Almost a reassuring failure. I do not share the opinion expressed by the chairman of the WTO's "agriculture" group, Stuart Harbinson, or those of other negotiators or observers who consider as "very serious" the fact that the 31 March deadline was not kept for defining the modalities and aims of the new WTO round in the agricultural sector (see our bulletins of 29 March, p.13, and 1 April, p.8). This failure proves that it is now impossible to liberalise farm trade any further without taking non-trade aspects into consideration (ecological and social aspects, and others). In my view, fundamental progress has already been made in the way agriculture is negotiated at global level. Criteria that must prevail over simple liberalisation of trade are the safeguard of nature, the fight against hunger in the world, the right of each people (or group of peoples) to reach a reasonable level of food autonomy, the ability to protect a country's farming so that it becomes possible over the territory as a whole, and respect of landscapes and traditions. Though something to be regretted, eventual failure of Geneva negotiations is preferable to the slide towards a world composed of monstrous towns surrounded by wasteland, swollen with millions and millions of inhabitants originally from rural areas now abandoned, with world trade dominated by financial powers and by a handful of agricultural systems largely subsidised.
I feel confirmed in my convictions when I see that (in the special dossier on "trade negotiations" in "Confrontation"'s Letter No 60), the chairman and the vice-chairman of the European Parliament's "agriculture" committee defend positions that are broadly similar. Joseph Daul, Chairman, declared: "I am increasingly contacted by representatives from developing countries. As soon as we get down to serious discussion, we soon get beyond the diatribes against CAP to tackle the issues of coffee, cacao, sugar, three major products from the South whose prices cause considerable speculation (…). The management of the markets for these products should be tackled in WTO negotiations". Friedrich Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Vice-Chairman belonging to the Greens Group, writes: "it is a matter of urgency to ensure cultural landscapes are preserved and living rural areas created, areas where people can live and work". More specifically, with regards developing countries, he cited the requirement of getting to grips with the problem of the exodus of people from rural areas, and concludes: "the liberalisation of farm trade must be coupled to respect of norms required in social matters as well as for health and the environment. If a country fixes more stringent standards for the environment, then these standards must not be emptied of their substance by imports".
Right to protection. In this concept, commercial competition no longer plays a predominant role. The developing countries must have "margins of manoeuvre in order to use their economic and farm policy instruments, for example, the protection of borders allowing the aims of food safety and rural development to be achieved" (Karine Tavernier, on the same dossier). I would also add that these "margins of manoeuvre" must exist for all and not just for the poorest countries, and also be of a permanent kind, as, as Joseph Daul also stresses, "there can be no farm and rural development policy without public support". If the principles are clear and are admitted at world level, the EU will only have to fine-tune CAP reform by doing away with the aspects that are detrimental to the poor countries and by rejecting the "rights acquired" rule for European farmers, when such rights are no longer justified and now take on an abusive nature.
Serious inquiry. I also find the "Confrontation" dossier reassuring with regards services. I am keeping an eye on what is being published by this association chaired by MEP Philippe Herzog, because, while being openly aligned to the left, it rejects facile demagogy, takes account of all arguments and allows the representatives of other political tendencies to also express their views. Nathalie Lhayani, who coordinates the "trade and development" group of the association in question, headed the inquiry and her conclusions are not far from those set out in this column on 29 March. Of course, the tone is less severe and the criticism of the way some NGOs are behaving is less explicit, but the substance is the same. Two aspects are essential: safeguard within the EU of public utilities, the fundamental part of the European model of society, and respect of the interests of the developing countries.
The "Confrontation" inquiry involved different NGOs, trade unions and companies, and took into account the debates at the European Parliament (with the participation of the European Commission).
As far as the EU is concerned, here is the conclusion reached by Nathalie Lhayani: "According to "Confrontation", the future of our public services comes far more into play in the building of the single
market than in a threat from the WTO". In other words, the EU's internal policy will represent the determining element. The offers that Pascal Lamy is finalising with the national administrations of Member States, after the parliamentary debate and the resolution adopted by the EP almost unanimously, are not detrimental to the European model. The offers of openness at world level are far less than the degree of liberalisation already reached in the Union and, for the services of general interest, precautions have been taken in order to "guarantee compliance with the universal service and equalisation requirements". After having described the content of the European offers envisaged and the measures taken in order to ensure transparency, Nathalie Lhayani asks whether the "suspicion of NGOs regarding the intentions of European negotiators was really justified". But one should not forget that the EU has a powerful economic interest in global liberalisation of services, as a major exporter.
Response to demagogy. As far as the developing countries are concerned, the analysis sweeps away in one go the demagogy that inspires the behaviour of many NGOs: "We should ask ourselves what defence of utilities in the South might mean! Some developing countries have little or no access to services such as water, energy or transport … They have no choice but to import them". Furthermore, some of these countries are calling for liberalisation of services that they can export. Ms Lhayani cites tourism, construction, transport, distribution, energy and the movement of persons, all sectors that are the subject of explicit requests. The South does not, however, have financial and technological resources for ensuring universal and quality access to essential services. The solution therefore consists in "combining access to private investment and the appropriate regulatory regime". The conclusion is: "it is not a question of purely and simply refusing the trade in services needed by the developing countries". There is a battle to be fought but it is not the one that has been started. The "terms must be reviewed", recognising the specific nature of "essential services" and defining appropriate rules for investment. This battle must be conducted within the WTO mainly outside the WTO in order to "finally deal coherently with questions linked to trade, investment, social liability of companies, access to essential services and the fight against poverty".
The reasonable tactic thus described takes down a peg or two the demagogic criticism of certain NGOs, students from Louvain and Harlem Désir, of the efforts being made by Pascal Lamy.
More entanglement for sport? In his recent hearing before the delegation for Europe at the French National Assembly (of which the parts concerning the aims of the enlarged Union were reproduced in our bulletin of 18 March, p.4), Jacques Delors answered questions put to him on sport. This is what he said according to the official report: "sport is a European subject that is badly treated. The rulings of the Court of Justice have led to increased commercialisation of football to the detriment of its role as an educational sport and popular sport. In this field, the Court of Justice, in the name of freedom of work, has gone beyond the circle of its competence. Sport must not obey purely commercial laws".
I had promised not to come back to this subject (that, according to some readers, I had earlier treated too fully), because I had noted that not only the Commissioner directly responsible for sport, Viviane Reding, but also the Commissioner responsible for competition, Mario Monti, had defined an attitude that took the specific nature of sport into account, justified by educational and health reasons and by the significance of a sports activity in our society. However, unfortunately, some national courts have taken the matter up again by continuing to use the unfortunate Bosman ruling of the European Court of Justice at the time as a basis (since then, the line of fire has been slightly corrected in Luxembourg but the Bosman ruling is still there).
From my personal point of view, the situation is simple: the non-discrimination rule is not applicable to sport. Discrimination condemned by the European Treaties and by national laws (gender discrimination, age discrimination, discrimination based on nationality, etc.) in sport are not only admitted but are indispensable. Men cannot take part in competitions reserved for women (and vice versa), age groups are recognised (16-year olds do not compete with adults), and only the nationals of a country can take part in a national championship. There is even discrimination which, in any other sector of activity, would be ridiculous, for example discrimination based on weight. For individual competitions, all this seems obvious. For team sports the situation is more complicated, because one cannot prohibit a professional company from taking on players (also professionals) of any Union nationality. In my opinion, one should also define a simple and clear law based on the following principle for team sports: - any sports company may take on "Community" players if it so wishes, but the conditions for taking part in any given sports event depends on the organisers of that event, under the control of the relevant sports federation. And the EU should interfere as little as possible, and preferably not at all. (F.R.)