Who benefits from the opening up of the EU's market to agricultural products from third countries? I have no wish, and doubtless nor does the reader, to repeat the reasons for which I believe the EU has to reject the free trade formula in the agricultural field ad retain the opening up of its market under control. It's certainly not in destroying European agriculture and encouraging the third world to go for a single crop to invade the market of a continent whose inhabitants are suffering from over-feeding rather than the opposite that we shall contribute to the struggle against hunger in the world. Having said that, I shall limit myself this time to citing two cases that prove that measures aimed at dismantling European agriculture mainly benefit traffickers and counterfeiters and point to an effort that may be going in the right direction.
Beef, sugar and speculation. The first case concerns the reduced-rate tariff quota for frozen beef. The EU has undertaken to open each year a quota of 53,000 tonnes of deboned meat. For the period 1 July 2002/30 June 2003, the quota has just been opened by a Commission regulation published in the Official Journal No. L/147 of 5 June. Here are some passages of the explanatory memorandum: "the quota has in the past been characterised by an increasing level of speculation". There is therefore reason to change the method of management "providing for stricter criteria for participation, so as to avoid, in particular, registration of fictitious operators (…). Penalties should be determined where fictitious operators had applied for registration or the approval was granted on the basis of forged or fraudulent documentation (…). The licence security should be set at a relatively high level and the possibility of transferring import licences should be excluded". Hoping that this is enough…
The second case concerns imports of sugar from the Western Balkans, under the "exceptional trade measures" taken b the EU in favour of these countries from 2001, opening up to them the European market without customs duties or quotas. For sugar, it is Macedonia and Croatia that use this scheme, and Serbia is preparing to do so. Yet, Macedonia does not produce sugar (it refines modest quantities of imported sugar) and the other countries are traditionally net importers. Their exports in 2000 were less than 1000 tonnes, but they exported 70,000 in 2001, and some 85,000 in the first five months of 2002, so much so that traders are in search of replacement sugar for the internal market, notably in the European Union itself! This is clearly a speculative operation; part of the exports to the EU was fraudulent, as the sugar did not originate from the exporter country. OLAF is already dealing with that. And this is how a political initiative in favour of the Balkans in fact benefits unscrupulous traders, without advantage for the economy or the population of the countries concerned.
I have only mentioned minor cases, which fortunately do not affect dramatically underfed countries. But they are significant.
Romano Prodi, the CIHEAM and the Mediterranean. I'm now moving on to the positive side. Romano Prodi last week turned to the guidelines and functioning of Euro-Mediterranean co-operation, setting out ideas aimed at rendering effective the re-launch of which much is spoken about but nothing is ever done (see our bulletin of 10 June, p. 17). The occasion was well chosen: the fourth anniversary of the CIHEAM (Centre International des hautes etudes agronomique mediterraneennnes), body which tries to direct agricultural relations between the EU and third Mediterranean countries towards collaboration instead of confrontation and competition. The Commission's President spoke of a "new political project", thereby confirming that the current project, too exclusively based on the creation of a free trade area by 2010, is neither realistic nor appropriate. This goal has not been abandoned, but is seen as an instrument of co-operation alongside others, in the direction of a "special relationship" involving not only the economy but also the social and cultural dimension. And especially the goal has not to be the reciprocal invasion of markets, but the creation of a complementary relationship, the search for "reasonable grounds of understanding that reconcile trade liberalisation with the need to preserve market balance", with the definition of common interests, such as "the defence and appreciation of quality products, the health safety of farm produce". The CIHEAM has given rise to a permanent dialogue at the level of the agriculture ministers of the neighbouring countries, from which concrete initiatives may emerge and useful proposals to guide EU commitments as devised by Romano Prodi. It's very difficult and presupposes what is still so cruelly lacking, i.e. collaboration between Mediterranean countries and the development of trade between them. Good luck. (F.R.)