Four principles. Pascal Lamy and his staff in Geneva are busily working on the next phase of the “Doha Round” of the WTO (World Trade Organisation), and for the moment all is silent. Overall, the conclusions of the Hong Kong round of negotiations have been given a rather cool reception, as unsatisfactory and insufficient compromises. This is not my opinion. Certainly, the great leap to radical liberalisation of services, industrial products and agriculture that was so wished for in certain capital cities did not happen. Nonetheless, some basic principles advanced, and they are, in my opinion, more important than any further reduction in Customs duty. What principles are these? Here are four from the list: a) the priority of the new round is a better balance between rich and poor countries; b) free trade in itself cannot ensure the progress of the poorest countries, it can, however, exclude them from the global market; c) freedom of trade cannot be considered as an autonomous objective, separated from social and environmental considerations; d) agriculture is not just another economic sector.
These principles are there and it is now impossible to ignore them. I know that they are not shared by everyone and that powerful interests are leading some governments to reject them, with the support of non-governmental organisations whose finances are not always transparent (Pascal Lamy remarked that in Hong Kong Oxfam had greater manpower than the WTO). But we cannot go back over what has been done: what was rejected in Hong Kong will not be approved in the next round of negotiations. Things can be summed up in three points: a) the least well-off countries will not be deprived of their preferential status in the markets of rich countries so as not to exclude them from world trade; b) emerging countries, especially Brazil, will not cease protecting their industries and services; c) Europe will not sacrifice its agriculture on the altar of free trade.
Mandelson has understood. I've been saying it forever, the third point is vital for Europe and this is becoming more and more recognised. EU negotiator Peter Mandelson gives the impression of having given a lot of thought to it over the year, and to have understood agriculture has significance far beyond its commercial importance. At the end of November, he wrote, “the level of Customs reductions being sought by Brazil and the United States would mean the disappearance of entire sectors in Europe, Japan and Korea and the removal of the lifesaving assistance enjoyed by the poorest countries in Africa and the Caribbean thanks to their preferential access to the European market. The interests of the most competitive agricultural exporters do not coincide with the interests of the poorest countries”. These latter would have a great deal to gain from increased liberalisation f industrial trade and of services, which account for half of their exports. I would add that by developing their food producing agriculture, instead of monoculture for export, the poorest countries would advance to a reasonable degree of food self-suffiency. Trade would maybe lose something, but Humanity would gain a great deal.
What is essential. In Mr Mandelson's attitude, one could fear there was something tactical that could lead him to make later concessions in agriculture, against others' concessions in industry and services. Clearly, every good negotiator must be a good tactician, and Peter Mandelson is a good negotiator. But I believe that he is sincere in his awareness of what is at stake for Europe. In any case, Mariann Fischer Boel, the Agriculture Commissioner, will stay at his side, and within the Council, which decides the extent of European concessions, there is a majority which will prevent any further slippage, or at least enough to block it. If I had to make a prediction, I would say that European concessions in agriculture will continue to decline rather than the opposite because a deadline for the end of export subsidies has been set, and nothing is on the table to replace them. Export subsidies have to go, insofar as they harm the production of the poorest countries and artificially disturb international markets. At any rate to secure Europe's nature, biodiversity, territorial balance and self-sufficiency in food, what is needed is not subsidies, but Community preference, that is the right for the EU to maintain agricultural activity across all of its territory, for the good of Europe and also for the good of the world, which will increasingly be in need of it. All this is beginning to become clear for all to see.
(F.R.)