Concluding the Doha Round. There has been little discussion of the trade aspects of the conclusions of the G20 summit in London. This is understandable because nothing new was actually decided. The sections on reforming the world of finance are innovative and tangible (see my column in yesterday's newsletter), the paragraphs on trade simply trotted out a few important, but well-known principles, like rejecting protectionist pressures, calling for greater trade and investment, monitoring budget incentive to avoid discrimination and funding for measures to boost trade. With the umpteenth repetition of the desire to conclude the Doha Round of world trade talks too but without giving any specifics: “We pledge to rely on the progress already achieved, including over modalities.”
Farming's true objective. What does the sentence from the G20 statement mean? If it means that the Doha Round should be based on what has already been achieved, that would be the essence of wisdom, because doggedly seeking to win further significant concessions would inevitably lead to failure, as I have been pointing out for a long while. Rather than any further mass liberalisation, farming needs new discipline and new rules. The main concern in farming should be trying to grow enough food and the right for everyone to be as self-sufficient as possible in food rather than extending world trade as such. For poor countries, this right should be the main demand - and the EU should always bear this in mind.
This demand is making ground. The report drawn up by Olivier De Schutter upon request from the United Nations explicitly states that international trade does not guarantee food security and that food sovereignty is not compatible with the way the World Trade Organisation has organised agriculture markets (see my column in issue 9823). The McGuinness Report adopted by the European Parliament by a wide majority argues that the WTO's policy of opening up agriculture markets has reduced the food security of many developing countries. A very recent study by the French think tank Momagri looked at the disastrous impact that free-for-all liberalisation of the global food trade would have (see issue 9877). According to Jacques Carles of Momagri, the impact would be catastrophic on the farm revenue of the poorest countries and food-importing emerging economies like China and India, and there would be repercussions in Europe and the United States in terms of both food security, farm jobs and the agri-food industry. It would lead to serious food shortages around the world and further speculation in foodstuffs, with sharp rises and slumps in food prices that would impact on the farming potential of countries like Australia, Canada and elsewhere. On top of that, it would have a disastrous impact on Mother Nature and the environment.
To avert such disasters, Momagri argues that “global governance” is required for agriculture, setting out how such global governance would operate. This is the weak, almost naïve, link in the research because such a structure cannot be imagined into existence - it would take years of hard grind and negotiations.
The idea is taking root. This is why, in my view, the Doha Round should abandon hope of over-liberalising global farm trade, and the WTO should focus instead on reinforcing the rules and ensuring they are applied. In this domain, the G20 should aim at food self-sufficiency.
Ordinary people are moving in this very direction. Developing countries are rebelling against wealthy countries buying up their land. Madagascar has cancelled an agreement whereby a South Korean company would buy up 1.3 million hectares of farmland, and similar reluctance to hand over land is being expressed elsewhere. People are recommending reducing the number of food miles travelled unnecessarily and buying locally rather than having food travel unnecessarily long distances due largely to speculation. Europe is producing and enforcing new rules and precautionary measures for food but these will have little effect if imported food is not covered by them. Reforms of the common agricultural policy to encourage competition and global trade are being increasingly challenged, but the EU must avoid practising on others the unfair competition it wants to avoid itself by scrapping EU export subsidies, except for countries that want to import cheap food.
It is clear that the trade aspects of the G20 statement need to be carefully clarified and interpreted, above all to the benefit of the poor countries of the world.
(F.R./transl.fl)