One of the campaigns of this column, perhaps the oldest and most recurring, could soon become to a certain extent redundant That's good news, because it shows that recognition of the role played by agriculture, in Europe and in the wider world, is about to move on to the next stage. Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on “the right to food” will officially present his report in March of this year. He has, however, revealed the key conclusions. These unequivocally condemn the route which international agricultural trade has been taking and which is leading to a food disaster for a large percentage of the world's population. In order to make the right to food a reality for all and to avoid the famines that threaten humanity, there has to be a radical change of direction. Here I will provide a summary of the key passages of Mr de Schutter's comments published in Le Soir and Le Vif/L'Express (he is Belgian and a professor at the University of Louvain).
1. Absurd policies. “Poor countries have, for the last 25 years, been encouraged to use international trade to provide their people with the right to food. This has been a failure. Countries have neglected small-scale family farming in favour of the sectors that offered most for export. The result is that, of the 963 million people who go hungry today, half are farmers! States have to give priority to crops which first and foremost meet local consumption needs. There is a place for trade, in tropical products for example, but trade cannot be justified when countries import what they can produce themselves. … The countries most affected by famine are those which have opened up most to international trade, to the shock of world competition. Countries that were self-sufficient in food until the end of the 70s/early 80s have become net importers of foodstuffs. They have specialised in crops such as coffee, cotton, cocoa, tobacco, tea and sugar - which are not food - to export to earn cash, and buy abroad food they need for their people. This has made them very vulnerable: food security cannot be based on international trade.”
2. Blind faith and hidden costs. “There has been blind faith in agriculture's ability to adapt, to become more competitive through international competition and by encouraging exports. Agricultural activity, however, requires investment in infrastructure, communications, access to credit for small-scale farmers: all things that have been completely neglected for 25 years. I am not speaking here about major agricultural powers, like Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay, but less developed countries. Furthermore, international trade has hidden costs attached, social costs which are never included in trade negotiations. With longer production and distribution chains, the difference between what the farmer receives and the price paid by consumers is growing. Middlemen have an economic power that allows them to retain a considerable percentage of the final value. Conclusion: prices are too high for consumers and too low for producers.”
3. WTO negotiations must take a new track. “While international trade represents only a relatively small share of food production, its impact is disproportionately great. I have little hope that international trade will be able to guarantee long-term food security. Food sovereignty is a notion that runs counter to agricultural market organisation as implemented by the WTO” (I believe that, by agricultural market organisation, Mr de Schutter is referring to pressure to bring about virtually total liberalisation of agricultural trade in the Doha Round).
A turning point. I must present my apologies to regular readers of this column, if there are any, since they have read the above ideas many times. I am sure, however, that they realise the turning point, for the world as a whole and for Europe in particular, that it represents not just to have them championed by a journalist, but to know that, in two months' time, they will be the position of an official UN document.
It will then be easier to argue for European agriculture, something that Europe has a duty to support, not just to preserve its nature, traditions and countryside, but also because of the key and indispensible contribution it makes to combating hunger in the world and because of the example that it presents of established and irreplaceable “food sovereignty”.
(F.R./transl.rt)