I think that the way the EU institutions (the Commission for the main part) are negotiating the agricultural chapter in the Doha Round at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is totally wrong. Neither do I agree with the official position of France in support of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In a meeting with young people at the time of the battle over the constitutional referendum, Jacques Chirac defended the CAP by arguing that European funding for this policy meant that France could avoid becoming an excessive “net contributor” to the Community budget. Of course it is normal that the president of the Republic is also concerned about this aspect; but the fundamental reasons why Europe must safeguard its farming are of a different category. Agricultural activity must be maintained in Europe to safeguard nature, territorial balance, different traditions, landscapes etc, and to the displeasure of the fanatics of globalisation, the continent's food self-sufficiency. Young people don't want to hear about the budgetary reasons!
An argument that doesn't hold water. What actually happened in Geneva, was that the EU, with France's agreement, established an automatic link between dismantling protection of agricultural activity and reducing US subsidies to its farmers. Although the USA is reducing its subsidies, Europe is agreeing to a further opening up of its borders to agricultural products from the whole world. This argument is absurd. The US still certainly has a certain margin for further subsidy reductions but what would be the effect of such a massive decrease as that, in my opinion, so stupidly demanded by other negotiators? Has Europe been won over? The answer is quite simple: a radical reduction in US agricultural production (because average living standards would not be guaranteed for all farmers) and at the same time, the disappearance of a sizeable part of agricultural production in Europe (due to the additional opening up of its borders that the EU would accept in exchange). This is happening at the very moment when at other WTO bodies there is very serious talk about the risk of world food shortages and dangers in certain regions of unreasonable agricultural development that are likely to have a detrimental impact on forests, the climate, water resources and food safety!
The US and Europe are in the avant-garde (together with a few other countries like New Zealand, and particularly Canada and Australia) in the development of environmentally-friendly farming that promotes food safety. There are, of course, irregularities but these are pursued according to EU rules (see the case of Brittany) and subject to increasing scrutiny and stringency. The world needs US and European farming for both food and ecological reasons, as well as to help save what remains of biodiversity.
Contradictions. The way the agricultural chapter is being negotiated at the Doha Round is therefore in radical contradiction to the efforts being made by other bodies in the field of climate, forests, water, food shortages, the fight against starvation in the world and the revival of food production in poor countries.
There are certainly a lot of things that need correcting in Europe and the USA. Export subsidies, in particular, need to be got rid of whenever they hinder the relaunch of local production in Africa or elsewhere. Some abusive and excessive domestic subsidies should also be eliminated. But the legend, according to which the opening up of the EU's borders will benefit poor countries, has to be ended once and for all because the end of European preferences in favour of ACP countries will be to the advantage of China, Brazil and a few other major exporters, while the ACP will be eliminated from the European market, the biggest outlet for these countries' agricultural products. At the same time, Europe has to efficiently protect its products against falsified labelling, fight against illegal trafficking and control the origins of foodstuffs on the market. The European Commission should stop assessing the consequences of opening up its borders in terms of compensation to European farmers that have had their outlets removed, and instead, analyse the repercussions on agricultural activity and territorial balance in the Union.
We can see that my concerns are very distant from those that prevail in Brussels or even in Paris and I am surprised not to have seen them taken up at the European Parliament. Despite all this, the Doha Round should not be abandoned but should be concluded in other conditions. I'll be talking about these tomorrow. (F.R.)