No. 34 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy 86 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR the main inputs remain high and, in many cases, are rising. Contributing to this situation is the concentration of market power, both of large retail distribution chains in the purchase of agri-food products and of large multinationals as regards inputs. The result is that the distribution of value created along the production-consumption chain is clearly penalising for farmers, who in many situations continue to see their products paid for below production costs. This concentration of market power has ramifications in the verticalisation of production in certain sectors, starting with large retail distribution groups. Or even in what in Spain is already called the ‘uberisation’ of the countryside, i.e. the proliferation of situations in which farmers are, in fact, mere service providers for large industries, to which they are bound by a set of obligations, while still bearing the risk arising from their investments. European consumers are also adversely affected by these imbalances, as evidenced by the increase in agrifood prices well above inflation and the volatility of prices for these essential goods, as is the case in our country. Coexistenceof abandonment and underutilisation withland concentration and monocultural superintensification: an agricultural model with serious consequences Similarly, we cannot ignore the fact that the CAP in Portugal has not been able (nor wanted, it could be said) to prevent the extinction of hundreds of thousands of farm holdings, contributing to the desertification and ageing of vast areas of rural territory, with the consequent disorderly progression of abandoned areas and intensive forest monocultures with non-native species. The tragic consequences of these policies are evident in the major fires of 2017, which threaten to be repeated every summer. Alongside abandonment and underutilisation, the decades of the CAP saw a marked concentration of land ownership, the strong entry of investment funds and foreign capital into land ownership, and a trend towards super-intensification and cultural specialisation on the most fertile land with the best production conditions. The CAP proved to be a favourable instrument for large agribusinesses and Central Europe powers, where large-scale ownership is more prevalent. In contrast, it was clearly unfavourable to the diversified agriculture of areas with natural disadvantages in southern European countries, even though these have high cultural and environmental value. Agriculture has been sacrificed to the EU's commercial objectives In reality, the CAP has been subordinated to the EU trade policy, both within its common market and in relation to trade with other countries or regions of the world. Competitiveness and export capacity have given rise to the dominant positions of large multinationals in agri-food production, inputs and distribution. The policy of trade agreements with other countries and regions has accentuated market imbalances. These agreements subordinate EU agriculture, subjecting it to the interests of large European industrial companies and harming small and medium-sized producers in particular. In return, the EU often opens the door to unfair competition, which puts more pressure on the prices paid to farmers, without any advantages for consumers. Access to productive land is even more difficult The issue of access to land, which is crucial for the entry of new farmers, particularly young people, has become more acute in recent years, with increases in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==