Rhetoric and demagogy. I owe my readers a few explanations. On 18 June 2002 I wrote about the FAO Summit in a way that stands out with regard to most other commentators, and I have argued on several occasions that fully opening the EU's borders to farm products from other continents would not help solve the problems of starvation in the world in the slightest, but would only make the situation worse. These ideas require some explanation and I will attempt to justify them in the simplest possible way by comparing "traditional" ideas with more in-depth ideas based on the facts published on the same day and in the same newspaper. I've taken as my source an unofficial translation of the French newspaper Libération of 14 June 2002 because it stands in the avant-garde of European media in terms of defending "third world" interests, is considered a "left-wing" paper and has given many column inches over to the FAO Summit, dedicating the entire front page on the day after the Summit ended to an article entitled "Non-assistance à peuples affamés" (Failing to help starving people), with a dramatic photo of starvation in Sudan on page 2 under the heading "The rich world is indifferent to the tragedy of starvation".
The editorial on page 3 continues along the same lines - "The rich countries' responsibility is overwhelming. Because it is the rich countries' protectionist policies and massive subsidies for the agri-food industry that prevent the planet's other farmers from profiting from agriculture which is often their only source of wealth". These lines include most of the false arguments inspired by rhetoric and demagogy of people who have never taken the trouble to examine the facts. It is true that the editorial also contains two statements closer to reality, that "wars and despotic regimes are the main cause of food catastrophes" and "terrorists couldn't care less about starvation in the world".
Experts in their field. But Libération has a very capable teams of journalists who are experts their field and sought information from people working "in the field". Let's first take the courageous and illuminating interview of Sylvie Brunel, who has specialised in world famine for the past 20 years and has written the best explanation in the least conventional book that I know on the subject ("Famines et politique", Presses de Sciences-Po, Paris). This is what she told Libération: "Famines today happened in countries where, a priori, one wouldn't have thought there would be problems because they are rich in fertile land, for example in Southern Africa. It is most of all countries which are disorganised on the economic and political fronts where famine is most likely to occur… Famines continue to occur because in some parts of the globe, the regulation and aid mechanisms have been wiped out and remain wiped out for political reasons. When food shortages lead to the deaths of thousands of people, like in Angola, it is because people have been deliberately sacrificed". Sacrificed by whom? Her book answers this question in detail, together with proof - by local politicians because of internal struggle or to get food aid which is often hived off for their armies. The interview goes on: "The amount of food produced in the world today is easily sufficient to eliminate any food shortages. There is nothing inevitable about famine, anywhere in the world. Every famine that occurs is allowed to happen". These are terrible sentences. Asked about the impact of liberalising agricultural markets, Sylvie Brunel said: "This is also a big factor in malnutrition. Undernourished people suffer from globalisation because they are exposed to the full blast of international prices for agricultural products which are totally unconnected with the costs of production".
NGOs in the know. What should be done? In the same issue of Libération, a few responses were given by the managers of NGOs active in the field.
1. Marie-Cécile Thirion (Solagral): "Most Senegal peasants try to live from groundnut oil. But in the market in Dakar it is more expensive than rapeseed oil imported from Europe, sold at a loss because of export subsidies". Lesson to be learned: the EU must not use the refund mechanism to export food to developing countries that competes with local products.
2. Caroline Bah (l'Afrique verte): "We are fighting against abuses of imports of food aid in Sahel countries… By undercutting prices, food aid totally destroys the local economy".
3. Jacques Boutrou (Centre international de coopération pour le développement agricole): "We are carrying out a programme on the upper plains of Bolivia. Quinoa is a fantastic plant,
rich in proteins, that the Indians have cultivated for thousands of years in difficult conditions, at high altitude. Today, the demand for this plant increases all the time in western countries. Buyer pressure may prove disastrous and at the end of the day contribute to desertification. The Indians only have this plant to live on. They must not be tempted to meet growing demand by no longer allowing soil time to recover with fallow periods". The lesson to be drawn from this is do not encourage local populations to produce for export food that they need for their own consumption.
4) Philippe Guichandut (CCFD - Catholic Committee against Hunger and for Development). "In Laos, we supported a project that began with the creation of a cooperative society. We invested in equipment for the production of jam and juice to allow the peasants to sell their production. Second chapter: the financing of micro-dams built by the farmers themselves to irrigate areas hitherto unused. This project shows that, with limited means, one can meet the basic needs of village populations".
5) Antonio Onorati (Crocevia). "In Peru, at the request of the Catacaos indians, we reintroduced trees of the "Algarobo" species that had been cut down by the English to build the railway. There had practically all disappeared. We took seed samples, which we germinated, then we placed them in nurseries before mass replanting. In the northern part of the Mozambique, we selected food crop seeds that were the best suited to the terrain, the climate and the needs of the populations. Today, there is even a small production factory".
In obvious contrast. The contrast between these initiatives (and thousands of other similar ones) and the language of the FAO is striking. I continue to cite the same edition of "Liberation". "A person dies of hunger every four seconds", insisted FAO leaders in order to dramatise the situation and justify their request for increasing its own allocation (half of which is taken up by administrative expenses). It is well known that the official declaration of the summit takes up the usual demands and accusations, but Pascal Bergeret, the official in charge of the platform of 50 French NGOs present, affirmed: "the official declaration affirms that trade is the main solution for hunger: which is unacceptable!".
For me, it is obvious that an effort must be made to create conditions for reactivating farm production in under-developed countries (some spectacular results, in India for example, prove that government policies can be effective). In the meantime, the humanitarian body of the EU, ECHO, effectively intervenes everywhere where there are emergency situations. If its action is sometimes hampered it is because of conflicts or the attitude of local authorities. Unlike the facile statement made by demagogues, it is wrong to say that rich countries are indifferent to the drama of hunger. At least, it is wrong as far as Europe is concerned. The EU may sometimes get its policy wrong, like when it subsidies certain exports that have adverse effects on local production elsewhere, or when it believes that the total liberalisation of world agricultural trade is a useful formula. In these cases, such policies must be corrected without giving way to the pressure of the large exporting companies, or the authorities of the developing countries themselves.
Avoid getting the strategy wrong. Although you are allowed to draw approximate and imperfect conclusions from the above, I would like to make the following recommendations and statements of fact:
a) The strategy for fighting hunger in the world does not consist in stepping up the international trade of farm produce, but in helping under-developed countries to reach food self-sufficiency, which should become the top priority of all countries or groups of countries.
b) Trade policy must not encourage, in poor countries, the devastating single crop agriculture for export (which makes traders, multinationals and corrupt political classes rich) but food production for feeding the local populations.
c) International agricultural trade cannot be based on world prices, which are not sufficiently lucrative and which destroy the efforts made by the peasants of the poorest countries, mainly Africa.
d) Generalised and non-selective opening of the EU borders would take away from associate countries (especially ACP countries and Mediterranean third countries) the preferences which they currently enjoy (or what is left of them) and they would no longer be able to export to the European market a single banana or kilo of sugar, or even a clove of garlic, without having to face competition from the rest of the world.
e) EU financial support must not be intended for the FAO as a priority, or to other similar organisations, or to the political authorities of non-democratic countries, or serve to subsidise European exports, but go directly to the agricultural projects and to those who carry them out.
When we see pictures of children dying of hunger, we should not get the strategy wrong. You have a heavy heart when looking at some of the photos that reach us from North Korea - the country where its leaders have given priority to the atom bomb. Let us not forget it, while helping their innocent children. (F.R.)