Hypocrisy. The avalanche of declarations and commentaries about the dangers of a world food crisis raises a number of concerns, hopes and indignation all at the same time. The concerns involve the seriousness of the risk of famine threatening hundreds of millions of people. There are hopes for resolute positions being taken, and calls for broad and swift intervention leading to appropriate responses. Indignation surrounds the hypocrisy of those who are still fighting to get rid of agricultural production in the EU and in other rich countries, as part of their aim to impose global free trade in agriculture but who still continue to denounce insufficient food production. Even British Conservatives now allow themselves to affirm that Europe has the moral responsibility to produce food. This position follows years of doing their best to make this impossible.
Imperative number one. We appear to have discovered that the correct orientation is, in principle, quite simple - to help poor countries return to producing food essentially for their own people by bringing single-crop farming for export to an end, which has: a) in Africa, above all, but not exclusively, ruined any possibility of being self-sufficient in food; b) destroyed traditional production and their territorial balance and created monstrosities of cities; c) provoked a food dependency, which we don't know when or how can ever be ended. These three effects are beneficial to big trade and big distribution interests, as well as to a certain number of multinationals. Many different forces are pushing on in the wrong direction, including short-sighted or corrupt governments in poor countries, some of the large world organisations like the IMF and the World Bank, and powerful pressure groups such as OXFAM. The goal was to get rid of agricultural trade in the world at all cost and prevent developed countries providing their farmers with a quality of life that was similar to that in other social categories.
Incorrigible. In some areas we are beginning to read some quite reasonable remarks. One example: “For decades, the IMF and World Bank encouraged third world countries to give up subsistence farming and convert to export-led agriculture (cacao, coffee, vanilla) because export prices enabled them to pay back their debts to western banks”. It appears that for other fundamental aspects, however, the penny has still not dropped. The forces that for decades did their utmost to oppose Europe's food self-sufficiency and make it impossible do not recognise that they got it wrong. The actual situation, however, speaks volumes. Why has the EU left some of its land fallow? To produce less and subsequently open up its borders to imported products. Take the case of rice. It's practically a miracle that the EU has succeeded in still protecting its production, which is, nonetheless, irreplaceable in certain zones (some parts of the Po plains and the Camargue) as a way of safeguarding the humid zones and maintaining farming. Today, we are discovering that there is not enough rice in the world and certain big producer countries are banned from exporting it.
Some imbecilic slogans are still in fashion and even a figure like Emma Bonino goes back to the archives for the story of the CAP donating two dollars a day to every cow, when in fact hundreds of millions of people in the world are still living on less than a dollar a day. It is obvious that the two European dollars are not aimed at calves or cows but rather as a means of allowing European farmers to send their kids to school, to benefit from a day's rest each week and a minimum of social guarantees. The Swedish and a few other governments are continuing to fight for an EU that does not give a single Euro to its farming and that pursues the total opening up of its agricultural borders. Following which, we can kiss goodbye to nature in Europe, say adieu to landscapes and bid farewell to food self-sufficiency: the way ahead will be open to food blackmail on the EU by third countries and it will be impossible to help fight famine in the world. This is not just a European problem.
Why are US farmers allocating a large part of their maize production to biofuels? Because of pressure on the US to give up subsidising food production; they are therefore subsidising oil substitutes. We could cite other examples.
Battle on two fronts. How is it possible that there are still Europeans who do not understand the necessity of the EU waging war on the two most difficult and essential fronts in the world: the simultaneous battle against famine in poor countries and protecting the environment and biodiversity.?
(F.R.)