Truth against demagogy. It's not the first time that in flicking through "The Courier magazine of ACP-EU development cooperation" that I've found some real gems. I'm referring to the practical data pertaining to the real interests of the African and Caribbean countries and was as to poor countries in general, which in an ideal world, would be duly considered by European decision-makers. The main article in this issue (No. 197 March-April 2003) focuses on "food safety" and I was particularly struck by the article, "Foodstuffs and Food safety" by John Madely (author of "Food for All: need for a new agriculture").
From the outset, Mr Madely gets right to the core of his subject: if the WTO Ministerial meeting next September in Cancun decides on more liberalisation of agricultural trade, "This would mean that developing countries would export even more food to western countries. The wisdom of this trade is not sufficiently challenged. Food could be more beneficial to the poor if it stayed at home rather than being exported". The author cites the example of India, which ahs become the second largest exporter of rice in the world, "although 260 million of its inhabitants have no security concerning food" and African countries hit by famine, like Ethiopia, Malawi and Mozambique continue to export food. Madely points out that "Western governments and most academics, even some Northern-based NGOs, support exports of food from food insecure countries, citing the theory of comparative advantage. But this has proved inadequate for meeting the needs of the poor. He also draws on studies carried out by the UNCSD, the OAA and other organisation which points out that liberalisation benefits are, "likely to be very limited" and which also demonstrate that liberalising trade can be harmful to food security. Why? Crops that are exported create large agricultural businesses, the results of which are, "the destruction of small farmer livelihoods, and the concentration of small ones into large ones..and added to unemployment and poverty. According to the co-director of the US organisation, "Food First" by Anuradha Mittal, "Shows that global trade has destroyed "the ability of farmers to grow food for their families and communities". According to UNCTAD, "almost 70% of world trade is between transnational corporations…Opening up markets may seem to have attractions but in practices, the gains would go to the trading corporations rather than to the food insecure.
The real beneficiaries. The main question is therefore posed: who do governments, international institutions and NGOs hope to assist by calling for more agricultural trade liberalisation? The multinationals and businesses. To effectively help countries that are experiencing food difficulties, Mr Madely indicates three possible directions: a) developing sustainable farming that can achieve considerable results in different areas for reasons that have nothing to do with international trade"; b) developing "fair trade", which has "extraordinary potential (it creates the subsidiaries that trade in food stuffs in ecologically sound conditions and which are socially acceptable to producer countries, which it pays prices which are fair); it centres global development on getting rid of hunger and not on agricultural trade.
Plain speaking by Commissioner Nielson. The Madely article is also accompanied by some other informative contributions. European Commissioner Poul Nielson doesn't mince his words when it comes to some of the global institutions, "the World Bank calls on countries like Vietnam and others to start producing coffee and export it as a cash crop", and gives everyone else the same advice. A Specific study in "the Courrier" on the tragedy of overproduction of coffee by Joe Leadbeater from Oxfam International, indicates why prices have fallen. Over six years in a number of ACP countries coffee revenues have fallen by 65%. Overproduction is the main cause; added to which is the imbalance of profit margins 'minimal for producers, much higher for the coffee merchants and businessmen; increasingly poor quality, lack of sufficient efforts for promoting diversification and rural development. Mr Nielson also criticises the World food Programme (WFP) and humanitarian NGOs' tendencies to stimulate food aid which in crises is necessary but can otherwise have serious negative repercussions. Mr Nielson concludes that, "We can no longer trust the WFP's studies alone".
The dangers of excessive food aid are sharply criticised in a specific report on Ethiopia by JaneTully, on a course at DG Development at the Commission. She claims that regular and abundant food aid support can have a negative effect on the level of agricultural production, investment and innovation, especially in periods of abundance. She claims that a food aid mentality has emerged with a large part of the population being dependent on this aid for at least two months of the year. She also states that food aid is certainly necessary in periods of serious crisis but does not represent the solution and can undermine other action taken to improve food security.
The responsibilities of ACP countries. African countries must change some of their behaviour too. This year 35 million Africans are going to need food aid, not only in countries that traditionally suffer from serious problems of starvation (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Mali, Mauritania and Niger) but also in other southern African countries that traditionally have abundant resources of food: Lethoso, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Why? Jean B. Bakole, representative of Coalition of African Organisations on Food Security and Sustainable Development (COASAD) mentions natural disasters and increasing desertification but also armed conflict and liberalisation of the markets, historical explanations for restricted access to arable land, the inefficiency of agricultural policy. He professes that many African leaders get bogged down in armed conflicts that cause their people to starve, "to the point where some believe that food security is poised to become both a military weapon and a political tool in Africa". Amartya Sen stresses that there has never been a serious famine in democratically run countries. Mohamed Salih (University of Leiden in the Netherlands) food safety can only correctly develop in a democratic framework. He also contends that agricultural policies tend to help the wealthy and the powerful and governments prioritise export crops (coffee, tea and bananas) over production for local production. The Courier magazine editorial concludes that food insecurity is a development and access problem to products rather than question of production and availability. It is also true that several ACP countries work efficiently in the right direction and Mr Bakole makes particular mention of Benin, in this connection.
The EU must get rid of "unhealthy subsidies". Should we conclude that rich countries, particularly the European Union don't have any responsibilities? Not at all. European and EU subsidies for agricultural exports are sharply criticised. John Madely criticises the link between subsidies and quantities produced, which leads to farmers in rich countries increasing their production and flooding the market due to the surplus on price dumping, lowering prices in importer countries and damaging the economic position of local farmers. Commissioner Poul Neilson is even more adamant and points to "unhealthy subsidies" and the use of food aid to get rid of production surpluses funded out of the taxpayers' pocket. He does, however, add that they are now becoming aware of the problem and are determined to do something about it. EU food aid is coming far less often from European surpluses and is being more and more often bought in Africa itself, according to regional availability. Above all, export subsidies, which are already controversial, will be gradually phased out to poor countries (except when they can benefit from them) in order to indefinitely eliminate problems to local production and caused by competition from European subsidies products. The ACP believe that it is essential to safeguard their preferences on the European market, especially their bananas, rum and sugar etc.
This range of factors ought to provide decision makers in the EU and ACP countries with clear indications on the attitude to take in world trade negotiations. Their demagogic assertions claiming that freeing up the European agricultural market to the third world are false. The destruction of European agriculture will make starvation worse, as well as food insecurity in poor countries. Those who are calling for it are not defending the interests of their counties but the interests of the multinationals, big traders and the richest and most powerful farming concerns. They are quite simply targeting the conquest of the European market because it is solvable. This is a legitimate objective but it has nothing to do with fighting against hunger in the world.
(F.R.)