What impressed me most about the conference held on Tuesday evening by the Greens/EFA group of the European Parliament was not the speech by Jeremy Rifkin comparing the “European dream” to the “American dream”, nor the debate which struggled to get off the ground due to the banality and (excessive) length of the introductory speech. It is true that Mr Rifkin's fervour to prove the European model superior was quite flattering for our old Europe. But what interested me the most was the document which was handed out summing up trade negotiations at the WTO (World Trade Organisation).
Common ground destroyed. This document, which was written by Charlie Poppe for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, looks into the reasons for the failure of Cancun and prospects of getting back on track. Mr Poppe tried to understand and sum up the various stances, not only those of the WTO member counties and groups of States within it, but also those of the main pressure groups. The results of this analysis destroy some of our common ground, especially on the genuine interests of the poor countries in the field of agriculture. In his preface, Claude Weiber, director of the foundation's European office, stresses this: “How, in Europe and in the South, can we preserve rural agriculture which respects people, their health and their environment whilst managing to make right to food a reality for the whole of humanity? Market access may be a short-term solution for the development of the countries of the South, but the facts have shown that it is not an effective long-term solution. If trade liberalisation is not the panacea, then nor is agricultural self-sufficiency”.
This introduction struck me forcibly. Is the view I have defended in this column for years , that the liberalisation of world agricultural trade is good news first and foremost for merchants and multi-nationals but ruinous for the poor countries and their peasant farmers, and even worse for the environment due to the disastrous “cash export crops”, finally starting to make its way in the world? The study puts forward three hypotheses: the liberalisation of agricultural trade (which, it is worth pointing out, is the OXFAM view of things); food sovereignty; supply management. Without claiming to be summing up the study, here are the significant passages from it.
A new policy. What is needed especially in the countries of the South of the world is to “make the most out of food-producing cultures and traditional production methods, to the detriment of export crops which increase independence on prices and world markets and on imports of foods and processed agricultural products. It is not unusual for these export cultures to cause much environmental damage”. The food sovereignty strategy includes: “a) priority to local agricultural production to feed the population (…); b) the right of States to protect themselves from agricultural and food imports at excessively low prices; c) agricultural prices linked to production costs. This is possible as long as the States or Unions are allowed to tax low-cost imports, commit to sustainable rural production and master production to avoid structural deficits”.
We must not defend self-sufficiency but “make it a priority here in Europe, like in the South, to feed the population in a sustainable way in line with its democratic choices. The EU must not abandon any trade policy for agriculture. Quite simply, trade policy must not be imposed on agricultural policy. Protection of the agricultural markets is legitimate when it responds to the objectives of reducing poverty or of defending and promoting public health and the environment”. The study reiterates the decision of the European Parliament on 7 November 2002 which “authorises the EU to include in the external protection measures of its agricultural market environment, social and animal welfare criteria” adding: “The EU must implement this resolution which was voted for by a strong majority of the EP”.
As for the poorest countries of the world, they are “bearing the brunt of (…) the erosion of the preferences resulting from trade liberalisation (…). The EU must not only grant these countries trade preferences once again but also, more radically, ensure that these countries have the resources to pursue a sustainable national agricultural policy”, in line with the criteria and guidelines above.
This document by the “Heinrich Böll Foundation” does not mean that the battle is won. It simply states that the reflection is making progress. There are still too many powerful interests pushing in the opposite direction: certain governments, many multinationals in the agro-food and trade sectors, a few NGOs. Enough people to justify another column, I feel.
(F.R.)