Neither possible nor desirable. The date for the conclusion of the international trade negotiations, known as the Doha Round, continues to be delayed and we are now talking about the end of the year -this little game with the calendar has been going on for a long time. This won't be a bad thing if the impact of a successful conclusion is effectively as positive as one says it will be. I believe that negotiations can reach a successful conclusion, on the condition that the agricultural sector is satisfied with what has more or less already been obtained - too many further concessions will be neither possible nor desirable.
Why? Because developments affecting the food and ecological situation, in addition to progress made in know-how, as well as demands made by consumers, appear to suggest that total free trade (or almost) in this sector would be incompatible with humanity's social objectives such as the fight against hunger in the world; environmental protection and climate balance; regaining a reasonable level of food self-sufficiency in poor countries; maintaining the substantial level of self-sufficiency in Europe, without reducing imports (the EU is by far the biggest importer of agricultural products from developing countries;) and condemnation of certain cruel treatment of animals. Combined with these major objectives are energy wastage and further pollution provoked by inter-continental transport of fruit, vegetables and other foodstuffs for which overseas crossings are often unjustified; the inability to control quality standards in very remote production centres and the increasing consumer trend towards more local products. Analyses have also been made recently into the devastating effects of excessively intensive animal rearing (particularly bovines) on air pollution.
Not backing down. The previous comments made do not all hold the same weight or value but taken together, they are decisive. This is not about condemning agricultural trade but pointing out that total free trade would lead to problems and imbalances.
The major agricultural and food product exporting countries (among which the EU is a leading player) cannot all be tarred with the same brush. To my knowledge, we have not heard about serious complaints being made against Australia or New Zealand or against certain other countries. Brazil has massively increased its action and guarantees to safeguard the Amazon, and there are also a number of other positive examples that could be mentioned. Backing down is out of the question in the context of the level of liberalisation already obtained and the progress sought in the Geneva negotiations. Additional rules, however, are appropriate, indeed, indispensable, and certain demands (encouraging food production in less developed countries, environmental balance, safeguarding biodiversity and so forth) must prevail over purely commercial interests.
Past experience. In the recent past, the trend towards total liberalisation of agricultural trade has led to disastrous consequences in poor countries: it has destroyed subsistence farming and made these farmers dependent on food imports to feed their people; it has developed monoculture for exports, which benefit local corrupt politicians and multinationals and at the same time destroy territorial balance in these countries. Some of these countries are just beginning to take action to tackle these disasters. Developed countries are introducing increasingly tougher rules on food quality but these rules will be ineffective if imported products do not respect these selfsame rules.
Animal-Rights. Many other aspects requiring new orientations could also be cited but I would just like to mention the question of animal welfare. Perceptions regarding this issue have considerably evolved. The recent European seminar focusing on this question is proof of this. MEPs, senior European Commission officials and representatives from member state governments defended concepts such as animals being “sentient beings” in the same way as human beings are basically “all animals”; antibiotics should be banned in animal feed in the interest of humanity itself and commercial competition should not be distorted by different rules in these areas (EUROPE 10072).
To sum up in a single sentence, in my opinion, further massive and unbridled liberalisation of agricultural trade in the world would damage humanity's essential objectives.
(F.R./tansl.fl)