A possible offer. It comes as no surprise that the initiative by Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler to present a new European position on the agricultural plank of trade negotiations at the WTO should have caused such a lively and impassioned debate. EU agricultural organisations are vehemently opposed to this; France thinks that the very fact of offering significant concessions at this time (before other main players in world trade have given any appreciable openings) is a serious tactical error, several other Member States have found fault with certain aspects of the offer and the timetable for implementing it. No surprise, I said, because what the Commissioners are proposing would imply a further reform of the CAP. Is it possible to cast an objective and serene eye over this initiative? I think we could try, based on two evaluation criteria: its compatibility with keeping agriculture in Europe, and its usefulness for developing countries. Let's give this a try.
The most spectacular element, and the one which draws the most comment, is the gradual and conditional removal of European subsidies to the exportation of agricultural products. I feel the time is right to suggest this. Exceptionally, I will permit myself to quote myself. In this column of 13 July 1998, so nearly six years ago, I wrote this about the need for a bottom-up transformation of world agricultural policies: "everything must change, and Europe must make its contribution. I have an inkling of what this could be: surrendering 'export refunds'. But too many interests, material and political, are opposed to this; it would take courage and a political vision that are currently to be found neither in the governments nor in the Commission. One day, perhaps..." Well, that day has arrived. What we really need to safeguard European agriculture- and with it, nature, biodiversity, the countryside, traditions and territorial balance- is to get on top of imports. Back then I still hoped that the Commission would refrain from making promises about free trade; it did so, with the support of the Council and the Parliament, but I get the impression that the words "free trade" are only there for the sake of appearance and that in the agricultural sector, nobody takes them literally any more. If this is really the case, the principle of removing export subsidies is acceptable today, because it is inherently possible without causing irreparable damage to European agriculture, and with the real advantages for the poor countries (where competition from rich, subsidised agriculture sometimes has devastating effects). Let's look a bit more closely.
Politics and psychology. For European agriculture, the weight of export subsidies is on the decrease. Between 1992 and 2001, their volume dropped from 10 billion EUR a year to 2.8 billion, and has since continued to fall. These subsidies chiefly benefit big business and the processing industry (which, it is true, is a vital outlet for farmers). In any case, they will be phased out gradually, and maybe never entirely, because some poorer countries will need them to get foodstuffs their populations require at low cost, and particularly because it will be dependent on similar measures on the part of the world's other main agricultural exporters. The EU won't disappear from certain export markets for the fun of leaving its place open for the United States and other countries practising legally different regimes, but making similar efforts! The objective is to encourage local production in poorer countries, so that in time they can cover their own food needs, certainly not to replace the pressure from subsidised European products with equally subsidised products from other exporters.
The operation also responds to political and psychological objectives. We must put an end to the fiction of Europe as the great disturber of the international agricultural markets, given that its policy has for so many years been in line with the requirements of the battle against two plagues darkening the future of the world: the deterioration of nature, and famines decimating or threatening a large chunk of humanity. Several things confirm it: the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the growing affirmation of ecological needs, trade preferences for the poorest countries (which have been attacked at the WTO by other exporters who would like to take their place in the European marketplace), encouraging countries lagging behind to develop subsistence agriculture for their own populations rather than taking the model of monoculture for export, the sad and harmful heritage of colonisation. But who understands these merits? The Lamy-Fischler initiative could help to change the image of European agriculture. This will be my subject for tomorrow. (F.R.)