A colossal and unsustainable delocalisation. When asked about the EU's agricultural problems last July, Jean-Claude Juncker said: "in the 1950s, Europe was dependent on agricultural imports. Since then, the CAP has given us food abundance and food safety. To challenge the CAP would be the greatest delocalisation that Europe has ever experienced. Who stands to gain from this kind of reform? North American consortiums. The consequences of this would be dramatic, and I will do everything in my power to avoid a reform which would destroy the CAP" (our translation of an interview with the "Tageblatt").
Mr Juncker's point of view is enlightening, pedagogically speaking. What, in fact, are delocalisations for Europe? The transfer of economic activities to another continent where costs are less. In the industrial field, these can be accepted, under certain conditions, as long as competition is being exercised under normal conditions (however, we know how many fears and reservations various operations have led to and how many precautions are called four). But in a sector which is vital for the conservation of the environment of the countryside and the territorial equilibrium, a generalised delocalisation would mean the suicide of a continent and a civilisation. This is what would happen if Europe got rid of all protection to its agriculture, by subjecting it to competition from producers who were not bound by the same rules or the same constraints. The general public may struggle to be aware of the effects of completely opening up our agricultural boundaries; but the image of the delocalisation may help them to understand. Thanks to this image, the populations who are most at risk from delocalisations for textiles products, would understand that the problem is similar for agriculture, but on a scale which is infinitely greater and with consequences which would be devastating and irreparable in quite another way.
The genuine interests of the poor countries. There is only one reason which can justify this kind of free trade leaning: the existence of a very real benefit for the poorest countries and for the fight against famine in the world. Some people stand by this, but I feel that it has been proved that this argument is false. The total opening of Europe's borders would benefit the agricultural industries of the richest countries, the multinationals and major world trade, and would lead to the planting of cash crops for export in the poorest countries, and the extinction of traditional agriculture to feed the local populations. However, it is of paramount importance for Africa to return to producing its own food, the great enemies of which are both cash crops for export and imports from the rich countries (the EU included), which are artificially inflated by export subsidies, and which ruin local agriculture. This is a problem I have returned to on several occasions, using concrete examples- last time was early June (bulletin 8959).
Reasons for legitimate protection. Overcoming the populist argument based on the misunderstood interests of the poor countries leads the field wide open for the valid arguments which authorise each country or group of countries to protect their agriculture. On 7 November 2002, the European Parliament adopted, by a clear majority, a resolution calling on the EU to include environmental, social and animal welfare criteria in external measures to protect its agricultural market. Almost 3 years later, the reasons which justified this guideline are even more relevant, and they are starting to be taken seriously at institutional level. Last weekend, for the first time, the Agriculture Council and the Environment Council of the EU held a joint session, and Agence EUROPE rightly devoted two whole pages to this in its bulletin 9025, as the role of agriculture in the defence of the environment and in the fight against global warming had finally been recognised. The stakes are, obviously, ecological and social, but they are also economic and political, because the production of bio-fuels on a large scale could increase our wretched degree of energy autonomy, which would be the first step towards freeing Europe from its excessive dependence on oil and the countries which export it.
Should we conclude from this that the CAP has made a full recovery from its erring ways and its deviations? Absolutely not. The progress made has been considerable, but there remains a lot still to be corrected, there is still a lot of abuse and there are still a lot of question marks. The acknowledgement of the fact that a CAP is necessary and the guarantee of its sustainability were the first step that needed to be taken. At first sight, this has almost been done. It will now be possible to carry out the re-examination and revision of the current rules, and to return to agricultural activity and the protection of nature of their rightful place in our civilisation (and in any civilisation, come to that). Reflections are underway, ideas have been mooted. I will take stock of these tomorrow. (F.R.)