Texte intégral
"Do our agricultural policies starve the poor and developing countries ?"
Mister Chairman, dear Steve Clemons,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me first thank you whole heartedly for your warm welcome. I feel at the same time most proud and honored that the New America Foundation has invited me to this discussion on Agriculture and Development. I strongly believe that think tanks such as yours play an important and necessary role in policy-making. I do feel that it is necessary to discuss and confront our views and to come up with fresh approaches, if we want to meet the challenges of our time.
Furthermore, I know how meaningful is your institution for the policy being discussed in Washington D.C.. I read a recent article in The Washington Post describing your Foundation as a non-partisan think tank well-suited for talentuous young fellows willing to make up fresh and innovative thinking.
I don't know if I am young enough or talentuous in any way, but I am going to do my best to fulfill your expectations towards insiders.
Do our agricultural policies starve the poor and developing countries ?
I feel that this concern should be adressed from different standpoints.
First, we should appreciate whether public intervention is justified in agriculture and why it is not appropriate for this industry, as many others, to hold its own in international competition?
Farmers are much more vulnerable to economic volatility and uncertainty than any other profession. Agriculture is indeed a land-based activity, heavily exposed to climatic hazards, and because land cannot be adjusted to price fluctuations and market changes.
It is by and large that the pros of public support outreach the cons: it provides landcapes of an overwhelming diversity that greatly contribute to the tourist industry. It offers a better response to consumers and citizens, that increasingly require quality, an effective identification of the food's origin as well as a more preserved environment. European and American stances on non-trade issues in the World Trade Organization should be rather close.
Lastly, I can assure you that I share President Bush's vision of farming. As he expressed in the strongest and most courageous terms during the 2000 campaign, competitive farming and a strong farm economy are part of the U.S. national security. And I believe that what is true in this country could be equally true in Europe and in developing countries.
Agriculture has always been a sector on its own. Agriculture remains a sector on its own, and it is sensible to assume that public policy, either in the North or in the South, should be maintained to support it effectively.
You may then wonder whether trade is a more efficient tool for development than aid ?
In this respect, I do believe that ideology must give way to evidence. International negotiations, our common beliefs, our set of values are too often inspired by ready-made ideas, rather than experience and facts. Let me give you two examples:
It is time to acknowledge that the world price has become a myth. The world price does not fulfill the social and environmental expectations of our people. Isn't it why American authorities and farmers have set up marketing loans and various target prices?
Developing countries that heavily rely on exports, to the detriment of a more diversified production, are very vulnerable to prices' fluctuation. A study conducted by Mary Burfisher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that this volatility mainly stems from non trade factors, such as climate. Isn't it time, as I suggested this morning to James Wolfensohn, the Chairman of the World Bank, to help developing countries benefit from stable and predictable income for their exports, and particularly for tropical products ? I believe that innovative solutions can be derived from past experience.
The intrinsic superiority of free trade is also a myth. Free trade is a tool. Free trade should not be a religion. All nations tend to promote free trade when they have competitive industries and to protect their domestic producers when their industries are not competitive. It is unfortunate that those that have low tariffs tend to protect their markets through non-trade barriers, that are less transparent and less predictible. This is why the World Trade Organization is the appropriate forum to strike a proper balance of interests among nations, through negotiation and a fair and impartial dispute settlement mechanism.
As far as development is concerned, recent International Monetary Fund studies show very clearly that further market openings would mainly benefit the world's greatest agricultural powers, and that net food importers among the world's poors would see their situation worsen.
If we are to achieve the objectives of the Doha development round, we must give preferential market access to the poorest countries. I know this sounds like a taboo in the World Trade Organization to question the most favoured nation clause, but I believe that we have to be creative and to show a greater political willingness in this respect. I also notice that the American Administration already decided to have a specific approach for Africa, through the African Growth Opportunities Act.
Lastly we should question ourselves whether we have to take for granted that what is given to farmers in the North is taken to farmers in the South ?
Personnaly, I don't think so. It depends very much on the way agricultural policies are structured.
In the World Trade Organization, we have to address the highly sensitive issue of export subsidies. We have to address it genuinely, and to encompass all policies that can affect developing countries. It means European export subsidies. It means American food aid, export credits and marketing loans. It means the Cairns group's marketing boards. All members must be put on an equal footing.
But we have also to revitalize development aid, more especially in the agricultural sector, if we want to help the poorest countries to bridge the gap in infrastructures, in environment and sanitary standards, in agronomy. It is our duty to help them develop their own agriculture, respond to their populations' needs and make the most of the export opportunities given to them in trade negotiations.
Europe and France does a lot for the poorest countries, notably in agriculture. It is a matter of fact that 80% of African agricultural products are directed towards Europe. President Jacques Chirac committed himself in doubling our development aid within 5 years. And it is also the responsibility of the United States to play an active role in development. The way out does not lay in "trade not aid", but in "trade and aid".
My last words will be for the World Trade Organization negotiations. The European position on Agriculture has just been made public in Geneva. It is my intention that France actively contributes to the negotiation, and I know that my country is ready to play the negotiating game. Europe will pursue its reforms with the firm intention to preserve and promote the European agricultural model.
I am convinced that, if all cards are put on the table and if all negotiating partners show a similar commitment, we will reach a fair outcome.
(Source http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr, le 4 février 2003)