Shared objectives: Disagreements between France and the Commission on reform of the CAP and farming in WTO negotiations are ridiculous and the row on the subject between a European Commissioner and a Minister is even more absurd. They are ridiculous because France and the Commission defend their very close positions on the role of agriculture and ought to be the best of allies in this area, instead of appearing like adversaries. There are certainly divergences on regulation for applying CAP reform, this is quite normal, just as it is normal that the Council is able to revise a Commission proposal. This is part of the institutional dialectic of the Community method. But the objectives ate for the most part shared by both sides; faced with the pressure and trends that even threaten the existence of farming in the EU, the two most committed defenders of this essential aspect of European civilisation should stress more what unites them rather than what separates them.
An ideological debate. The recent hearing with French Minister for Agriculture, Hervé Gaymard at the EU delegation at the French Senate (Chaired by Convention Member Hubert Haenel) has strengthened my former conviction. Mr Gaymard said that, "When we are examining agriculture both complex technical issues are involved as well as ideological issues". We are faced with a fight that is genuinely ideological and which has never happened and for which we will not receive the support of newspaper articles or the back up of brilliant academics. It is also a symbolic subject on what constitutes globalisation and what could constitute a well regulated globalisation. I had the opportunity of meeting the President of the World Bank, who came out with such ideas for the first time. But it is true that the "tunnel vision" of the Financial Times and The Economist is sometimes supported by French politicians etc". I won't add that the French Minister and the President of the World Bank would have been able to find in this section over a number of years, some of the arguments relating to the "ideological issue" of farming. I won't say that I don't know that Agence EUROPE is not a mass circulation publication or that I am a brilliant academic but Mr Gaymard should have been able to see that Franz Fischler and Pascal Lamy are on the same wave length with regard to farming and that they should be seen as allies. And if he had glanced at the papers on the multifunctional purpose of agriculture approved by unanimity a few years ago by the Agriculture Council, he would have noticed that the essential was already there although there were shortcomings in applying it.
For a new global strategy. Let's continue with a reading of Mr Gaymard's hearing: "I would like to stress the power of clichés. Agricultural overproduction, which was a fact fifteen years ago is not the case today but public opinion remains obstinately impressed by the image of butter mountains. The same goes for those who believe that all production is supported by the CAP, which is far from true. Neither do I agree with the idea that 45% of the Community budget goes to the CAP. there's nothing surprising about this because it's the only entirely Community based policy". On these premises, Mr Gaymard's strategy at an international level is clear. "It is important to disassociate the unholy alliance of the rich countries from the Cairns group and the poorest countries. The EU should bring to the fore the fact that it is the main contributor of development aid and is the most open to agricultural products from the poorest countries. It is, at the very least, paradoxical, that he EU should be chosen as a scapegoat in the image described by the Australian Minister of Agriculture, who explained to Le Monde, that the CAP is responsible for world hunger". The Minister is therefore calling on Europe to come up with a new global policy that responds to the need of development and raising standards in agricultural trade, based on three pillars that he summarised in the following way:
"Initially, the unambiguous assertion of the right of States to carry out agricultural policies, notably for reasons of food safety or land use. This means that the disappearance of subsidies and customs duties to not constitute an objective for farming.
Then, the balanced and fair disciplines that guarantee that national agricultural policies do not unduly harm those of partners or distort, more than is necessary, international trade, as the law of the strongest and an international free-for-all cannot be a mainstay for modern society" (he used examples of export loans and delayed use of food aid).
Preferences for the poorest countries. Preferences have been phased out in a certain atmosphere of indifference in Europe, which was, however a pioneer in obtaining this objective."
These concepts are not new for readers of this section, and I apologise for any repetition but the assertions of a Minister has more weight than mine do. Mr Gaymard adds, "The world price is fixed as it does not correspond to economic balance or social or environmental equilibrium" and he attributes this fallacious character to "the large farms in the countries that don't respect social, environmental or health safety standards" as well as to, "stock market speculation and the image of the stock markets in Chicago, New York or London with the price of coffee or cocoa".
The French Minister supports the principle of cross-compliance. Where are the divergences between France and Commissioner Lamy and Fischler located exactly? Reports from the Agriculture Council debates are clear: they focus essentially on the total decoupling of aid to farmers. But careful, France agrees to the idea of cross compliance! This principle means that aid should not depend on the quantity produced in order to prevent farmers from producing according to subsidies and not according to consumer demand and quality. Farmers, on the other hand, should be subsidised for services that they provide to the community (environmental and countryside safeguards, land balance, food safety, regeneration of rural zones) by way of reasonable remuneration. In addition, income should allow them to enjoy a life style that is the same as that of citizens in other activities, and which is provided by the sale of their produce. This is more apt at recognising consumer demand and whether the quality is good and determining and hence the level of profits. CAP should reward efforts for those who produce for the market and not for the creation of surpluses. Hervé agrees totally! I won't put words into his mouth, just read them, "In principle, we have to agree with cross-compliance, just as we prefer the sun to rain. The motives of the Commission, appears, in this regard, convincing". What France rejects is the adjective of "total", which accompanies decoupling in the Fischler draft, as well as the proposed mechanisms. Mr Gaymar concluded on the following point, "the French position is not closed, we do not rule out everything from the Commission's proposal".
Defending the general interest. We are able to observe an identity of substantial views on the meaning and role of farming and on the objectives of a world agricultural policy that is not determined by purely commercial interests, as well as a convergence on the direction of the ideological instruments to implement. But instead of calmly discussing the methods and mechanism in order to smooth out the divergences, the two parties are tying to outdo each other in accusations, with the intervention of Jacques Chirac, who sarcastically described "stubbornness worthy of a nobler cause" of Franz Fischler and Mr Gaymard, who reproach Pascal Lamy for forgetting the is French. I do not claim that the case is an easy one but I have sufficiently followed night time farming negotiations for realising that the moment for reaching a compromise is always pertinent. I am also aware that the interests at play are enormous, especially with regard to the large land owners and traders (for them, the variation of a percentage in the euro for export discounts correspond to millions) and that the interested parties are not backing off in the face of efforts to undermine their privileges. I am also aware that the all the partial reforms of the CAP carried out until now have been against what the farmers wanted (or at least of their governmental organisations), who announced the worst if the projects from Brussels were accepted. I am not criticising the farmers, they are defending their interests just as others do theirs, neither more nor less. But Agriculture Ministers and other authorities should have the general interest in mind and, when it is necessary, distance themselves from sectoral interests by breaking with the iniquitous rule of "acquired rights" if the situations have changed. My limited knowledge does not allow me to decide on the rights and wrongs of the decoupling of aid nor of knowing if the system proposed by the Commission, as affirmed by Mr Gaymard, would be extremely difficult to manage and would engender competition distortion and a sharp increase in the prince of farming land. But I am sure that reasonable compromises exist.
It is urgent that the Community institutions (the European Parliament as a whole has already declared that it supports the Fischler reform, while requesting some revisions) overcome the divergences because the Union should be united in the double task of defending its farming in face of pressure and threats, not only from outside but also, unfortunately, from within (some governments and certain public opinion have not yet understood what is at stake), and launch another world agricultural policy that has protecting the environment and fighting against world hunger as the priorities (see this section on 25 February). It is also just as urgent as the conflicts panning out between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP), which in my opinion, is just as absurd, with regard to reciprocal agricultural trade. In this case the EU and ACP must be allies and not adversaries within the international bodies.
(F.R.)