With strong farming connections myself, I can understand
the uncertainty UK farmers have felt recently as the EU undertook CAP reform.
Nobody wanted to see more upheaval. So, travelling to Cancun, Mexico for
the World Trade Organisation talks my aim was to see progress through the
mandate of the CAP reform.
It upset me to hear the G21 countries blame Europe for
the breakdown of the talks. I felt decoupling had brought a spirit
of reform to the negotiations. At the end of the last parliamentary session
the CAP reform we had debated and amended in agriculture committee, represented
genuine reform.
We moved away from trade distorting subsidies for
production, yet guaranteeing farmers' income for looking after
their land and good agricultural practice. It was disappointing
that during the final negotiations in the Council of Ministers,
where ministers from the member states of Europe debate the proposals,
Margaret Beckett let the French delay implementation, but I saw
decoupling as being a great start to the negotiations. I was also
pleased we had got the reform through, as this determined the parameters
within which the European Commission (which was negotiating on
behalf of Europe) could operate, providing certainty for our farmers.
Europe's position was clearly determined, and we had made
the first moves on reform, so how was it that the conclusion of the conference
saw no major agreement? The media have knocked the EU and US, the
easy targets for vitriol. But the G21 countries must take some
responsibility. As I watched this lose alliance grow so did my incredulity.
To see Brazil which has always been in favour of trade
openness and India, which has some of the world's highest tariffs, share
a political platform would have been amusing if the consequences
of this alliance had not been so damaging. Their blocking of legal
and commercial reforms in this round will mean moves towards free
trade have not advanced as they could have done.
What will this mean for the future? The conclusion of
the CAP negotiations
(barring those on sugar, olive oil, tobacco and cotton) has set the guidelines
for both farming within Europe, and the line which will be taken in negotiations
for the foreseeable future, That means the G21 will be unable to blackmail
us for a compete ceasing of EU farm support before they consider discussion
on the "Singapore
Issues" which seek to open up public procurement, and make trade easier
in services.
But my goal is not just British security, but also a freer
global trade system and progress for developing countries. I feel the two
goals are compatible, and that decoupling provides that compatibility. However,
the G21 countries my not fully understand the European reform,
particularly as Europe and the US, which has not made any effort to reform
its subsidy system, negotiated under the same position in this conference.
The European Parliament delegation, which was sidelined
by the Commission from the official negotiations, despite being the elected
representative of Europe held several inter-parliamentary conferences
with other parliamentary delegations. It was a great privilege to represent
the EP, and these conferences made the negotiations for me. We had a chance
to hear other states' point of view and discovered much common
ground.
We left with a declaration stating our common aims and
affirming our faith in WTO negotiations. These parliamentary conferences
incorporated states such as India and Mexico, countries that seemed
totally against agreement in the official negotiations. That makes
me wonder whether the problems in this round were more ones of communication.
If that is the case, with better articulation next time,
decoupling could provide a base for negotiation. I hope so and
think at the next negotiations in the EP delegation can play an important
role in achieving this for the good of us all.
