Something for the Commission to bear in mind. Can the positive headway being made on the significance and details of world trade in agricultural products (see this column yesterday) be starting to influence the European Union's attitude to its international negotiations? I think they can, and I think that the European Commission should behave accordingly, in the multi-lateral WTO framework and in its negotiations with Mercosur or Russia alike, or those to safeguard the interests of the ACP countries. Let's take them in order.
At the WTO, the essential point is to respect the “multi-functional” view of agriculture, which is not merely a productive activity but is also indispensable in the fight against world hunger, the protection of nature, biodiversity, preserving the countryside and traditions and looking after animals. At the same time the EU has to give up the idea of conquering foreign markets with its financial clout by dint of export subsidies. In agriculture, trade is just one part of a much wider reality, which is vital for the future of humanity.
Avoiding false messages. With Mercosur, it is important to guard against sending out false messages, giving the impression that negotiations can be resumed shortly on the same basis as that which led to failure last year. The objective of free trade corresponds to neither the realities nor the interests of either party. The EU cannot accept this in the agricultural sector, not even as a far-off objective; there is absolutely no point in thinking (as the European Commission has done for too long now) that we can get out of this by promising a reduction in customs duty here, an increase in import quotas there; these measures are possible if they are stand-alone rather than part of a free-trade agreement. Europe will need meat and soya from Argentina, Brazilian sugar, etc, but it must be able to control imports if it hopes to keep up its own agricultural activity. For their part, the Mercosur countries cannot give Europe what it is asking in return in the fields of industrial products, services, investments, public procurement or transport. What is the point of resuming negotiations which would be disastrous for both sides and would benefit only a few industrial, agro-food or trade giants? We must go beyond the stage of sound bites, take the time to think and define reasonable and realistic objectives.
I feel that as part of the planned “strategic partnership” with Russia, we should break the bond between the four “spaces” included in the programme. The common economic space cannot be achieved in the time available. The EU's internal wrangling proves just how dependent a free-trade area is on common rules (tax, social, environmental, etc) which are unthinkable in this day and age. Russia wants to keep its autonomy, so does the EU. We will at least have to wait for Russia to accede to the WTO to see what will happen a bit more clearly. The three other common spaces are outside the remit of this commentary; if the link with the economic space is broken, rapid progress will be possible.
Populism OXFAM-style. The ACP dossier is the most delicate, because at stake are the preferential relations entered into almost fifty years ago, which the African countries in particular would struggle to do without. Trade preferences, today, are an endangered species. But the ACPs themselves are partly responsible: they have spent too long listening to the songs of the pro-free-trade sirens calling for Europe's borders to be completely opened up to agricultural products from the world over. They didn't understand that OXFAM-style lamentations against the so-called “fortress Europe” would have been a death-knell for preferences in their favour and they risked losing the European banana and sugar markets, just for starters. The EU must continue to defend their traditional market shares, but it has to take on board the verdicts of the WTO and will certainly not be able to guarantee a higher price for ACP sugar to that which it will guarantee to European producers. Granted, these days OXFAM, having called for an end to European “agricultural protectionism”, is now trying to save its image as defender of the poor countries by demanding that the EU directly and fully subsidise the ACP and OCT countries. This is too easy and costs it nothing. Instead of spouting populism, its leaders should try to understand the positions reached by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which were summed up in this column yesterday.
If the European Commission has the sense of its responsibilities, it must start an in-depth reflection on the policy to be employed in agricultural trade, with the full participation of all the Commissioners concerned, from Ms Ferrero-Waldner to Mr Mandelson, from Ms Fischer Boel to Mr Michel.
(F.R.)