As I wrote before (”viral politics”), integrating XX century politics with the XXI century environment requires sometimes moving beyond the mere reaction to what happens in the “blogosphere”.
Today’s proposed decision has been considered in some quarters worth of Pontius Pilate: it has been defined by various newspapers, from Turkey to Spain and beyond, as a non-decision.
Moving the decision to Brussels had generated a stalemate, as this implied that also those that would not accept genetically modified (henceforth GM) components in the food chain could concentrate their efforts- transcending the usual local perspective.
Usually, natural or “bio” food producers and various “green” associations do not work with adequate coordination at the local level, as their interests are too fragmented to allow building a unified position.
Adopting a common position when everybody is focused on the same (macro) level is sensibly easier.
Shifting back the decision to member states is a de-facto unusual return to the pre-EU decision making process, as recognized today by Le Monde and yesterday by The Guardian.
For my non-European readers: agricultural policy is more than a just an economic issue- it is a matter of cultural heritage, with deep political implications.
And this is one of the reasons why extensive negotiations were required to just reduce the allocation of funds to the common agricultural policy (see the article that I published in April 2010 Common Agricultural Policy and sustainable development).
Evolving the institutions in EU is never going to be an easy task (but I wrote already something few months ago).
It is, as always, a problem of purse and sword.
But, in the XXI century, the concept of “purse” and “sword” is quite different from, say, the one discussed by Machiavelli.
And shifting the policy on GM back in the hand of national governments could also create national issues: “The rare instance of Brussels handing back power to individual nations will likely present Britain’s government with a delicate decision; caught between a robust GM industry lobby and a vocal protest movement.” (The Guardian)
The interesting issue of the title is: should the proposal be enforced, will the coalition that, on the “no” side, with various reasons, was able to keep the stalemate for 12 years, able to survive the shift?
And, more important: should it keep together, will the “vocal protest movement” (as defined by “The Guardian”) be able to fight on two fronts, i.e. keep a shared, common, EU-wide stance that could affect also the re-negotiation of the PAC, while having to cope with potentially conflicting interests at the local level?
In my experience, integrating communication and action in advocacy (the viral politics) requires more a different mindset than an increase in budget.
But, certainly, splitting between 27 local negotiations and a EU-wide coordination, would strain already limited resources.
In my view, a tension between local and EU-wide initiatives that were to shatter the cohesion developed in over a decade could set the clock back not only for the associations and NGOs involved, but also remove a potential ally in removing red tape and fostering further integration in the EU.
A substantial presence and EU-wide integration also of consumer and local interests is in the interest of both citizens and corporations.
Despite the appearance, having to cope with 27 different legislations on the same issue, moreover where the “positions” could evolve on a continuous basis is de facto red tape- also for the largest companies.
Few companies would be able to afford to keep tab with all the minutiae- and some could consider if it is worth having a common market with potentially 27 different rules that change trailing new GM announces.
This reminds me an interesting discussion, when the first EU VAT registration (i.e. prefix EU) was introduced, as American contacts understood: “finally, we register at the EU level, and we do not need to bother with local interpretations and bureaucracy”.
Actually- no: it was just the other way around, as you had to apply the rules… of the country of residence of your customers.
Moving to GM food: can you imagine a company delivering, say, biscuits, having to build separate warehouses according to the level of GM components allowed in each country, instead of allocating production and distribution facilities where it makes more sense?
If you want- yet another example of the “butterfly effect” that I described in AML and Identity Collection Points.
Tags: agricultural, common, european, genetically, modified, policy, union