A stroke of luck, the Seattle failure? Today we are almost tempted to say that the failure of the Seattle Conference was a stroke of luck! Without the shock it provoked, the change in mentalities regarding the limits and conditions of globalisation would no doubt not have undergone the dazzling acceleration we have witnessed. The speech by the President of the United States at the Davos Forum constitutes in a sense the symbol of this change, not because Bill Clinton said more than others, but because it is the position of the world's leading power that has evolved. Most of the demands that caused such a stir in Seattle are incorporated, at least in principle, in the American position: environmental demands, social demands, greater attention to the needs of the developing countries, transparency of decisions. The liberalisation of trade is no longer and will never be an absolute value in itself. It will increasingly be not subject to, but accompanied by, the other demands that are equally worthy of consideration, and sometimes vital.
The essential work still has to be done, namely these principles must be developed into operational measures. The new atmosphere observed last week in the World Trade Organisation is expected to make a new start possible, even if it is clear that none of the fundamental differences has been ironed out and that they will be rearing their heads as work gets into the operational phase. The new principles will make it possible to see these divergences from a new angle; but the link between WTO rules and the provisions of other major international social and environmental instruments remains to be clarified and defined and the WTO cannot do this alone. Misunderstandings already exist in several areas, and the most worrying is the misunderstanding on agriculture.
Those who refuse to understand. It would be pointless to make a secret of the fact that, for a number of countries, the priority objective of the upcoming trade negotiations remains free access to the Europen agriculture market, and that they are doing all they can to convince the the developing countries that this is also in their interest (which is false). What is unfortunate is that the EU itself does not draw the appropriate conclusions regarding the significance of agricultural activity for Europe, as defined and approved by the Heads of Government. It is legitimate to wonder whether the difference that used to be obvious between the European Commission services responsible for trade and those responsible for agriculture has indeed been remedied. To what extent is the EU as a whole fully aware of the scope of its own doctrine on the role of agriculture in Europe? Of the significance of the concept of multifunctionality and the requirement of maintaining agricultural activity on the entire Union territory?
Many elements indicate that -through a lack of political courage and an effort to please everyone- the misunderstanding suggesting that Europe can steer itself towards universal free trade in agriculture is being perpetuated. And yet, the warning signs are mushrooming, forerunners of the coming storm. Spanish farmers are rebelling against excessively high volumes of Moroccan tomatoes entering their market, the Italian Parliament is hesitating a long time before ratifying the new agreement with Morocco. And at the same time, Italy is protesting against what it considers excessive concessions to Mexico for oranges.
Let's be clear: these demonstrations of ill humour are laughable. They are directed against the very partial, almost derisory beginnings of the implementation of the free trade areas promised to all the Mediterranean countries, the large and small Latin American countries and many others (we have not forgotten how far the European Commission wished to go in this direction). Some Member States are starting to observe the repercussions of openness that are still minimal compared to what lies ahead. And maybe the others imagine that beef, the dairy sector or cereals will not have their turn. The situation must be clear. Either the EU gets hold of itself and finds the political courage and the meaning of the common interest and dares to say that Europe cannot be and will never be the universal outlet for the world's agricultural production, or it drops its grand declarations on the multifunctional role of agriculture and takes responsibility for gradually letting agricultural activity collapse in the EU. And the southern EU countries should stop complaining: if the EU as a whole does not agree to consider agriculture as a whole a common problem, by recognising that the so-called "Mediterranean" products are entitled to the same protection as so-called "continental" products, these countries must demand the immediate right to be freely supplied in South American meat, New Zealand butter and so on.
Ridiculous analyses. Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler and Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy called for an analysis of the effects that the various free trade areas promised to left and right will have on European agriculture. It would of course be indispensable, a serious Institution would have done this before making reckless promises. Such a request is not new, but, unfortunately, the resulting working documents from Commissioner services were ridiculous. The analysis simply consisted in evaluating how much money the "compensations" to be paid to European farmers in different sectors would have cost the Community budget, in the event of opening up borders to third countries. The aim of these so-called "studies" was apparently two-fold: to prove to what extent the CAP, with its guaranteed prices, can be disastrous for Community coffers and to avoid highlighting the true problems, so carefully concealed.
The question is not at all that of "compensating" farmers but of evaluating whether, in the case of unlimited opening of borders, they may continue to produce what they have been producing for centuries; of knowing whether 80% of the Community territory has a future or whether it is necessary to create deserts and make people flee to the outskirts of the large cities; of deciding whether there will still be viable nature in Europe or only industries; of knowing whether Europe must feel the pride and the requirement of feeding its population or whether it would want to place itself at the mercy of future blackmail; whether it must maintain and vivify its traditions and its thousand-year-old landscapes or renounce its history and its civilisation.
If the analyses requested of the Commission services provide elements in response to these questions, then they are very welcome. Today, there is no longer any excuse, as the EU has the conclusions of the Agriculture Council approved by the Summit, and in addition several recent rulings of the Court of Justice which place a judicial seal on political orientation.
What the Court of Justice has to say. We believe last week's ruling in the Emesa Sugar case (see our bulletin of 9 February, pp. 11/12) is essential in this respect. This company had been created by the American-Brazilian multinational Emesa Group to take advantage of a demagogic decision taken by the EU authorities, giving free access to agricultural products from ACP States after processing, however minimum, in an OCT. The result had been disastrous for European agriculture. Rice crops ran the risk of quite simply disappearing, sugar was partially compromised and experts had announced similar developments in other sectors. In order to remedy this blunder, the EU Council had modified the earlier system by introducing quantitative limits, which had caused an avalanche of court actions and complaints on the part of those whose interests were affected. What did the Court of Justice do? It rejected the thesis whereby the OCT concessions could not be challenged, maintaining, on the contrary, that the EU had the obligation to act to put an end to the disturbance caused to the working of European agricultural policy, or at least to attenuate it. In the case in hand, states the ruling, given the international commitments already taken and that the EU must respect, the Council considered that any additional quantity of sugar, however minimum, which gained access to the EU market would have upset the common market organisation for sugar, the balance of which is precarious, and would have been contrary to the objectives of common agricultural policy. This much is clear. There is no doubt that the judgement for the case of rice will be similar. Once more, the Court of Justice shows the other Institutions which road should be followed.
In a well-organised world. The real interests of developing countries are often involved to "cover" (conveniently) the projects which, in reality, are to the advantage either of countries whose farmers ware richer than European farmers or to large multinational companies (bananas, fruit juices, sugar, etc.). It is not by juggling with dialectics that one can make believe that the dramatic problems of under-development and hunger in the world will be resolved by invading the EU market which only represents 4-5% of existing land and even less of world population, and which is more overfed than underfed. Agricultural production must above all be aimed at meeting the food needs of local populations. In a well-organised world, agricultural trade should decline rather than increase (including, of course, certain EU exports). Here we have a good subject for reflection to which we could perhaps make some useful contribution.
The above considerations must come in addition to the new vision of the responsibilities and tasks of the WTO, cited at the beginning. When these become part of the everyday practice of the Institutions, the EU may demand, with greater rigour than today, that its agriculture respect environmental norms (something it does not do today) and that food quality and safety will inexorably put an end to the abuse and deviations of CAP.
Ferdinando Riccardi.