Clear recollections. Over the last few days I have referred to some of the problems in European agriculture by using terms such as “continental agriculture” and in so doing have left out the British isles. This was no slip of the pen. The permanent hostility of the United Kingdom authorities to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and their current offensive to demolish it proves that across the Channel there is a different conception of the role of agriculture in our civilisations. It would be absurd to accuse the British of not loving nature, as everything proves the contrary. Nevertheless, I believe that the current mode of thinking favours the system of “imperial preferences”, which more or less consists of exporting industrial products and receiving food and basic products from the Commonwealth. One of the difficulties of accession negotiations with the United Kingdom to the EEC was the extension granted for certain traditional imports like New Zealand butter and sugar cane from India; British negotiators managed to clinch a special system. The notion of Europe as a whole for being able to feed its population appears foreign to the British mentality. Respect and love for nature is expressed differently, in the protection of gardens, parks and forests, in relations with pets, in safeguarding green hills (on this last subject, the EU has taken their cue from British legislation). In the UK, the main beneficiaries of CAP are the Queen and some of the great and very old noble families; some farms and animal breeders would disappear as quickly as those on the content if European subsidies were ended but on first glance no-one in London appears to be worried about this. Will Tony Blair be more concerned by the disappearance of olive groves in his usual holiday destination of Tuscany? If he succeeds in imposing his views on the budget, he'll have to start looking for another holiday location.
Dutch traders. If this were uniquely a British problem, the EU could provide an opt-out. It has done this for other sectors, why not for agriculture? But there are other problems. The idea of “European agriculture” has not changed for over half a century. Each minister and every pressure group is concerned about national production. Let our neighbours get on with it. Let's take the Netherlands. What they're interested in is free trade. When one has the most efficient ports in the world, the important thing is import - export. For primary industrial materials, there's nothing to say about the matter: a port like Rotterdam benefits the whole of Europe. It's a more delicate matter when farming is involved. Those involved in trade pointed out that imports of manioc were done freely and that they could, to their advantage, replace pastures and even soja in animal feed and therefore develop the rearing of animals right next to the port. It's true that there are no meadows and it is often cold and rainy but that's not a problem, rearing animals can be done without land. And the result is calves reared in closed dark spaces, fed on Thai manioc and slaughtered when they reach the right size, without ever having seen the light of day or having been able to run around on grass. With the CAP, it's very profitable. I am talking about this because, fortunately, it's come to an end: manioc imports are subject to quotas and rearing in these conditions is against the law.
But there are other resources. Do you know who is the main European orange juice exporter? The Netherlands? No need to go looking for oranges in Sicily, Andalusia or Morocco. The juice arrives in bulk from Brazil, in the holds of ships, in thousands and thousands of litres, like oil. Processing is done near the ports and the product is sent out across the whole of Europe. If the quality is mediocre, different vitamins are added, which are very good for the balanced growth of children - it's written on the pack. Do German children still study Goethe at school by heart? “Kennst du das land wo die Zitronen blühn - Im dunkeln Laub die Gold-Orangen glühn?” 1) If this is still the case, then it would be a good idea to explain to them that there is no more citrus fruit in Sicily because it is cheaper on another content.
Except for flowers. But the day came in 1997 where the EU discussed the opening up of the borders to imports of flowers from associated African countries that enjoy tariff preferences. But the Dutch considered flowers to be a completely different issue because they produce flowers. It even forms part of the country's national pride. At the moment when tulips are in blossom on the plains, it's marvellous to behold: tourists flock to see them. The timing of the calendar meant that for the first half of 1997, the rotating presidency of the Council went to the Netherlands. The Dutch president of the Agriculture Council is able and likes flowers. The result is written in the conclusions of the Council under the title, “European Union Strategy on the trade in flower products”.
This strategy allows for the possibility of reduced or duty free tariff quotas for flowers from ACP countries but on the strictest conditions by respecting certain rules. The Council calls for: 1) limits on tariff quotas and the real possibilities of absorption onto the Community market, in keeping with the requirements of Community production; 2) take into account, n negotiations with third countries, agricultural market characteristics and repercussions resulting from the planned concessions, as well as the need to develop a coherent global strategy on the matter; 3) regularly analyse the impact of preferential import systems and consider these analyses as the basis for discussions with exporter countries on future policy.
No existing “overall study”. But this is great! Thanks to the Netherlands a concise and appropriate description exists of the criteria the EU should apply to all agricultural imports from the outside world! What have you got to say about it? It would be an insult to the Dutch presidency of the time to imagine that it was only thinking of one product that was of direct interest to its country: it's obviously a question of chance that at that time, flowers were on the agenda. The presidency could not envisage general criteria for all the other agricultural exports from the Union. Since when does the Council take into consideration national interests? It's always the European interest it has in its sights, even more so given that the Council requested at the same time, an “overall study” of the preferential systems for importing agricultural products. It also added at note that the Agriculture Council “await conclusions on the production of flowers and that this, as well as those drawn from the overall study; are duly taken into account by all Community bodies”. I recognise that what followed these texts was not satisfactory. Studies on repercussions on trade concessions to third countries in agriculture are among the most inept ever carried out by the Commission services. Instead of assessing the economic, social and environmental effects and other, for example, resulting from the opening up of the borders to agricultural products from Mercosur, these officials restricted themselves to working out the financial compensation that would be required for European farmers who had lost their traditional outlets.
Trade or ecology? Meanwhile, the Netherlands, in the affair on rice, business acumen overcame worries about flowers. Despite the warnings from the Commission (which for once had seen from afar), the Council introduced the cumulation of origin ACP-OCT for rice exports to the Union. Big trade interests had immediately found the means of multiplying rice production in some ACP countries (non-African) and of exporting large quantities to the EU via Dutch OCT Caribbean countries. Fraud also played a role, as the real origin of the rice in question was not always clear. The result was very quickly the end of all rice production in Europe, despite the ecological reasons for safeguarding it in some humid zones. What a row at the Council when it came to repealing the decision because the Netherlands did not want to give in! From their point of view, maintaining a commercial activity depended on environmental requirements and the safeguarding of a traditional agricultural activity which as ecologically precious in Europe.
Obligatory resistance. The notion of European agriculture that both maintains citrus fruit in Sicily and tulips in the Netherlands and rice in the humid zones has never taken off in the Union. Scandinavian members clinched a deal on it when they joined, with the authorisation to extend some aid to certain traditional farming in the far north. I hope they will fight to make this permanent by rejecting the rules on profitability. Will they do it? It's their relationship to nature and the animal kingdom which is at stake. They also have to understand that at the same time as other battles in other Member States to safeguard the Douro zone in Portugal, UN heritage, the miraculous balance in Tuscany accomplished over several centuries between human activity and nature and the list goes on. I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with eastern and central European countries while they await the support promised them for protecting biodiversity and their equilibrium by relaunching agricultural activity throughout their territory. The destruction of nature on our continent should be opposed with all our forces.
France should also be given a mention, the main farming country in the Union. I hesitate to do so. Its farmers were in the front line for rejecting the Constitution for reasons that overall, rejected the notion of solidarity in Europe. How are they going to obtain the solidarity from others for themselves?
(F.R.)
- - - - - - -
“Do you know a country where lemons bloom - and among the dull leaves, shine oranges of gold?”