The answer to that question is a long lecture that I did not prepare before I came. I will say first of all that agriculture means very different things from country to country. On the one hand, a global approach to agriculture is needed, as we are trying to do in Geneva. On the other hand, policies intrinsic to each country's agricultural situation are quite different.
In large areas of the world, agriculture means feeding oneself. In the context of a spectacular food crisis, this is development. To talk about agriculture in situations like that is to talk about subsistence. Life or death. In some parts of the word, that is what agriculture is: pure development. In those cases, countries must be given tools so that they can protect themselves at the most basic level, the very viability of the country.
In other countries, ours, for example, the situation is different. In the case of Europe—and I am now speaking for myself, not for the European Parliament—I do not believe that Europe should be striving for food self-sufficiency. I do not think that we need agricultural policies based on the idea that we have to one day be able to feed ourselves from what we produce. That is absurd. I do not believe that we should be designing an agricultural policy for a theoretical autocracy. I just do not believe it. Some take that position, but I do not. I am in favour of something very open.
At the same time, inside the European Union, agriculture is primarily a question of land. It has little to do with subsistence, development and poverty and a lot to do with land-use management. For us, agricultural policy is almost environmental policy. In some countries, they are even talking about merging ministries of agriculture and the environment. Agriculture is becoming an environmental matter. In an area like Europe, support for agriculture does not mean support for agricultural production as such, it means support for gardening, if I may put it like that.
Clearly, it is not for me to tell you how you should be dealing with it in your territory. I certainly understand that your emphasis is very different, given the balance that you have between population and land.
This must all be considered when we are sitting around a table. In Geneva, we must try to identify everyone's legitimate interests and needs, especially in democratic countries where everything comes down to voting. We all have to work towards a win-win situation, as you say yourselves.
At the same time, from the European point of view, I defend our right to bring into the discussion considerations of quality that others perhaps cannot bring in, as well as designations of origin. The European Union places enormous importance on geographic designations. Clearly, we cannot compete in quantity, now and even less so in the future, but we can compete in quality. That means strong support for, and strong defence of, geographic designations.