France's mistake. France did not defend the cause of European agriculture well in the Council on Tuesday. It demanded enhanced and finicky controls on the European negotiator within the WTO, and it was easy for Peter Mandelson to stress the impossibility of negotiating if every little nuance of the European position is first discussed in the Council. This would be the best way of communicating to the other negotiators in advance what the EU's position is, thereby renouncing any room for tactical flexibility. Or does any naïve person perhaps still believe that the Council's debates stay confidential? With 25 delegations in the room? Pointing out, as Jacques Chirac did, that the negotiation must be “balanced” in its different aspects (industry, services, agriculture, development) achieves nothing.
It is not through procedural measures that the EU will defend its agriculture. In my view it is the very idea that Mr Mandelson has of this negotiation which should be reconsidered. The Commissioner clearly explained his idea of it in his speech of 13 October in London (see our bulletin 9049). Directly addressing the “emerging countries” which are pressuring for the European agricultural market to be opened up (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc.), he explained to them that if they want the EU to offer even more open conditions of access, they must in exchange open up their markets where there is European demand: in industrial goods and services. Here we see, set out in all clarity, exactly the idea which is rejected in agricultural circles: namely, that agriculture is used in WTO negotiations as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions in other sectors. This approach does not defend agriculture because agriculture represents an irreplaceable part of European civilisation, because self-sufficiency in terms of food is a condition of autonomy in general, or because Europe will soon be called on to contribute actively to fighting food crises in the world; we protect agriculture in as far as there is a gap in the market, otherwise we promise even more. Does Marianne Fischer Boel agree with this? Does she simply accept it passively or does she oppose it?
For a blocking minority. Mr Mandelson has made no secret of the tactics he will use with regard to the Council. If he manages in Geneva to offer agricultural concessions which go beyond his current mandate (in exchange for concessions on industry or services), he will do so subject to agreement by the Council, which he will ask for before the concessions can become definitive. The procedure is correct, but the deal is obvious: he will indicate to ministers that if they want to see extra opportunities for the export of industrial products and services, they will have to accept more sacrifices on the agricultural front. And he will entrust a positive ministerial decision to the qualified majority.
What he should be doing is the opposite: setting “red lines” for the European agricultural market which cannot be crossed. Yes, for access to the market, because in other aspects of its agricultural policy the EU can be flexible, in terms of export subsidies (which mainly benefit traders) and some internal subsidies. But for market access the margins are minimal, because the Commission's own old calculation is still valid: applying the rules of industrial trade to the agricultural sector would mean the disappearance of six million agricultural enterprises out of the seven million in the EU of fifteen. In the EU of twenty-five the figures would change but the proportion would remain the same.
Firmness is therefore the order of the day, with an addition: any concession must be subject to strict respect for European controlled designations and geographical indications. There is not much to be negotiated on this subject; it is simply a matter of strengthening the boundaries for products from those countries which cheat.
Is it really necessary to add, once again, that the poor countries have everything to lose from liberalisation of world agricultural trade? Are the examples of bananas and sugar not enough? A complete opening up for the EU borders would mean that the less advanced countries, particularly in Africa, would not be able to export a single banana or kilo of sugar onto the European market. We should stop using demagogy and false arguments where the objective is to favour large-scale trade and multinationals!
If the Commission persists in negotiating using agriculture as a bargaining chip for other objectives, it will be down to the Council to act. In its conclusions on Tuesday, it said that reform of the CAP “constitutes the limits for the Commission's negotiating brief”. If the Commission goes beyond this limit, the twelve Member States (which have now become fourteen) which signed a recent warning letter are already enough for a blocking minority within the Council. Others may join them. (F.R.)