Correct order of priorities. Franz Fischler and Pascal Lamy clearly and quite independently of each other set out what Europe is ready to negotiate in agriculture, during the next WTO round of world talks. Mr Fischler had stated on 26 September, in Belfast, that the EU's position will depend on what it decides in the context of its mid-term assessment of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the aim of building sustainable agriculture in the environmental, economic and social sense of the term. The European position on the international level will be defined on the basis of the results of this exercise, and not the other way round, he explained.

Such an explanation is significant, as some third countries continue to call on the EU to first of all open up access to its market, and then carry out revision of CAP in the light of this objective. By doing things the other way round, Mr Fischler has put things back in the right order of priority: the EU will respect the main principles of its policy (including preserving agricultural activity throughout its territory, safeguarding its traditions and its landscapes, etc.) and it will take this into account when it goes on to determine its negotiating position. This does not mean that its concessions will be minor. On the contrary, CAP reforms already carried out allow a significant reduction in the elements that may have a trade distorting effect, such as export subsidies, and the EU is willing to go still further (see this heading in our bulletin of 24 July). Mr Fischler confirmed this in Belfast, before going on to add: "It is however important not to focus on trade alone. We cannot ignore the major role played by the environment or food security. One thing must be clear: any democratic society has the right to choose its agricultural policy, the important thing being, at international level, that the resulting trade distortion will be reduced".

Two days later, Pascal Lamy, said the same thing at the European "Confrontations" Club: "The EU is committed to a reform process to which we must conform. This will allow us to take an advanced negotiating position, by improving access to our market and reducing our internal aid and our export subsidies, as long as our partners make a similar effort and that essential considerations other than those of a commercial kind are taken into account: - the environment, the rural landscape, the quality and variety of food products, and daily rural life". He then went on to explain: "I shall offer what Fischler authorises me to offer. This is how the Commission has decided it".

Those who do not understand. Why do I consider these confirmations and clarifications so important? Because the pressure put on Europe to fully open up its borders to the agricultural products of the world as a whole are becoming stronger and stronger and more and more pressing, mainly from the Cairns Group (which, we know, includes the most powerful and competitive exporters of the whole planet). Mr Fischler no doubt feels annoyance at this, easily detected in the tone of his above-mentioned speech in Belfast when he states: "What is the point in the CAIRNS group insisting that agriculture should be treated like any other industry, when all the evidence shows the opposite? What is the point of all this shadow-boxing, when we should be working to ensure that all WTO members, including the developing countries, will benefit from the current negotiations?"

The danger lies in the fact that, in the EU, even some Heads of Government give the impression that they have not understood what is at stake and remain attached to the old cliché of European agricultural protectionism. This was the case for former Prime Minister Mr Amato, and is now the case with Tony Blair, as well as, quite recently, Guy Verhofstadt who spoke of the need to do away with exceptions for bananas, sugar and rice. Such exceptions mainly aim at protecting the production of ACP countries, the poorest countries in the world, whereas total trade opening would mainly be for the benefit of certain countries within the Cairns Group, which includes the richest farmers. There are colossal misunderstandings and manoeuvring in this field, and part of the European political class falls into the trap with disappointing superficiality. Some NGOs also, moreover. Last Friday, Ms Hilditch called for European protectionism to be abolished but at the same time stressed that poor countries have fewer and fewer food products and that biodiversity is deteriorating by the day. How can one not see that the remedy to these two scourges does not lie in encouraging the poor countries to grow single crops for export towards Europe (to the benefit of multinationals, large retailers and a handful of local politicians, but ruining farmers), but in helping them to develop food farming again to feed their populations and safeguard the genetic heritage? Let God save the developing countries from false friends, and help the European political leaders not to give way to the demagogy of old-fashioned Third World specialists or to the hypocrisy of rich farmers. That is all I would ask for right now.

(F.R.)