A little-known European policy. No commentator, as far as I am aware, has established a link between the recent youth violence around Paris and the imbalance in the management of the French territory. Paris is surrounded by a myriad of satellite communes inhabited by millions of young people, mainly French people from immigrant backgrounds, whose number far exceeds the number of job which could be created locally. But France also has vast areas which are sparsely populated which geographers sometimes refer to as the “French desert”. At the same time, industry is moving away from large towns. In the past, Renault cars were manufactured in Paris; those times are gone, and the spaces concerned are devoted to consumer trade or become cultural sites. “We must not give up on Billancourt”, said Jean-Paul Sartre; today, Billancourt as an industrial site providing work for thousands of labourers does not exist. When did this problem of the uncontrollable banlieue erupt? At the time of the first major agricultural exodus. The depopulation of the countryside and swelling of the urban periphery go hand in hand.
It is certainly not a matter of advocating any solution of the “return to the soil” variety. In modern and industrialised states, in Europe and elsewhere, farmers can now only represent a modest percentage of the population. But the EU has an opportunity: the second part of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is dedicated to “rural development”. And, contrary to popular belief, this part has very little to do with agriculture. It aims to: 1) develop activities other than agriculture in rural areas (which, depending on the method of calculation, represent 80 to90% of Europe's territory); 2) guarantee these areas safeguarding and development of public services (schools, healthcare, transport, gas, electricity) without which populations cannot settle; 3) safeguard and relaunch initiatives which link into local traditions, or innovate with avant-garde new activities. But all of this presupposes the maintenance of agricultural activities, which for centuries have shaped traditions and landscapes. There has been much talk recently of the Italian town of Parma, because the European Food Authority has just been set up there. The area's agricultural and culinary specialities are world-renowned: we have only to think of parmesan cheese, Parma ham and fruit drinks. These specialities remain the basis of the local economy, thanks to the maintenance of high quality standards and the protection of denominations. But there are so many activities and initiatives around this, even though it is a relatively small town! These range from the post-graduate “European college” to a musical project which aims to make Parma to Verdi what Bayreuth is to Wagner. But none of this would be possible if agricultural activities are not safeguarded in conditions which guarantee farmers a standard of living equivalent to that of other social categories.
Young people must do their bit. I know that in most of Europe's rural areas, the conditions are far from being as favourable as they are in Parma. But we must refer to these positive examples. And my aim is simply to point out an additional argument in favour of maintaining agricultural activities in Europe: it can help face up to the youth drama of the banlieue. Paris cannot offer employment to every disaffected youth which clamours at its gates; it is in the development of rural areas that solutions can be sought. We see here by what circuitous routes it is possible to arrive at similar conclusions to those mentioned in this column yesterday with regard to the WTO trade negotiations.
It is true that young people must also do their bit. Jean Figel, the European Commissioner for Education and Training, recently declared that “half of the jobs which will be created by 2010 in the EU will require high levels of qualification”. It is not by refusing to go to school and destroying the schools of their little brothers that the young people in the Parisian banlieue will obtain the qualifications which could open up employment to them. Commissioner Figel has announced the intention of doubling by 2012 the number of beneficiaries of the Erasmus programme (university student exchanges) because “these students are very successful once they enter the labour market”. Jean Figel is from Slovakia. A few years ago, on a visit to Slovakia as a candidate for accession, I asked what attributes the country had to assert itself in the EU. A civil servant replied: the relaunch of its agriculture thanks to the CAP, and its education system. How many mms is this true of? The first result depends on the EU's institutions, the second on young people. Everybody must take their responsibilities.
(F.R.)