Not forgetting the real aims. My comments yesterday on the absurdity of further global liberalisation of farm trade do not in any way mean that the Doha Round of talks are doomed to failure. On the contrary, everyone (except some of the large traders) will have something to gain from a positive and rapid conclusion to the Round. Those taking part in the talks recognise that the results so far greatly exceed those reached in earlier talks of a similar kind. The road to follow is therefore clear: the talks should be concluded on the basis of what has already been achieved. There is no point in insisting on too many additional concessions if the countries concerned consider these impossible - Brazil as much as India, the United States as much as the European Union (plus Japan, Switzerland, Korea, etc.). In agriculture particularly, the result, entailing a reduction in farm production in the United States and in Europe, would run counter to the international efforts being made to combat climate change, fight against hunger in the world, avoid the risk of food shortages, and safeguard forests and water resources.
By artificially extending the talks, the atmosphere would soon become controversial and unhealthy, with the risk of bringing back into question what has in principle already been achieved (nothing is definitive until the final conclusion). Negotiators should listen less to certain pressure groups that are massively present around meetings (Oxfam delegates outnumbering WTO officials) and listen more to the real interests of their countries, of the less advantaged countries and of humanity in general. Some farm producers and exporters that respect Nature and trade rules (for example, New Zealand) would partially lose out. But one should not forget that the primary objective of this round of talks is to help the poorest countries. It is commercially correct to invade the European market because it is solvent, but this in no way contributes to improving the situation of the less favoured countries, which need to reactivate their food production (to gradually return to a reasonable degree of food autonomy) and to conserve their preferences on the European market while remaining partially protected from competition exerted by the new giants (China, Brazil and India).
A media event. I would add - it being so topical at the moment - the release in Brussels of the film, “We Feed the World” by Erwin Wagenhoffer of Austria, commented by Jean Ziegler, who describes in pictures how absurd the world's food situation is. One sees the destruction of an Amazonian forest replaced by intensive crops of soya. The native population suffers from hunger and gradually disappears, while soya is exported to Europe to feed cattle and poultry. The latter are exported to Africa at slashed prices, thus ruining all attempts at local production, and the African peasants are forced to add their numbers to the already poverty-stricken population of overcrowded towns. At the same time, the Nile perch, caught in Lake Victoria, is exported to Europe making a handful of traffickers wealthy while the local population feeds on the little that is left, and overfishing causes an environmental disaster. On the whole, a handful of international giants control the world's trade in food. Damaging competition also hits European agriculture head on - every 30 seconds a farm in the EU disappears.
The same day as the release of the film in the capital of Europe, Le Soir published an interview with Jean Ziegler. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food asserted that the world could comfortably feed 12 billion human beings but that food circuits prevent it from doing so. In Ethiopia, the World Food Programme (WFP) feeds 7.2 million, while, just miles to the West, there is over-production of tef, a cereal that is left to rot away on the spot as there are no roads by which it can be transported. So … American surpluses cross the Atlantic and the Suez Canal, cover 1,600 km by rail to Addis Ababa and is finally transported by lorry to the hungry. On the other hand, strawberries and melons grown in Guatemala or Chile are brought to Europe, burning up kerosene on the way. The “peones” work in conditions of semi-slavery and this traffic ruins the European small farmers.
Such nonsensical wastage causes food surpluses in the North, poverty and destruction in the South. According to Mr Ziegler, it is first and foremost necessary to “eat local produce”. What can be produced in a country must take “absolute priority and be protected from imports”. For foodstuffs such as coffee, coca and bananas, “international trade is needed, but it must be equitable”. Mr Ziegler is considered an extremist who sometimes exaggerates through a desire to be controversial. But he should be heeded just as much as some of the pressure groups.
(F.R.)