Far from being smoothed, the disagreements over international agricultural trade are worsening and radically. In my opinion, it would be in vain to once more seek hypocritical compromises that only bring partial and lame solutions, which momentarily veil the problems behind a few technical developments or within different coloured boxes, from which they then remerge more venomous than before. The situation is not developing, it is rotting. I recorded, in recent weeks, three developments concerning the EU that reinforce and corroborate my convictions: the negotiations with Morocco over tomatoes, the negotiations with the Mercosur concerning free trade, the progress of agricultural negotiations in the framework of the WTO. The economic importance of these three dossiers is not comparable; the first only concerns a few thousand tonnes of a single product, the second involves a certain number of large countries, and the third concerns the entire world. However, it is precisely this difference, which proves that all the levels and all the volumes of trade are involved. Thus these cases are emblematic.
Moroccan tomatoes. For the first dossier, the situation is simple. The negotiations between the EU and Morocco over the periodic adaptation of the agricultural trade system have been blocked by differences over the volume of European imports of Moroccan tomatoes in free trade (October-May period). The present European contingent is for 168.757 tonnes, Morocco is calling for an increase to 215.000 tonnes. The European negotiators feel that this request is incompatible with the interests of the Union. Spanish agricultural organisations are is uproar; they assert that at stake is the medium-term disappearance of the Spanish tomato sector, and that a trade policy of progressive opening endangers the economic, social and commercial fabric of important areas. However, at the same time, the EU maintains the aim of finalising by 2010 the entire free trade area between the EU and Mediterranean third countries as a whole! And it blocks the negotiations with a country for a few thousand tones of tomatoes! On its side, Morocco refuses to reciprocate on cereals and farming products, in order to protect it still fragile production; given this, it is right, but at the same time it has opened the negotiations on a free trade agreement with… the United States! There is no doubt that a momentary compromise on tomatoes will be reached (the EU-Morocco association council gathers on Monday). However, where is the logic in all this? How to conciliate firmness over a small concession with the confirmation of an absurd final objective as both are contrary to the interests of the two parties?
Argentine meat. The case with the Mercosur has an entirely different dimension. The European Commission continues to drag its heals in order not to table specific offers on the opening of its market to Brazilian and Argentine (as well as Uruguayan and Paraguayan) agricultural products, and it has found a good reason to do so: the countries of the Mercosur have yet to table a reasonable global offer (covering the industrial sector) in response to that of the EU. But make no mistake: for Brazil and Argentina, access to the European agricultural market is the priority aim of the entire negotiation process. The rest is a bonus. However, the room for manoeuvre that the EU effectively has is small. A small recent event proves this: when the European Commission proposed slightly increasing the quota open to Argentine meat, as a symbol of its solidarity for the dramatic difficulties of the country, the EU meat producing and exporting states resisted, set conditions and called for a these concession to be temporary… And yet, these countries accepted, as did all the others, the principal of a free trade area between the EU and the Mercosur, agriculture included! They are starting to understand that this is not possible.
Enough hypocrisy! As for the new round n the WTO, recent developments are educational. The document by the President of the 'agriculture' negotiating group Stuart Harbinson is unacceptable for Europe, as it implies abandoning the efforts in favour of an agriculture that safeguards the environment, territorial balance, the countryside and traditions, not to mention the foodstuff autonomy of our Continent. At the same time, Bill Thomas, the powerful Chairman of the 'Ways and Means' Committee in the American Congress, threatened not to renew the United State's participation in the WTO if the EU did not give in over the agricultural dossier. Thankfully, the reaction of the European Commissioner for Agriculture Franz Fischler was explicit and vigorous (see our Bulletins of 13 February p. 12, 14 February pp. 7/8 and 15 February p. 11). His charge is implacable. The direction that the United States and Cairns group countries would like to inject into the agricultural negotiations would result in:
- favouring the exports of a few developed countries instead of benefiting the poor countries;
- dismantle certain categories of export subsidies, while leaving those practiced by the United States (export credits, food aid paid by the government and used to reduce surpluses);
- situate the WTO negotiation in a purely commercial viewpoint banning support for environmental protection, social aims and sustainable agricultural production. Though, it was said that the multifunctionality of agriculture was now accepted…
Certain European governments are short sighted. In concrete terms, the EU could no longer develop a form of agriculture that is respectful of the environment, and more than half its agricultural production would be threatened. Sadly a certain number of European governments do not, as yet, seem aware of these very real dangers: they are only capable of seeing certain commercial interests and the money that the CAP costs. This is an irresponsible attitude, as CAP can always be improved, and its spending made more equitable (by approving with a few changes, to begin with, the reform under discussion), while the destruction of the production methods, the countryside and traditions, would be without remedy. It is true that the Stuart Harbinson document has just been rejected at the Tokyo meeting (see Bulletin of 18 February, p. 11), and the author was invited to present another next month. However, this is not a solution, as in this we move towards seeking a compromise that would be both lame, complicated, temporary, which would not satisfy anybody, and which would prolong the fundamental misunderstanding.
Two firm and final principals. What is needed is to define for all, with courage and honesty, two firm and final principals establishing that:
1. There exist only two absolute priorities for global action in the agricultural sector: a) the safeguard of nature and the protection of the environment through sustainable methods of production; b) and contributions towards the fight against hunger and malnutrition in the world.
2. The increase in agricultural trade is not a priority objective. It comes after the search for objectives of an economic, social and cultural nature.
The true interest of poor countries. In the light of these simple criteria, we see that an international negotiation setting itself as main priority the opening of the European (as well as Japanese) agricultural market is without meaning, as the priority problems cited would be worsened. The EU represents less than 5% of the world population and it is already the main importer of agricultural products, while being for the most part self-sufficient. Implementing the rules of free trade to agriculture would mean condemning five of the six million agricultural businesses that exist in the EU to disappear. For whose benefit? Multinational companies, from major international trade and farmers in a few already developed countries. Certain poor and underfed countries could at first glance gather a few crumbs from this operation, but at what price! They would develop single crop farming for export, which would render them eternal prisoners of multinationals and world markets, to the detriment of food crop production and all hope of progressively achieving a reasonable degree of food self-sufficiency (without which there is no true independence). The poor countries do not always see these dangers, as they sometimes pursue illusory short-term advantages, or they are victims of corruption by their leaders and the financial power of multinationals. Though, some of them are opening their eyes. For example, the ACP countries are beginning to understand that their true enemy is free trade at the world level, which would remove the preferential openings they continue to enjoy with Europe for their bananas, sugar, tuna and other products, submitting them to the iniquitous law of world markets (which already allows them to enjoy its effects for coco or coffee)
The true failure of CAP. It is true; the EU is not exempt of responsibility. In its trade policy, it must be coherent with its internal choices and end subsidised imports on poor country markets competing with local production. I am ashamed for Europe when I learn that subsidised European vegetable oil has ruined African production. Though, the crucial point is that the member states are united in the defence of European agriculture as a whole. For me, the great failure of CAP is not its cost (it is in no way excessive) nor the sometimes inexcusable surpluses (they have disappeared), but the inability of giving birth to the notion of a united European agriculture, creating global solidarity. From the citrus fruits of the south to the Dutch tulips, from the Irish herds and fields to the wines from Bordeaux or Tuscany, from Danish butter to the products of the great North (to be supported!), everything must be safeguarded because everything has contributed over the centuries towards creating our civilisations. And the world needs it, for both food and cultural reasons.
(F.R.)