The EU will have to take the conclusions of the UN Special Rapporteur into account o, “the right to food” (see this column yesterday), as well as his position expressed in the final phase of the Doha Round in Geneva when defining the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The analyses of Olivier de Schutter indicate, in particular, that far from improving the food situation in poor countries, total liberalisation of agricultural trade makes it worse and is one of the causes of famine. Every continent or group of countries should produce the mainstay of food for its population and move in the direction of food autonomy and rejection of monoculture for exports.
Mr Ziegler's mistake. The previous UN Special Rapporteur on this matter, Jean Ziegler, undoubtedly had a lot of merit in highlighting the evidence behind famine risks in the world and denouncing the abuses committed by the financial world, but he understood nothing about international agricultural trade. Although his appeal to end subsidies and encourage production by the two main agricultural producers in the world (the EU and US) did not fall on deaf ears, world food shortages have multiplied. This did not, however, prevent Mr Zeigler from describing US use of maize for biofuels as “a crime against humanity”. This constitutes demagogy on Mr Ziegler's part. Why? Because getting rid of subsidies to US production, which he mentions, would have made the US maize for human consumption vanish! Similar effects would result from getting rid of subsidies to farming in Europe. Abuses do exist in the aid given to production and they need to be fought but support is crucial, not for competing with production in less favoured countries but because it is necessary to recognise that European and American farmers have the right to a quality of life that is similar to other categories of the working population, and especially because this allows them to meet the increasing demands over quality, product safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. These demands should gradually become compulsory everywhere because they are indispensable; avant-garde producers who are showing the way should not be penalised but on the contrary, encouraged and protected.
European and American agricultural production is indispensable for tackling threatening world shortages and famine. Even within the EU, it is common agricultural Policy (CAP) surpluses that make initiatives such as the restaurants du Coeur (translator's note: programme providing free meals to the poor) possible and which finance the schools' fruit and vegetable distribution programme.
The orientations that would lead Europe to the abandonment of the countryside, the destruction of nature and landscapes and the end of age-old practices (whether they aim to promote more industrial trade, big business or which are simple good intentions) are seriously mistaken and should be rejected (like Mr Ziegler and Oxfam) in connection with the interests of poor countries and their populations.
Ongoing progress. Fortunately, the positions defended for years in this column are gaining ground. On 28 November last, an overwhelming majority of the EU Agriculture Council approved the “conclusions on the future of the CAP”, even if the opposition of three countries (United Kingdom, Sweden and Latvia) imposed the character of Presidency conclusions on this text. These conclusions affirm that the new CAP will have to confront new challenges: an increase in world demand for food; increasing environmental demands; new health risks and the need for quality standards and high levels of safety (EUROPE 9793). At the same time, the collectively written “Looking for European Interest” (sic) edited by Philippe Herzog, devotes a chapter to agriculture that goes in the right direction. A few quotations summarise the gist of the text by Jean-Marie Aurand (our translation), “We are used to considering the CAP within the logic of mastering production. The current situation of food shortages again bestows the CAP with its raison d'être. It is not supporting an outmoded sector. It is, on the contrary, an eminently strategic policy, in the same way as energy independence. These are the stakes at play in the food challenge. The political debate must come before the budgetary debate…Agriculture is at the heart of the planet's major ecological balances and an indispensable factor in the preservation of natural resources and biodiversity…In order to meet the four-fold challenge in Europe - food, the environment, energy and regions - the CAP will have to protect Community preference, stabilise the markets and maintain a sufficient budget”. Is it necessary for me to say that I agree entirely? (F.R./transl.rh)