The following interview is used in Classroom activities combining use of the Internet for research and oral presentations

Interview with Francis Eaves-Walton, from a farming background in the UK

What is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and what does it mean for Britain?

I learnt about it at school and I think it hasn't changed much for the last 25 years, which is a problem. But as I understand it, British agriculture is dependent on it as British farmers rely on subsidies from the EU. However, I think British farming is disadvantaged by it since it is fairly large scale and economically efficient. The CAP is biased towards small-scale, less efficient farms. There is probably one group of farmers, i.e. small-scale hill farmers who benefit from it. British farming is perceived as subsidising uneconomic peasant farming in France, Greece, and Spain. This is a general complaint. But there is a general agreement across the EU that there need to be general reforms of the CAP. Nobody seems to know how to do it or to make it radical enough. A lot of people who are biased against the EU say the CAP is wrong although they do not know what it actually involves, but even pro-Europeans admit it needs substantial reform.

Does Polish accession to the EU raise concerns in the UK?

In the Thatcher-Major era there was a general official view expressed that the priority for the EU was "widening" and not "deepening", meaning the priority for Britain in those days was working towards the expansion of the EU particularly to include East European countries. Behind this was perhaps a slightly patronising and "charitable" approach. But the real reason was not so much a pro-widening attitude, as an anti-deepening approach. The Conservative government was concerned to resist political and cultural integration of the existing member states. Therefore, widening seemed a good argument to put the other issues off. At present, there is not so much discussion about widening the EU. The government is not so much involved in it; it is not a matter of urgency. The big issue is whether and when Britain will join the Euro. If it does, it may not be advantageous to have countries such as Poland join the EU, at least for some time.

How do the British feel about the cost the existing member states will have to pay to extend the CAP to Eastern and Central Europe?

This is a question that is not much debated right now since the official policy is waiting until the CAP is reformed. It may depend on the cost per head. Nobody is informed about what this might be.

The countries so far admitted to the EU had to adapt to the EU policies, but now the European Commission recognises that for this enlargement the EU must also adapt some of its own policies to meet the needs of such an enlarged Union. What are the British attitudes towards possible changes in farming practice which this might involve?

Most British agriculture is so economically efficient that farmers do not see any reason why they should be penalised for the great "progress" they have made. However, there is a growing perception that economic efficiency is not the only criterion, i.e. there are also ecological and community aspects to consider. There are people within small-scale farming who have difficulty marketing their produce because the big supermarkets have so much power. It is here that the romantic aspiration of town people comes in too; the countryside is to some extent a romantic fantasy for them. I must admit that large farmers are generally not liked, whereas small-scale farmers bring the feeling of nostalgia back. Modern farms are sometimes too efficient and overproduce which results from the encouragement they got just after World War II. The price for this post-war idea of being self-sufficient in cheap food is very high. Then the CAP guaranteed farmers would be paid for their produce. The more they grew the better. The result was massive use of chemical fertilisers and overproduction. Most British people are familiar with the terms that appeared in the 70s, i.e. glut, milk-lake, and butter-mountain.

The EU governments adopted the 'set aside' policy, which meant paying farmers to leave land fallow. Nowadays they are also encouraged to set up subsidiary businesses and to think of other ways of using the land. Many are diversifying into other areas of business e.g. retailing their own products, tourism or even selling off their land. I must admit that the attitude towards farmers is pretty negative. First of all, because they are perceived as complaining all the time, they always seem to want more money, and large-scale arable farmers are held responsible for the destruction of the countryside. They are seen as partly responsible for getting themselves into the BSE crisis since they wanted to do things cheaply. Foot and mouth disease, on the other hand, aroused much sympathy since people thought they did not deserve it. The disease spread so quickly because animals were transported to slaughterhouses over vast distances (the result of hygiene and efficiency policies).

Could this disaster be perceived as a chance to move towards a new direction and pressure to reform the existing CAP?

Yes, it definitely is a chance. If the CAP could be reformed, it might go towards not subsidising economically inefficient farming but subsidising organic, environmentally aware, community sensitive, local employment-producing, higher quality, smaller-scale farming. Then a lot of people would be happy provided it did not raise their taxes too much.

Thank you very much for the interview

Agnieszka Gawlik