World Congress of Young Farmers - Closing speech given by M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic (excerpts), Paris 13.06.2003

(...)

It is with real pleasure, President, that I accepted your invitation to the World Congress of Young Farmers.

I wish to welcome you all, young farmers from over 120 countries worldwide, to France. We feel for you great respect, gratitude and friendship.

This world congress is an important event. The farmer’s profession, the most widespread profession in the world, is also too frequently misunderstood. We have to bear in mind that agriculture is not just limited to the commercial framework in which it is too often confined by the international negotiations. Agriculture is more importantly about facing the major social and ethical challenges of our world, such as human dignity and human development.

There is no human dignity when an individual’s subsistence is not guaranteed. The fight against poverty and hunger calls for the national and international adoption of suitable economic, environmental and social policies. In Evian a few days ago, we reasserted our determination to work to eliminate the problems of malnutrition by 2015. We had extremely productive discussions on this subject with the President of Brazil, whose generous proposals I commend. These discussions further strengthened our determination.

Farmers have a central role to play in the fight against malnutrition.

Farming is a noble profession since its primary goal is to feed people. It is also noble in terms of the special relationship that farmers have with nature and in terms of their capacity to adapt everywhere in the world. There is not just one type of agriculture, but a range of types of agriculture depending on the climate, soil and crops.

The farming profession holds a key place in all our societies. It is justifiably highly respected, and this respect must be maintained. In addition to its productive function, farming helps ensure proper land-use planning in developed countries. In developing countries, it remains the basis for social and economic organization, without which any development is doomed to fail.

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY/FOOD AID/ACCESS TO WATER

No country has emerged from underdevelopment without first being helped by its farmers. The world-level debates on agriculture, before concerning international trade, are fundamentally debates on food sovereignty – a sovereignty that relies on agricultural development.

I am surprised to see the extent to which this obvious fact has gradually disappeared from development discussions and actions over the last twenty years.

Hunger-oriented agronomists have been replaced by other experts, who have too often overlooked or misunderstood the agricultural issue. Yet, with transport infrastructures, agriculture is still the basis for sustainable economic development particularly in the poorest countries.

Admittedly, the international institutions, and first and foremost the FAO, take useful action. We have undertaken to increase development assistance credits, which had fallen to unacceptable levels. Yet certain actions need to be reconsidered, since they trigger adverse effects that can no longer be ignored. For example, food aid, so necessary, so vital in emergencies, hinders and even prevents agricultural development when it becomes systematic. Recipient countries now justifiably wish to break free of this dependence.

Yet food sovereignty is hard to guarantee for each country, because it is impeded by strong agronomic, climatic and demographic constraints. Every year, fifteen million hectares are gained for agriculture worldwide, but eight million disappear due to soil erosion and urbanization. Likewise, access to water is often an insurmountable obstacle. This is why the commitments made, this year, in Kyoto and then in Evian to mobilize international assistance and private investment in water resources are so important.

All of these constraints give farming its unique position in local economies and world trade.

FOOD INSECURITY/TRADE GLOBALIZATION

Farming is not a run-of-the-mill economic activity. It is, more than any other, constrained by natural phenomena difficult to control. Biological rhythms govern the production cycles, which are long and call for considerable capital compared to the expected income. Despite progress in the fight to protect animals and crops, farming is still highly sensitive to attacks from external pathological agents. This constant uncertainty as to production volumes and their quality creates food insecurity.

I would add that a foodstuff is not and can never be just an ordinary product. It affects both a country’s biological balances and its cultural traditions.

This gives good reason for handling food products with particular attention in the debates on the globalization of trade. We should adopt a balanced approach that respects each country’s national culture and level of development.

Everyone recognizes the economic and social utility of developing world trade. Everyone agrees that more stable foundations should be built for this. Yet it also needs to be said that the history and geographic and social reality of each country requires long and different development processes. It is these processes that give good reason why the "trade preferences" should continue to exist and be encouraged for a given country or group of countries.

I therefore propose a pragmatic and proactive approach. This consists firstly of properly clarifying our goals in keeping with the commitments made by France and her partners in Monterrey and Johannesburg.

CANCUN

Our goal in agriculture should be to guarantee food security for all. The international trade talks must not lose sight of this.

When the "development round" was launched, we undertook to reduce farming subsidies, especially export subsidies. Progress in this area will be one of the keys to the success of the ministerial meeting in Cancun in September, which the President talked about just now. We can only make progress down this road, this necessary road, on three conditions:

The first is the commitment to and sincerity of all in such an approach. All the countries concerned must take part in it and all the export subsidies must be taken into account, regardless of their form and level.

The second condition is to gradually reduce the subsidies. This transitional phase is essential not just for the producers benefiting from these subsidies, but also for the consumers. Indeed, today, export subsidies act as consumer subsidies in the poor countries. Any sudden price increase would create economic and social risks for the importing countries.

The third condition, which is a consequence of the second, is firstly to target those subsidies that indisputably have a destabilizing effect on the poorest countries, especially the sub-Saharan African countries.

We should be wary of theoretical and across-the-board approaches that may not ultimately produce the expected result. This is the essence of the proposals that I presented to the Africa-France Summit in February and that I supported at Evian, which have also been adopted by the European Union.

- Simple, clear and sustainable specific preferential trading system for the African countries granted by all the industrialized countries.

- Debates on how to protect poor producers from the volatility of commodity markets. This is a complex issue, but one on which indifference is no longer tolerated.

- Thirdly, a moratorium on all export subsidies, regardless of what they are, that destabilize African food production. The objective is clear. There are local producers who do not export, but make their living in local markets. They should not be destabilized by unexpected waves of imports.

And at the root of all that, as the President said earlier, there’s the need to ensure that every farmer can live in dignity from the fruits of his or her work.

This proposal did not meet with everyone’s agreement at Evian, but Europe is maintaining it for Cancun since this trade round has to be the "development round".

CAP

Along the same lines, the constant challenging of the European Common Agricultural Policy needs to be met with a few honest facts. The CAP is not responsible for all the world’s woes.

The CAP is a good policy. It is the trunk from which Europe’s branches have grown and it is still an essential element of Europe’s identity. It has enabled Europe to gain food self-sufficiency and build a modern agricultural sector. The debates on the enlargement to bring in ten new countries have clearly shown its integrating role, a central role for the European Union. A further four million farmers will benefit from it as of next year.

The Common Agricultural Policy is not the farmer’s enemy in the developing countries. The accusations of dumping and market closure are false or dishonest. This is clear simply from the fact that the most crucial crops for the income of developing-country farmers are cotton, rice, peanuts, coffee and cocoa, of which Europe produces little or none.

In reality, many of the criticisms of the CAP are outmoded. Although partially true twenty years ago, they are no longer true today, because the CAP has evolved a great deal in terms of both expenditure level and export subsidies.

European agricultural spending stabilized some years ago and is now capped. However, American agricultural spending has risen sharply and will continue to rise.

European export subsidies have been sharply cut. Only a third as much is spent on refunds [EU export subsidy payments compensating for differences in prices between the world and EU markets] as ten years ago and it accounts for only 5% of agricultural spending.

Lastly, the European Union needs no advice from anyone as regards trade relations with the developing countries and the least-developed countries. The EU is today their number-one customer for agricultural products. It absorbs 85% of African agricultural exports and nearly 50% of South American agricultural exports. Overall, the European Union imports more from the developing countries than the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan put together. Which means it has no need to have any hang-ups about it. Which doesn’t exempt it from the need to make efforts.

This is why I will continue to defend the CAP. I will do it out of respect for the producers, European and non-European farmers alike, who have the right to fair remuneration for their work, and for the countries that wish to maintain their agricultural sovereignty and ensure their farmers go on being able to earn a living, I repeat, with dignity, from their work.

Farming is a political issue. I would not be here among you if I did not firmly believe that. The agricultural policies are totally legitimate. By defending the CAP we’re not only acting for the European Union, but also enabling any country that so wishes to develop original agricultural policies that satisfy the needs of its population.

Yet, paradoxically, the CAP also needs to be defended within the European Union. France is doing so tirelessly along with the member States that are convinced, like us, that it is an asset and not a handicap. This is the essence of our positions in the current debates. It is also why we will not accept just any agreement with Brussels and why we will refuse any risk of paying twice, once in June and then in Cancun.

People all too often forget that behind all these debates are men, women and families whose income depends on our choices. This is particularly true for the farmers in developing countries.

FOOD SECURITY/AGRICULTURE/DEVELOPING COUNTRIES/GMOs

There are two ways of responding to the food-security imperative in the developing countries. The first is to consider that all we need do is supply food products at the lowest cost on the world market in order to make them accessible to the largest number of people. The second is based on developing local farming to enable a maximum number of countries to achieve food sovereignty.

This second course of action is far more demanding. Yet experience has shown that it is the most responsible and sustainable path. It does not simply consist in giving the poor countries the means to survive. It gives them control over their development. It offsets the shortcomings of an agricultural trade liberalization that does not benefit the least-privileged countries. Over the last few years, sub-Saharan Africa’s share of world trade has halved. The WTO’s purely commercial approach is not enough to trigger a real agricultural development dynamic, of which the world’s growing population and the poorest countries have the greatest need.

We now have to address this issue differently. Put agriculture back at the heart of what is at stake for the poorest countries in terms of economic development. Restore meaning to the agricultural policies and step up development assistance and technical assistance wherever it is needed. The developing countries have a right to modern agricultural techniques. They have the right, like us, to pursue the goal of economically-strong and ecologically-responsible agriculture.

Improving technical productivity, organizing processing channels, developing the necessary financial services, assisting the professional organization of farmers, improving the training of men and women, and ensuring that new farmers enter the sector are all challenges that we have to take on together.

Technological progress is decisive in this regard. Technological progress has to be put to work for the development of poor countries. We must address the issue of genetically-modified organisms in this spirit. We have to be sure that they satisfy real needs and that the precautionary principle, which is essential, is properly observed. We also have to make sure that GMOs do not become an additional factor of developing-country farmers’ dependence, especially when it comes to seed-producing companies.

Today all these conditions haven’t in my view been met. In addition, each country must be able to make this choice in a totally sovereign and responsible manner.

NEPAD

The agricultural development strategies call for strong political mobilization. In this regard, I commend, in friendship and with respect, the NEPAD initiative taken by the Africans. They have put together a mobilizing and ambitious plan of action, which I support fully, along with the leaders of the other G8 countries who met in Evian last week.

FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE

In addition to the important decisions already made, announced and implemented, such as increasing development assistance, I would like to present to you this morning an initiative that I intend to promote in the coming months: the creation in France of a foundation for agriculture and rural development worldwide.

Such a foundation will allow the promotion of a modern and human model of agriculture and rurality. It will be supported by professionals and by our French research centres, whose quality is world-renowned. Its status will give it all the necessary flexibility to implement the concrete projects called for by an effective cooperation policy, particularly in favour of the developing countries.

We shall thus be able to provide high-level technical assistance to the poorest countries and organize think-tanks on agricultural strategies for development.

I see this project as being open to all partner countries interested in this pragmatic and ambitious approach.

President, Ladies and gentlemen,

We have a duty to make all farmers in all countries real and responsible economic and social players, capable of shouldering their responsibilities. I am confident that this will happen, seeing the abundant resources in each of you. You are the agriculture of the twenty-first century and this is why I wanted to pay tribute to you.

We owe you respect because you produce our food. On every continent, your passion and determination wave a flag of optimism for our common future. I wish to share this optimism with you.

Thank you./.