A staggering document. I would define my reaction when learning of the latest WTO document on the Doha Round in the agricultural sector as “astonished interest”. At a time when the outlook for agriculture in the world is uncertain, world production is below consumption, the price of foodstuffs keeps on rising and there is a potential risk of famine, the document only gives technical details aimed at facilitating certain kinds of trade and radically reducing a number of production subsidies. Let us make no mistake about it: - this remark does not concern the author of the document. Mr Crawford Falconer's task is not to reflect upon the future of mankind and nature. He is no doubt a meticulous, careful person who has been asked to suggest a number of compromises between the positions of the Geneva negotiators. This he has done, indicating percentages, brackets, deadlines - customs duties should be reduced by between 48% and 52% for tariffs below 20%, between 55% and 60% for tariffs between 55% and 62%, and up to 73% for tariffs above 75%. He is just as exact when it comes to cutting subsidies, dates (additional access corresponding to 1% of domestic consumption from the first day of application of the agreement) and lists of sensitive products (details given are admirably precise and complex). Those concerned may refer to the detailed summary published in our bulletin No 9600 on 13 February.
Real questions are not raised. What is lacking in this document? Everything that matters and everything that political decision-makers need to take responsible decisions. To take just a few examples of the questions that could be asked: Would further opening of the borders of the EU and other developed countries cause a reduction in farm production and hence of food products available in the world? What would be the impact on nature and on environmental protection? Would imported products have to comply with environmental standards, rules on food safety, and rules on animal welfare and dignity? Has the real advantage for the developing countries been assessed and taken into consideration?
It was not, of course, Mr Falconer's task to answer such questions and the WTO does not have general competence to do so. The WTO is responsible for trade issues. Its aim is to facilitate trade. One could ask to what extent an international organisation responsible for trade should also take account of the impact of its work on nature, food, health and the respect due to the animal kingdom - a vast debate that will perhaps come some day and which should recognise the need for true collaboration between the WTO and other global organisations. In the meantime, governments are responsible for what is decided at the WTO, and the major negotiation rounds are concluded at the very highest level. Let the voices of political leaders be heard! It is true that European agriculture ministers have spoken out - 20 out of 27 have said Falconer's text is unacceptable (see yesterday's bulletin, No 9604). But some key member states are missing, with the United Kingdom and Sweden to the fore. At any rate, sometimes agriculture ministers do not have much influence on decisions when other, more powerful interests are at stake.
It is not a question of competition. Some heads of government have approached the president of the European Commission to persuade him to take the interests of agriculture into account. But neither the stance taken by ministers nor the approach made by a number of heads of government are up to the situation. They all give the impression of defending the interests of one specific category and activity against competition - so it boils down to a question of competition! But the stakes are quite different. They are to combat, today, the famines of tomorrow; safeguard agricultural activity everywhere in the world; encourage the food autonomy of every people; help the poor countries and Africa especially to restore their subsistence farming; return to more natural methods of production; protect food quality; reduce pointless transport of food stuffs; introduce transparency in labelling; and respect traditions and denominations. In addition to this, they must gradually but firmly reduce the cruelty to animals as the current situation is sometimes a disgrace for mankind. Animals were here on Earth before us. Let us avoid showing that those who say Man's appearance on Earth was a disaster for the planet and that Man's disappearance would be a relief for nature are right in what they say.
We must, therefore, avoid giving Falconer's text more importance than it really has.
(F.R.)