In my opinion (which, admittedly, is not shared by everyone), developments in the "Doha Round" of world trade negotiations are not as bad as they are made out to be. What are the essential objectives of humanity, today? Fighting hunger throughout the world by helping the least-favoured countries to develop their subsistence production, whilst safeguarding nature and biodiversity. Trade interests must also take account of these priority requirements. Seen from this point of view, negotiations at the WTO are developing positively. Customs reductions in the industrial sector, perhaps, fall somewhat short of what had been hoped for and the liberalisation of services is somewhat slower. This is not a dramatic prospect, either for the world in general or for Europe in particular as, whatever may be said on the subject, Europe's priority is to safeguard its autonomy in food production, its nature and its countryside and, therefore, its agricultural activity. And it is giving the impression that it has taken this on board.
Safeguarding European agriculture. Thirteen Member States, i.e. most of them, have specified their joint position at the current stage in agricultural negotiations. Without going into detail (see our bulletin 9154), they have reiterated the view that the offer already on the table "has exhausted, possibly even exceeded" the EU's room for manoeuvre in this sector. The number and regime of sensitive products cannot be scaled down in the slightest, the special safeguard clause and the entry prices must be kept as they are. In the absence of effective counteroffers on the part of the "major emerging countries" in the field of industrial products and services (it is worth emphasising that no demands have been made of the poorest countries in these fields), the EU's agricultural offer should, if anything, be reduced, in order to keep the overall balance of negotiations. I do not take the view that this EU text is a negotiating position, rather a declaration that the demands of the "Cairns group" are unacceptable, because they would bring about the end of agriculture and all territorial balance in Europe, whilst at the same time removing the poor countries from the European market.
Maintaining advantages in favour of the ACP countries and other least-favoured countries. Most of the ACP countries seem to have grasped that the only way to keep hold of their commercial outlets lies in keeping hold of the preferences they enjoy on the European market and, if possible, their extension to other markets, not in the opening up of the European agricultural markets erga omnes. The financial compensation called for by the ACP in exchange for trade preferences are not the right answer, because such compensation rarely gets to the farmers it is meant for and, in any case, do nothing to guarantee the continuity and development of their production. The demands of the Cairns group (and Oxfam's campaigns for the same) are ruinous to the poor countries, as proved by the cases of bananas and sugar (and, tomorrow, rice and rum). European subsidies must go to help local subsistence production, taking them closer to food autonomy, and discourage cash-crops for export, which make the countries of Africa eternally dependent on food imports. The EU must: a) listen to the commercial demands of the ACP countries (including staggering the opening-up of their markets and their confusion relating to the economic partnership agreements, EPAs, concerning which I would really, really like to take Louis Michel to one side and hear his real opinion); b) be a lot more circumspect when dealing with their requests for financial compensation, as the actual destination and effects of this are often somewhat dubious.
Rules and disciplines. The expanding export capacities of China and, gradually, of various other giants, is practically without limit, and this tidal wave will soon wipe out entire branches of European industry and agriculture, if this opening-up of the borders is not accompanied by full respect for standards in the field of intellectual property, quality, and the out-and-out war against counterfeit products. Agricultural products which fail to fulfil European standards can be harmful to health. Full and entire respect for Community provisions must go hand-in-hand with access to the EU market, constituting a "sine qua non" condition of it. There should not be a hierarchy of standards at the WTO: any country failing to respect one should not have the right to benefit from the others. For example, systematic infringement of rules on intellectual property should be punished not by a few timely measures against such and such a cargo discovered at an inspection, but by a generalised withdrawal of access rights for the category of products in question.
(F.R.)