Demagogy… The moment for defending European agriculture comes at the right time, just after the no-vote on the European Constitution from a country in the EU which is most in need of a common general and efficient agricultural policy. For the moment I'll leave the European aspect aside to concentrate on an aspect that is just as important: the situation for hundreds of millions of small farmers in poor countries who both change and renewed pride in their countries. I will do this by looking at a certain number of considerations I made in yesterday's section in connection with the action of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) under the leadership of Pascal Lamy. We are only too familiar with the usual language from international organisations on agricultural trade: some demagogic slogans supporting the total opening up of borders and a few ridiculous calculations on the fantastic effects on poor peasants escaping poverty by selling their products on the European market.
…and the reality. Why are these calculations ridiculous? Because reality is completely different. I'll summarise this into several points: a) markets in rich countries will be systematically occupied by well organised and efficient exporter countries or by countries having unrestricted agricultural production in very advantageous conditions, such as Brazil and soon China, which evoke WTO rules in Geneva for condemning “preferences” in support of the poor; b) for some foodstuffs where export subsidies subsist, poor countries are subject to irresistible pressure to transform their traditional farming into disastrous single crop farming for export, according to the interests of powerful trade interests or a few multinationals. In this way, a country just produces tobacco, cocoa and another earthnuts or oilseed. Blight, fall in world prices, changes in consumer trends result in the ruination of small farmers who can't meet their debts and have no option but to give up farming and join the miserable conditions of the already monstrously overcrowded cities; c) development destroys traditional agriculture in poor countries by eliminating the food crops that previously fed the farmers and their fellow citizens. These countries loose all food autonomy and become dependent on food imports from rich countries or international food aid; d) where subsistence farming does exist, trade interests lead to exports to the markets of rich countries that are opening up, to the detriment of the local populations which depend on imports for food.
The overall result: poverty, famine, disappearance of traditional farming, ecological disasters, urban sprawls, permanent food dependency, the list goes on. The application of general WTO rules on agricultural products will also destroy European farming, which the world needs: but this is not my subject for today. Europe also has its responsibilities; its subsidised exports can destroy burgeoning African initiatives (the case involving chickens was analysed in detail by field studies); export subsidies have to disappear, and the massive power of big food trade concerns, which direct markets according to its interests, has to be controlled.
Documentation. What precedes is based on a wealth of documentation, from which I will restrict myself to quoting one component today: the dossier from the forum organised last October in Berlin on the initiative of the German agriculture minister Renate Künast on the them of “Policies against Hunger: the Liberalisation of Agricultural Trade - a solution?” A dossier I acquainted myself with through the reports kindly made available by Jean Felder from the Luxembourg delegation. In this way I got to know the report from Utsa Patanik from Nehru University in NewDelhi on the dramatic worsening in the situation of Indian peasants following the opening up of the markets (Full Liberalisation of Agricultural Trade Jeopardises Agricultural Trade and Food Safety”; the incredible document by Walden Bello (from the NGO Focus on the Global South) demonstrating, with the supporting documents, to what point the application of the WTO agreement of 1995 on agriculture had been a disaster for the Philippines: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity… key factor was trade liberalisations. The scrupulous reports by Mr Feder also indicate the position in the opposite direction, notably from the Australian representative and the Brazilian agriculture minister, which comes as no surprise and from their point of view, is perfectly justified. The example of Brazil deserves specific analysis, as well as the general conclusion from the Berlin Forum.
(F.R.)