Andy Robertson, chief executive of NFU Scotland, arrived for a one-on-one meeting with Matti Hannula, the Finnish agriculture minister.

Having recently assumed the Presidency from Austria, the minister was keen to hear, from a trusted party, what were the main issues of concern – particularly on voluntary modulation as it is likely to be an area of contention specific to regions of the UK.

The most striking point about this meeting was it was an offer unique to BAB. No other nation was asked for its opinions by the Finnish government – a sign of the respect the Brussels team has won.

After a 45 minute session with Mr Hannula, where the point was clearly made that no one is keen to do the UK any favours because of Tony Blair’s efforts to reform the CAP, it was time for Ms Whyte to return to her desk and for me to catch the Eurostar back to London.

After a day in Brussels I was greatly impressed with the way that the BAB team operates. The breadth of the issues they are dealing with is truly terrifying, but they go about it in a professional and diplomatic manner, which at times must be testing.

It is also clear that BAB is trusted and respected in a way that some other member states are not – which must be to the benefit of all UK farmers.