Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Dear Contributors,

                  The interesting discussion continues.  It is wonderful to be able to share thoughts and experiences regarding the relationship of trade rules to food security.  I have put some questions that seem worth exploring further in italics and bold in the body of the text below.

                  I believe the isolation/”free” trade dichotomy is a false or at least an unhelpful one.  It keeps us from having the richer, more nuanced conversation about the relationship between trade and food security, what trade can and cannot do, what role it can appropriately play in food security, and where/when/how it needs to be regulated or complemented to ensure food security.  As Ann Steensland notes in her contribution, trade is not a zero sum game.

                  Ms. Steensland’s post seems to argue that with an appropriate enabling environment, participation in a global export market is good for food security.  Can participants in this dialogue (or Ms. Steenland) provide examples:

1.     Where participation in a global export market has led to an increase in food security for the exporting country, how this increase in food security was measured, and what was the impact on diets?           

2.     When has participation in a global export market not resulted in increased food security for the exporting country and what happened in those instances? 

3.     Are there complementary policies that can ensure that participation in an export market benefits those in need?  And getting back to our original question 3,

4.     What evidence and experience exists on the affect of a country’s participation in export markets on small-scale producers in agriculturally biodiverse systems?

                  Again, I want to avoid unhelpful dichotomies and this is not meant as pro-trade/anti-trade or pro-market/anti-market but to stimulate a conversation about the appropriate role for each and how they interface with one another so the result is better food security for all.

                  The global market may provide some tools to achieve the objectives of food security, but it cannot by itself fully satisfy the objectives related to food security and poverty alleviation. In the market, demand correlates with an ability to pay rather than to human need. Markets don’t consider access to those most in need, distribution, research direction for the neediest, inequality, or justice.

            Would a human rights impact assessment of trade rules as suggested by Dr. Schuftan help us in understanding what trade and global markets can and cannot do, and hence what other measures need to be taken and be (made) allowable by trade rules?

                  Mr. Castrillo states that free trade agreements contradict regional policies that support bio-farmers and processes seeking sustainability.  He mentions the need for better governance and land tenure rules to generate favorable conditions to achieve more equity.

                  Mr. Kent summarizes the division between advocates of trade liberalization and its critics in terms of two connected points:  1) global markets are beneficial mainly to the rich and powerful and 2) strategies for self-sufficiency protect the weak from potentially exploitive relationships with those who are stronger.

                  Professor Haberli notes that farmer security is not food security.  I would certainly agree, but also have concern that farmer security seems to be the piece most often left out of the policy equation and that is not sustainable for food security.  And I guess I am really talking about small-scale farmers in agrobiodiverse systems being left out of the policy equation.   Small-scale farmers not only produce a great deal of the food consumed in the world, given a supportive policy environment, they capture nutritional, health and other benefits such as the maintenance of social and cultural values and increased resiliency.  What seems to go unrecognized in international public policy is the global public benefit, equally crucial to food security, that is provided by these small-scale farmers.  They maintain, and many develop, genetic diversity in a dynamic, evolutionary setting responding to change providing the foundation to adapt crops to changing circumstances (and this cannot be replaced by the static system of gene banks though they are important complementary measures to on farm and in situ development and conservation).  The management practices of these farmers are similarly evolving and responding to changing circumstances.  They are, in reality, millions of experimenters/entrepreneurs at the frontlines of responding to new pests and diseases, changing water availability, climate variation etc.

                  Mr. Kent suggests that trade agreements include elements to protect the vulnerable rather than relying on markets alone.  He mentions non-trade measures such as safety nets as part of a packaging of trade proposals with protection programs.

                  A few questions arise from this:

1.     What are some of the non-trade measures needed?

2.     Is there sufficient policy space in current trade rules for these measures?

3.     Is policy space enough, and if not, what more is needed?

>> ENGLISH VERSION BELOW <<

Le lien entre commerce et sécurité alimentaire est à la fois évident, complexe et vaste.  En effet, il n’est très difficile de comprendre que le commerce est susceptible d’influer sur l’accessibilité économique en générant de la croissance, qui compte à elle, est en théorie créatrice d’emploi. Pour preuve, aussi décrié que soit la mondialisation, la planète n’a jamais été aussi riche. Si l’on arrête notre résonnement ici, on peut dire que le lien entre commerce, sécurité alimentaire, du moins on se focalisant sur l’accessibilité économique est autoentretenu. D’ailleurs, les fervents défenseurs du libre échange diront : nulle besoin d’intervention, le marché se chargera d’équilibrer et de répartir la richesse : c’est effet de « ruissellement ». Cependant, la réalité elle est beaucoup plus complexe à décrire, au moins parce que la mondialisation des échanges créée des gagnants et des perdants, qu’il y a des exclus parmi les gagnants, que les droits de l’homme s’inclinent face aux enjeux du commerce international.

Par ailleurs, le lien entre commerce et sécurité alimentaire est également vaste, car il impact toutes les dimensions de la sécurité alimentaire, que se soit : la disponibilité, la stabilité, ou encore l’accessibilité, au risque de nous répéter. Le commerce ne se limite au seul secteur agricole, il est en constante interaction avec les autres secteurs : industrie ou services. Au sein de l’OMC, ses accords sont donc en interaction non seulement avec le secteur de l’agriculture, mais aussi avec celui des droits de propriétés intellectuels touchant au commerce, du potentiel accord sur la facilitation des échanges, etc. Derrière, la volonté affichée des membres de l’OMC de tirer le meilleur pour leur nation (en termes des négociations) se cache l’action des firmes multinationales, qui moins visibles au sein de  l’organisation sont les premières à tisser la toile du commerce international.

Toutefois, pour des raisons d’ordre méthodologique et surtout afin d’être brève, on va se contenter d’examiner comment est-ce que l’accord sur l’agriculture au sein de l’OMC influe que la sécurité alimentaire. Ce qui sûr aujourd’hui, c’est que les effets de cet accord ne se mesure pas à la taille de l’organisation, qu’il y a  une multitude de parties prenantes,  des intérêts colossaux, mais qu’il y aussi des hommes dans tout ça, non pas seulement ceux qui font les politiques mais également ceux qui en ressentent les effets.

La crise alimentaire de 2011 en Afrique et de 2008 dans le monde à remis en cause l’argument qui consiste à dire « spécialisez vous dans la production  pour laquelle vous avez le plus  d’avantages comparatifs et le commerce se chargera du reste ». De fait, le marché n’est pas toujours stable, les prix ne sont pas toujours bas, et l’alimentation n’est pas encore un bien de seconde nécessité. C’est en 2008, que le grand public a appris que les politiques agricoles des grandes puissances qu’elles soient émergentes ou occidentales peuvent avoir des répercussions néfastes sur les recettes d’exportation des pays les moins diversifiées et souvent le plus pauvres. Que la concurrence pure et parfaite est un mythe, et qu’en matière agricole tout reste encore à faire. On s’est également aperçu que les catégories telles que arrêtées par l’accord sur l’agriculture  peuvent s’avérer arbitraires. Les subventions régies par les normes de la la boite bleue se sont révélées plus dommageables que celles de la boite orange et celles de la boite verte ne sont pas toujours neutres, elles sont également difficilement applicables par les pays en voie de développement, surtout ceux de la tranche intermédiaire.

Tout l’enjeu des négociations actuelles est de réparer les errements du passé, de servir la sécurité alimentaire, et pourquoi pas d’être un catalyseur pour les pays les plus pauvres. Mais dans un monde dicté par les rapports de force, peut être que plus de transparence  dans le processus décisionnel de l’OMC, et l’intégration de l’approche par les droits en matière de sécurité alimentaire pourraient être judicieux. 

The link between trade and food security is at the same time evident, intricate and all-embracing.  Indeed, it is not difficult to understand that trade is likely to improve ease of access to the economic system by generating growth, which is itself in theory a generator of employment. As proof, however much globalization is decried; the planet has never been so wealthy. If we stop at this point our reasoning, it could be said that the link between trade and food security, at least when focusing on access to the economy, is self-evident. Moreover, the strong supporters of free trade will say: no need for intervention, the market will undertake the balancing and redistribution of wealth: it is the "trickle down" effect. Nevertheless, the reality is much more complex to describe, at least because the globalization of exchanges creates winners and losers, because there are those excluded from the winners, and because human rights have to bow down before the issues of international trade.

Futhermore, the link between trade and food security is equally immense, because it has an impact on all dimensions of food security, whether that is: availability, stability, or even accessibility, if we may risk repeating ourselves. Trade does not limit itself only to the agricultural sector, it is in constant interaction with other sectors: industry and services. At the heart of the WTO, these agreements are therefore interacting not only with the agricultural sector but also with intellectual property rights related to trade and with the potential agreement on trade facilitation, etc.  The desire  displayed by members of the WTO to secure the best for their country (in terms of negotiations) masks  the operations of multinational companies, which although less visible at the centre of the organization are the first to spin the web of international trade.

However, for methodological reasons and particularly to be brief, we will content ourselves with examining how the agreement on the agricultural sector at the heart of the WTO influences food security. What is certain today, is that the effects of this agreement do not measure up to the size of the organization, that there is a myriad of stakeholders, with huge interests represented, but also that there are individuals involved  in all that, not only the policy makers but also those who are not in favor of the outcomes.

The food crisis of 2011 in Africa and of 2008 worldwide has challenged the argument that says:    “specialize in the production of that in which you have the most comparative advantages and trade will do the rest.” In practice, the market is not always stable, prices are not always low, and food is not yet a second level necessity. It was in 2008 that the general public learnt that the agricultural policies of the main powers, whether they are emerging or western, can have negative repercussions on the export earnings of less diversified and often the poorest countries. That pure and perfect competition is a myth and that in agricultural matters; everything still remains to be done. They have also realized that the categories as promulgated by the agricultural agreement can be adjudged to be arbitrary. The subsidies governed by the norms of the blue box have been revealed as more damaging than those from the amber box and those of the green box are not always impartial.   They are also difficult for developing countries to apply, particularly those classified as intermediate.

The whole object of the present negotiation is to repair the wrongs of the past, to promote food security and, why not, to be a catalyst for the poorest countries. But in a world run by power relationships, maybe more transparency in the WTO decision process and the integration of rights in terms of food security would be wise.

Dear Moderator,

That's a very large and ample topic to be answered, and it would take a long report of the relevant cases that would deserve a citation.

If I assume that food security is much larger that the protection of Food Quality per se because the definition of Security goes far beyond "safety"  "risk "  "conservation" etc, I feel that the scope - well defined in the topic note - is to provide a useful and usable series of suggestions for the training of the actors involved along the long chain from the field to the family table.

I have personally dealt with these issues during a round table that AgoraAmbrosiana, my debate organization, organized five years ago in Milan at the Società Umanitaria - Arte da Mangiare, with the Mercati Generali Milanesi SOGEMI SpA, one of the largest structure for food distribution in northern Italy.

The adopted procedures are debated in Europe every year, and major contacts are kept by the responsible managers and assistants to accompany, to protect the efficiency of statistical controls, of conditions of handling, reception, conservation, transport and finally distribution to the final consumer.

I suggest that in case of interest, to explore elements for the edition of the proposed documents, a full list of the present suggestions of practice should be collected and tested for their efficiency.

I'm personally in frequent contacts with the head responsible of SOGEMI Sicurezza, and take the occasion to inform that today (link: http://www.italiafruit.net/DettaglioNews/20540/mercati-e-imprese/sogemi-firmato-un-protocollo-per-la-sicurezza-nei-mercati-generali-formalizzata-lintesa-con-prefettura-sindacati-e-operatori) a general agreement has been signed to cope with the environmental conditions that play their role in the posted issue. I will be proud to bring the most pertinent and important issues that emerge from this discussion to his attention.

The Milan EXPO could become a spot for a meeting or moment of information on the issue.

I feel positively inclined to believe that the top Management of SOGEMI - Mercati Milanesi will support the aim of such an endeavour. Security aspects are certainly primary drivers to guide the proper value raw materials in manmade trade. My personal experience with half century practice in global Chemical Industrial Chemistry is in resonance!

Sincerely yours

Dr Vincenzo Lo Scalzo - Lo SCalzo Associates AgoraAmbrosiana - Milano - Mandelieu

February 4th, 2015

Dear participants, I read with great interest all your contributions and would like to thank you for this rich discussion with many (often polarized) views.

As Susan pointed out, most of you are skeptical about the contributions that trade can make to food security. Concerns that many of you have with trade (and opening up markets) include the vulnerability of the local food systems, competition from outside displacing small farmers, selling outside the community that could leave the local population with less or more expensive food. You also mention the detrimental effects to the environment from switching to larger agriculture (an example with soy production in Argentina was mentioned by Ricardo). Others highlighted that trade can improve food availability, but could negatively affect utilization and stability if it introduces phytosanitary or other risks (Abdybek from Kyrgyzstan and Moises from the Dominican Republic both mentioned that). The issue of inferior nutritional quality of food that is imported at a cheaper price was raised by Ghose from China. Jean-Marc wrote that getting the price expectations right is not an easy task for farmers, and this creates price volatility, which in turn diminishes the incentives to investment.  In terms of benefits to producers that could potentially engage in trader, many mentioned that small farmers not able to comply with strict technical and SPS standards in the export markets.

Dennis from AfriGrains highlighted a major shortcoming that is a systematic “blockage” to food systems caused by inadequate attention to storage, transport and marketing. These weaknesses are often ignored by policy makers, leading to a failure by farmers to produce sufficient quantities of food and constraining the flow of food from farms to consumers. This leads us to believe that a whole lot more needs to be done to develop domestic markets and logistics, and more importantly, to ensure that farmers are supported with proper instruments to overcome these constrains.

Many point out that the interaction between trade and food security varies greatly depending on the country’s situation with producing own food, market structure, share of small farmers, government policies etc. As Sally points out, often small farmers lose from greater trade, while the middle sized to large farms stand to gain. Uneven/unfair distribution of benefits from trade is perhaps the theme that is mentioned as one of the main concerns in this discussion.

These are all very real and valid concerns and we do need some serious thinking on how to address them. In your comments you offer solutions to overcoming some of these weaknesses. Personally I don’t consider the suggestions to eliminate trade (banning exports and/or imports) and having each country produce all the food they consume as a viable one. Relying on own production only (even leaving aside the efficiency arguments where one country that is more efficient at producing certain products – say wheat in Argentina – can produce the godo at a lower cost, implying a lower price to poor consumers), implies greater risks of disruptions in supplies due to weather-related emergencies, wars and other failures. I am not familiar with any evidence showing that moving towards this model (in essence, isolation) has produced positive results in terms of food security. North Korea comes to mind as an example of the opposite. But if anyone is aware of any positive cases, it would be beneficial to share them.

The more balanced approach (offered for example by Dennis Bennett) is that there are often unintended negative effects from greater trade openness and these need to be dealt with ex-ante. Dennis mentions that trade agreements need to be evaluated for their effectiveness in supporting food security and development of value chains. I would only add that, from a national priorities perspective, food security would not be the only goal (although certainly one of the central ones), but there would also be other aspects of economic and social development to concider, including poverty reduction, better health and education systems etc.

Some of the solutions listed by the participants include:

- Greater participation of farmers in trade negotiations to ensure that their views are incorporated;

- Safety nets to accompany trade agreements (to solve the issue of uneven distribution of gains);

- Attention to local food security value chains, addressing the issues in a “bottom-up” fashion and an integrated approach to developing comprehensive food systems, including all stages of production and marketing .This includes solving the problems with storage/marketing/transport/creation of markets;

- Technological innovations (which need appropriate investment) and support programs to improve the access of small to finance and technical assistance;

- Inclusive business models.

Many coincide that trade can enhance food security, but certain conditions must be met (ensuring food safety and crop diversity was mentioned by Vijay, for example). On a global scale, the interests of the poorer countries should be considered as the first priority when negotiating trade agreements.

These are certainly valuable ideas, and I hope this holistic approach to ensure that farmers benefit from participation in markets – be it local, national or global – will gain more ground.

One thing is emerging rather clearly: Subsistence farmers are at greatest risk from open trade, it does not seem to be a viable strategy to simply open up markets without taking care of the weaknesses outline above first. Substantial assistance is needed to give a boost to domestic production, to ensure that smaller farmers advance to a more competitive position before opening up for trade. That is the path many developed economies with advanced agricultural sectors have taken in the past.

However, Christian Haberli also has a point when he says that “farmer security is not food security”. While border protection and farm support would clearly benefit producers but whether or not it is the best strategy for national food security (and the global food security) is a different question. Let us not forget about the consumers in this discussion.

It is not easy to draw any conclusions from all this. I am perhaps repeating what I put in the introductory comments, but trade ALONE cannot solve food security or poverty problems. I don’t think anybody can reasonably suggest that opening up for trade would be the solution to these serious issues.

The more practical and relevant questions could be: First, would countries be better off in a closed economy, relying only on own production? I have yet to see any evidence of that.  Second, as most of us agree, trade has advantages and disadvantages, sometimes severe, and there are certainly people who would lose from trade, as from any other major reforms. So, who should we prioritize? Farmers? Consumers? All population? And what are we trying to achieve? Poverty reduction? Food security? Increased farm incomes? Greater social expenditure (for safety nets, education etc)? Unfortunately, all at once is not really possible. And if so, what degree of protectionism (or conversely, trade liberalization) would be adequate, given these priorities? One interesting piece of evidence can be found in this recent paper: http://www3.lei.wur.nl/FoodSecurePublications/25_Salvatici_et_al_Agtrade-policies-FNS.pdf Third, let us say we have established what is our ideal rate of protection is under given circumstances of a country and the national priorities. How do we make sure that the benefits are maximized? What is need to be done at the national level? I think here the holistic food value chain approach suggested by Dennis would be very useful.

Global Harvest Initiative (GHI) and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) welcome this opportunity to participate in this critical conversation about the linkages between trade and food security. 

We present the following case study, which appeared in GHI’s 2013 Global Agricultural Productivity Report®, as well as some policy recommendations for unlocking the power of trade to deliver development and food security benefits. 

Training and Technical Cooperation in the Americas for Better Agribusiness, Markets, and Trade

The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region holds vast potential to provide food and agriculture products to meet the demands of a growing world.  According to the GHI’s 2014 Global Agricultural Productivity Report®, if the LAC region maintains their current rate of Total Factor Productivity growth, by 2030 they will be able to meet 116% of regional demand.  Trading this agricultural surplus will solidify LAC as the next global breadbasket.

In order to harness the potential of trade and ensure that small and medium scale producers benefit from it, IICA provides training and technical cooperation among its 34 member states, resulting in better policies, institutional frameworks, and capabilities to improve and facilitate market and trade development.  (*GHI has identified key policies that create an enabling environment for trade, agricultural development and food security.  See below.)

IICA also helps improve export capabilities of small and medium scale producers. Using a Canadian methodology called “Export Platforms,” IICA strengthened the capacities of some 400 small and medium enterprises from Central America to export agricultural products in high demand in North America.

In collaboration with USDA, IICA consolidated the Market Information of the Americas (MIOA) that facilitates the timely and consistent exchange of market information on agricultural commodities and products among its member countries.  Senior officials are trained to collect, analyze and disseminate market information, and improve their services.  In Costa Rica, for example, officials are using the knowledge acquired through MIOA to assist producers by collecting price information at the farm-gate and consumer levels, developing and distributing national and international price surveys, processing production estimates and forecasts, and providing information and domestic and international market news for products of interest to Costa Rican producers. Price information is now available via mobile phones so that more than 900 farmers can access information using short term messages.

This case study is a reminder that trade is not a "zero-sum game", in which small producers are the inevitable “losers” and large producers “win” at their expense.  Market and trade strengthening interventions, such as those encouraged by IICA, can help maximize the food security and development benefits of trade for producers of all scales. 

*Delivering food security and development through international trade relies on an enabling policy environment that emphasizes:

• Consistent, transparent, and science-based frameworks for regulating food safety, along with reliable processes for administering sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules;
• Legal and regulatory issues play a significant role at all stages in value chain development – including inputs, production, processing, transport, and end markets;
• A focus on services including laws and regulations that can support open systems for transport and distribution services; financial services; and wholesale, retail, franchising, and other services;
• Regional integration and harmonization of trade laws and regulations, with a particular focus on how laws and regulations are being implemented; and
• Adequate and equitable intellectual rights protection is becoming increasingly important as technology, information sharing, and communication play an even larger role in value chain development.

For more, see GHI’s policy paper: International Trade and Agriculture: Supporting Value Chains to Deliver Development and Food Security.

1. In a free-market world economy, Third World countries are not being given the benefits they and their economies need, but rather what-ideologically-motivated-Northern-trade-partners believe they should give them. Conversely, in the local economy, only those who have something to sell --and are not hindered in selling it (!)-- can earn anything from trade.

2. So, when trade rules threaten the right to food of the poor, those trade rules should be challenged on the basis of existing Human Rights Covenants. Therefore, states, independent human rights commissions and/or NGOs should undertake ‘human rights (HR) impact assessments’ of the trade rules the respective country abides by, both during the process of trade negotiations and after negotiations; such an assessment must be public and participatory so as to safeguard people’s and communities’ rights from the avariciousness of commercial interests and patent rights. (AIFO)

3. For the developed countries of the North, free trade means shaping states’ policies worldwide so as to create the environments-most-favorable-to-the-opening-up-of-the-countries-of-the-South-to-globalized-free-markets! It means forcing the hand of these countries to adopt neo-liberal economic policies. The aim here is not really to foster greater democratic participation, but rather state-sponsored market deregulation. 

4. This being the case, one can justifiably ask: When creating such ‘favorable’ market environments, has neo-liberalism been able to manage the crisis of the world food system?  And the answer has to be a resounding NO. This latest stage of Capitalism has actually not yet shown it can curb the growth of impoverishment in large segments of both the Third and the First World. This fact leads committed HR workers to a very clear path of where the priorities lie. The crude reality of our times has simply led to levels of inequality beyond tolerance.

5. If the context and the framework of our development discourse are wrong, discussions and actions based on the wrong analyses will be like pouring water into a broken vessel; no amount of effort to fill it will be sufficient.

**************

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

Oblivious to the teachings of history, international free trade is being promoted to the rank of ‘development motor’ as if development would be the same as preparing the population for the market economy. (CETIM)

1. The WTO is driven by a mercantilist philosophy; the focus of what it does is not on the welfare or growth prospects of members. Small, poor countries have little to offer and to gain in the mercantilist WTO exchange. The multilateral-trade-liberalization-drive championed by the WTO has been mainly driven by corporate interests seeking access to foreign markets; the WTO, therefore, is a good vehicle for advancing their interests.

2. It is not that industrial countries need the WTO; their firms can and do obtain access to new markets directly. In fact, the private sector has often concluded that the multilateral system may be good, but is ineffective, so, they use non-governmental routes.

3. On the other hand, it has been estimated that, if all (that is ALL) global trade barriers for the poor countries were eliminated, approximately 500 million people could be lifted out of hunger and poverty over 15 years. (Keep in mind that, if China is excluded, the number of hungry people has actually increased in the last decade. This, despite the right to food being enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in the World Food Conference of 1974.

4. As a Human Rights challenge, it is, consequently, more important to advocate for raising income of poor persons than for food self-sufficiency, i.e., raising rural incomes is more important than increasing food production. So, the right to fair social and economic conditions is necessary to allow people to feed themselves (FAO).

6. In addition, and as related, keep in mind that if the debt burden of poor countries were significantly reduced or eliminated as their terms of trade were made fairer, the amount of aid required would also significantly diminish.

7. The worst enemy of developing counties is neoliberalism which means the complete elimination of protectionism. We cannot thus say that if ‘All global trade barriers to poor countries are eliminated, 500 million or more people could be lifted out of hunger’. It is an illusion to think that the problems of underdevelopment are due to trade barriers. Poor countries need protectionism as the air they breathe and, in the developed countries, the ones who suffer most from free trade are the unskilled working classes. The roots of poverty and exploitation are based on the power relations in that country, rather than on world trade.

8. Samir Amin (1985, Delinking: towards a polycentric world. London, Zed Books) has elaborated very clearly the importance of national protection and cultivating South South trading blocks protected from rich world competition. The logic of comparative advantage applies where two countries are at comparable levels of development. Free trade between rich and poor is much more likely to exacerbate the inequalities.

*******************

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS, MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS: WORKING AT CROSS-PURPOSES?

Who will live and who will die has already been decided by the economic structures brought about by globalization (P. John)

1. These days, bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) are totally bypassing the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because rich countries think that multilateralism is for weak players and is based on long-winded processes with decisions that are typically based on the lowest common denominator arrived at with a one-country-one-vote system. So these rich countries (or the EU) seek their own way through these (often imposed) bilateral FTAs that bypass the WTO. Therefore, WTO critics are, in a way, partly misled when they demonstrate (only) against the WTO in the streets.

2. But, as experience has shown, in FTAs the cost:deception ratio has been high. FTAs pursued by hegemonic powers, despite being nefarious, find developing countries to be complacent, “behaving like animals being blissfully led to their slaughter”. (J. Bhagwati).

3. We cannot overlook the proven fact that trade (as much as foreign aid) is not even an opportunity and certainly not a guarantee. This is true, not only from an economic development perspective, but particularly from the perspective of human rights (HR). (G. Kent)  Unfortunately, in the case of aid, if one aid program misses its opportunity to deliver what it promised (whatever its expected impact was supposed to be), the next one is as sure to come along as day follows night; unhealthy donor competition ensures that. This is dramatically seen in current-day aid directed at ‘helping’ poor countries achieve the MDGs.

4. Few people know the MDGs actually comprise only two (of 30!) paragraphs of the full Millennium Declaration --which calls very strongly for democracy and human rights as the route to achieving the stated millennium goals! Actually, despite the fact that paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Millennium Declaration specifically call to apply a HR-based approach, the ongoing Millennium-Development-Goals-drive has become a global action program without such an orientation. 

5. Paradoxically, the negotiation of FTAs assumes capacity and political determination at the national level… when the problems we are trying to solve occur precisely because of shortfalls in technical and political capacity at the national level. [It is not, as so often touted, a lack of political will; most of the cases, it is a deliberate political laissez-faire decision of the national leadership in power].

9. As can be seen, much needs to change for trade, aid and the setting of development goals to work synergistically with HR goals. We all need to contribute our own share to progressively make this a reality.

Note: Not being facetious, if we provide sandwiches for all who are hungry in the world on the first day of 2015, will we have fulfilled the MDG of ending hunger by 2015? (G. Kent)

Claudio Schuftan, PHM, Ho Chi Minh City

>> ENGLISH VERSION BELOW <<

Hablar sobre tema tan complejo, redunda muchas veces en caer en más de lo mismo. Sin embargo, las negocicaciones entre bloques siguen manteniendo privilegios a sectores agrícolas con subsidios que deforman el marco de apertura de muchos tratados de libre comercio e incluso son contradictorios con las políticas regionales para los pequeños bioagricultores y procesos que buscan la sustentabilidad. Seguimos careciendo de fuentes de financiamiento liviano para grupos de riesgo o vulnerables y las normas para certificación orgánica siguen siendo onerosas. La promoción de tierras para monocultivos no va en consonancia con las necesidades nutricionales que se pueden dar con la diversificación, equidad y distribución de pequeños territorios, dando imulso a la agrícultura familiar y comunal, y extendiendo la cadena de valor económico en todos los países, sobre todo los en vías de desarrollo. 

Las estructuras logísticas adecuadas, no existen en muchos países, se carece de tecnologías que maximicen los recursos y se pierde la oportunidad de generar mayor valor agregado en el proceso. En muchos sitios el derecho u oportunidad de uso de tierra no está asegurado, incluyendo la situación desfavorable para las mujeres y los jóvenes. El derecho posesorio o cuando menos para usufructuar una parcela daría condiciones favorables de una manera más integral y lograría una equidad más justa. La Gobernanza es factor político vital, pues sin bases de entendimiento y consensos básicos no se logra desarrollo.

Los mercados locales pueden establecer corporaciones y complementar la diversidad para crear ofertas variadas y de volumen, conciliando así, la importancia nutricional para diferentes mercados. Por último, la integración con metodologías de conservación y de manejos de " agrobioconservación " puede establecer puentes para futuros usos aún insospechados que posee la naturaleza y nos ayudarán en el futuro a solventar carencias alimentarias, sea por extinción de especies o eventos producto del Cambio Climático.

Addressing such a complex topic often leads to hackneyed ideas. However, negotiations between clusters still keep the privileges for the agricultural sector in form of subsidies that distort the launch of many free trade agreements and even contradict regional policies for small bio-farmers and processes seeking sustainability. We continue to lack soft funding sources for risk or vulnerable groups and standards for organic certification are still onerous. The promotion of land for monoculture is not in accordance with the nutritional needs that might arise from the diversification, equity and distribution of small territories, giving momentum to family and communal agriculture, and expanding the economic value chain throughout the world, particularly in developing countries.

Many countries do not have suitable logistical structures, there is a lack of technologies capable of maximizing resources and the opportunity to generate higher added value in the process is lost. In many places the right or opportunity to use the land is not guaranteed, thus impairing women and youth.  The land ownership right or, at least, the usufruct entitlement, would generate favourable conditions on a more comprehensive basis and achieve a fairer equity. Governance is an essential political factor, as development cannot be achieved without understanding and basic consensus.

Local markets can establish corporations and complement the diversity to offer varied and high volume products, reconciling therefore the nutritional importance for different markets. Finally, integration with “agro-bio-conservation” management and conservation methodologies can build bridges for upcoming -yet unsuspected- nature uses, and will help us in the future to address food shortages, either due to the extinction of species or to climate change events.

>> ENGLISH VERSION BELOW <<

Sre. CFS. HILPE

Reciban un sincero saludo de mi parte, a la vez permitanme presentarle un breve comentario con respecto al tema; Examen de los vinculos entre comercio y seguridad alimentaria ¿Cual ha sido su experiencia?.

A finales de las decadas de los 90 en nuestro pais se presento un devate sobre los posibles efecto del Libre Comercio a la economia nacional especialmente a la agricultura y al sector inductrial, la reduccion de aranceles en escala descendente hasta llegar a tasa cero para el año 2005.

Luego de descadas de aislamiento en materia comercial, actualmente nuestro pais a firmado acuerdos comerciales con Centro America, EEUU. y EUROPA, estos acuerdo en sierta forma no son perjudiales, porque han permitido que la poblacion reciba productos de buena calidad y a buen precio, y que nuestro productos tenga cierta fasilidad para ingresar en estos mercados, pero donde esta el problema es en que con las normas ISO, Las MSF, Los OTC, y las medidas no arrancelarias, han creado una carga sumamente pesada para los pequeños y medianos agricultores y en cierta forma a la agricultura familiar ya que estos no cuenta con recursos y estrategia para cumplir con las exisgencias de los mercados internacioanles.

Ha todo esto los altos costo de los insumos agricolas para la siembra, la poca o ninguna asesoria para la mejorar la calidad de los productos, poca logistica para la colocacion de sus productos en el mercado y la inclemencia desvatadora de clima presentan un panorama dificil pero no imposible de superar.

Las naciones desarrolladas son las que mas aplican MSF y OTC asi como medidas no arrancelarias para la introduccion de productos agricolas y alimeticios en sus fronteras, estay totalmente de acuerdo ya nos permiten mejor nuestros productos y les agrega valor. Mi propuesta es que desarrollemos un programa para mejorar las condiciones de nuestro pequeños y medianos productores prestandoles asistencia tecnica, financiamiento, logistica desde la cosecha en la finca, seleccionando los mejores productos y embalarlo para colocarlo en los mercados nacionales e internacionales y garantizar la alimentacion y la nutricion del mundo.

Muchas gracias, Dios les Bendigas.

Moises David Rojas

Dear CFS/HLPE members,

I am pleased to send you my best regards and share a brief comment on the topic “Examining the linkages between trade and food security: What is your experience?”

In the late 90s a discussion on the potential effects of free trade in the national economy, particularly in the agricultural and industrial sectors, arouse in our country. Tariffs were progressively reduced until its eradication in 2005.

After decades of commercial isolation, our country has currently signed trade agreements with Central America, the USA and Europe. These agreements are somehow not detrimental, as they have allowed bringing good products in terms of quality at good price and facilitating the introduction of our products in these markets. The problem is that ISO standards, SPS, TBT and non-tariff barrier measures have generated an extremely heavy burden for small and medium farmers and, somehow, for family farming, because all of them lack the necessary resources and strategies to meet the demands of international markets.

Moreover, the high costs of agricultural seeding inputs, the insufficient or inexistent advice for improving the quality of the products, the inadequate logistics for placing the products on the market and the devastating bad weather outline a difficult, but surmountable scenario.

SPS and TBT as well as non-tariff barrier measures are majorly implemented by developed countries to regulate the introduction of agricultural and food products across its borders.

I absolutely agree with this approach as it allows improving and adding value to our products. My proposal consists in developing a program to improve the conditions of our small and medium producers by providing technical, financial and logistical assistance from the farm throughout to the consumer, selecting and packing the best products to place them on the national and international markets and ensure global food and nutrition.

Thank you very much. God bless you all.

Moisés David Rojas

Dear Contributors,

Thank you for the thoughtful contributions to this dialogue.   With a couple of exceptions, it seems that most of the contributors are skeptical that a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, can be made compatible with a global market-based approach to food security (Question 3 of the Topic Note.)

One contributor indicated there is a danger of crop diversity loss if farmers grow crops that are in international demand in order to gain profits.  Another contributor described a food security strategy as described in question 3 and trade rule compatibility as an “oxymoron.”  Another answered the question by stating “It is simply not possible.”

I am wondering if we can dig a bit deeper with some of the suggestions for how a food security strategy that supports small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems can be made compatible with a global market-based approach to food security.

Dr. Claudio Schuftan suggested the need for research that “points towards the provisions that should be included in [trade and investment] agreements to guarantee food security and food sovereignty.”

The question is, what would these provisions need to look like?  How in particular would the biologically diverse systems piece be supported and still be compatible with global market based approach?

Dennis Bennett notes that what is often missing from the trade/food security debates is an understanding of what motivates farmers, including small-scale farmers, to grow specific quantities and types of food. 

Can we explore this a bit more?  Mr. Bennett seems to be focusing on producing a surplus that can then be traded.  He stressed the need to work bottom-up, starting by looking at the local Food Security Value Chain (FSVC), and treating all actors along the value chain with dignity and respect, valuing human rights.

A few of questions arise from Mr. Bennett’s thoughtful presentation. 

How can the FSVC approach address what is grown from a bottom-up perspective (rather than a market demand perspective)?

How is what is grown determined so that diversity, including dietary diversity, is encouraged and how does this approach ensure that food gets to the hungriest regions?

How does the FSVC approach encourage the continuous process of developing and maintaining agriculturally biodiverse systems (one of the components mentioned in question 3)?

Mr. Bennett’s mentions the example of the transformation of agriculture in the mid-west of the United States from 1825-75.   Changes that contributed to the transformation from subsistence to food surplus farming included things like the John Deere plow, the McCormick harvester, the steam-powered grain elevator, the Erie Canal amongst others.  But this transformation also led to a huge decrease in the diversity of what is grown in this same area.

The market-based, traded system created in the US is also resource intensive with negative environmental externalities beyond the loss of biological diversity. 

Can one use the FSVC approach and support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems?  How is specifically does it do this?

I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

Susan

>> ENGLISH VERSION BELOW <<

Dear all, 

Libéralisation du commerce / aide et assistance alimentaire 

Traditionnellement, les Etats octroient volontiers leur aide par le biais d’un écoulement des excédents alimentaires qu’ils produisent, profitant de cette opportunité pour éviter de faire chuter les prix de ces denrées par une offre surabondante sur le marché mondial.  Cette pratique rend la fourniture d’aide irrégulière et parfois inadéquate puisque non définie par les besoins des populations et des Etats bénéficiaires.

Pour faciliter son adéquation et sa prévisibilité mondiale, plusieurs Etats ont, dès 1967, adopté une Convention relative à l’aide alimentaire par laquelle ils s’engageaient à fournir une quantité annuelle minimum d’aide internationale . Sa mise en oeuvre fut cependant régulièrement axée sur la recherche de nouveaux débouchés pour l’écoulement des stocks alimentaires des Etats fournisseurs d’aide et ne prenait pas assez en compte les besoins des populations bénéficiaires. Elle peinait également à minimiser les effets pernicieux de l’aide sur les politiques agricoles des Etats bénéficiaires. Du fait de la succession de crises alimentaires dans les années 2000, il devenait urgent d’améliorer les modalités de l’aide et de porter une attention plus grande aux besoins en développement des Etats bénéficiaires. En 2012, les Etats adoptèrent la Convention relative à l’assistance alimentaire pour cela en portant une attention spécifique aux besoins nutritionnels des populations et aux besoins en assistance des Etats bénéficiaires. 

Mais, la Convention de 2012 limite elle-même la portée de ses dispositions en exigeant leur compatibilité avec le droit de l’OMC, en particulier avec les futurs aboutissements des négociations commerciales agricoles. Dans ce cadre, seule l'aide alimentaire d'urgence répondant à certaines conditions serait considérée comme compatible avec le droit de l'OMC, ce qui réduirait considérablement les efforts soutenus par la Convention de 2012 s'agissant d'une assistance alimentaire des Etats bénéficiaires pour une amélioration durable de leur sécurité alimentaire nationale. 

Marie Cuq

PhD Candidate / Doctorante - L'alimentation en droit international (Université Paris Ouest). Consultante - Droit à l'alimentation, réformes agraires et foncières.

Dear all,

Freedom of trade/aid and food assistance

Traditionally, countries willingly provide their aid by channeling their surplus food production, taking advantage of this opportunity to avoid driving down the prices of these commodities by an overabundant supply on the world market.  This practice makes the provision of aid irregular and sometimes inadequate as it is not defined by the needs of the population or the beneficiary countries.

To facilitate its worldwide balance and predictability, since 1967 many countries have adopted a convention related to food aid by which they commit themselves to provide a minimum annual quantity of international aid. Its implementation was however normally based on research for new outlets for the flow of food stocks of the aid providing countries and did not sufficiently take into account the needs of the beneficiary populations. It also endeavored to minimize the pernicious effects of aid on the agricultural policies of the recipient countries. Arising from the successive food crises in the years 2000, there was an urgent need to improve the methods of aid distribution and to give more attention to the development needs of the recipient countries. In 2012, for this reason the countries approved the Convention related to food assistance putting special emphasis on the nutritional needs of the populations and on the needs for assistance of the recipient countries.

However, the 2012 Convention limits the application of its provisions by demanding their compatibility with the rights stated by the WTO, especially with the future impacts of commercial agricultural negotiations. In this setting, only urgent food aid that complies with certain conditions would be considered as compatible with the rights of the WTO, which would considerably reduce the efforts based on the 2012 Convention as far as food assistance to the recipient countries, aiming at a lasting improvement in their national food security is concerned.

Marie Cuq

PhD Candidate / Doctorante - L'alimentation en droit international (Université Paris Ouest) [Candidate to PhD, Food in international law, Paris West University]. Consultante - Droit à l'alimentation, réformes agraires et foncières. [Consultant - Right to food, land and property reforms].