Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

[original received in English on the FSN Forum in Europe and Central Asia]

1.   From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?

a: Rules & agreements are always have an We & They situation. But when disaster happen & people ask for resolution these hardly factual. This moments most of LDCs are giving subsidies to the agriculture. they are getting well return. Now if pongee-schemers try to do their old jobs-I believe they will not be successful.

Availability-yes capital goods are available, also the disaster tools.

Access-the structure is shaping now.

Utilization & stability-they do have problem, but it needs time. After 1990s-the globalization wiped lots. Time must be given to recover. 

2.   What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security measures and trade rules? Can rights-based approaches play a role?

a: Might plays-not confirm, because a clever respondent could turn table to own side. This type of skill is absent in LDCs- they might not perform well. FAO- could provide assistance.

Also any disaster happen, there is many organs work on but the recovery or disaster management is not well manage to development curve. Like country A-has north & south. Now south have disaster but north has not. Now development of north will be eaten by these south factors, because the recovery give food but not helping the corps growing & many.

We stop-the right-based approaches could be an option. This could also help the patent free movement. If food & corps patents are on UN hand & claim as the global right for all people! Hope a better world.

3.   How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a global market-based approach to food security? 

a: I have doubt, because most places we destroy the ecology itself for market based approaches. We must think again.

Because the small entrepreneurs are easy hunt for big farms & natural reasons. The element of social business could be remedy. If few of rich countries & bunch of LDCs just for agro-products make a social business among them if it's successful then other can come. May be the factors of global markets can be useable.

FAO- can be a leader with other UN entities. UNCTAD have experience in market, the social business can be better tested with their diagram.  

Rich country could be Scandinavian countries could lead with a bunch of LDCs, the LDCs also operate agro-product among them in social business module.

LDCs are not coping with the cost, this is a potential move for FAO.

>> English translation below <<

- En base a sus conocimientos y experiencia ¿cómo han afectado los acuerdos y normas comerciales a las cuatro dimensiones de la seguridad alimentaria (disponibilidad, acceso, utilización y estabilidad)?

Hola a Todos. Mi trabajo es la Asesoría, Consultoría, Docencia e Investigación en aplicaciones, análisis y desarrollo de Trazabilidad y GeoTrazabilidad, principalmente en Latinoamérica y El Caribe, región de mucha producción alimentaria.  Desde hace varios años, Comunidad Europea, USA y Países del Asia Pacífico, han implementado Trazabilidad y se la exigen a los Países que exporten a éstas, inclusive con fechas límites, básicamente en los productos que menciona el Reg 178/02 de CE, no sólo para saber el origen de los Productos, sino como herramienta para controlar la calidad e inocuidad alimentaria.  Y con esta base de Normativas, quiero citar el caso de, por ejemplo, el producto mango (Mangifera Índica), donde uno de los lugares del Mundo con mayor calidad, era Haití, y después del terremoto y la lentitud administrativa, hizo que República Dominicana desplazara la provisión de este producto por el simple hecho de contar con Trazabilidad.

-  ¿Que conocimientos y experiencia tiene en la creación de coherencia entre las medidas de seguridad alimentaria y las normas comerciales? ¿Pueden los enfoques basados en los derechos desempeñar un papel relevante?

Argentina ha pasado a ser en los últimos años, uno de los principales exportadores de soja en sus diferentes presentaciones: semilla, aceite, pellets, harina, etc, etc, pero ya ha llegado el rumor al mundo de los residuos químicos que iban en estos productos dado el uso indiscriminado de herbicipas, plaguicidas y fungicidas, por lo cual, por ejemplo, el Ejército Chino, alimentado en gran parte con carne porcina y este animal a su vez alimentado con soja argentina, está poniendo en duda en si seguirá comprándole este tipo de productos con tantos químicos a la Argentina, máxime al ser OGMs.  Aparte de ello, pesa también las cuestiones Medio Ambientales, ya que la Argentina ha desmontado bosques nativos para seguir plantando soja, lo cual ha llevado a problemas como aluviones, cambios de flora y fauna hasta desarraigo de personas.

-  ¿Cómo puede una estrategia de seguridad alimentaria -incluidos los componentes que apoyan explícitamente a los agricultores de pequeña escala en entornos de agrobiodiversidad-, implementarse de forma que pueda ser compatible con un enfoque global para la seguridad alimentaria basado en el mercado?

Con capacitación.  Hay empresas grandes y pequeñas se capacitan casi constantemente, pero todos sabemos que entre el 60 y el 70% de la producción alimenticia está a cargo de la Agricultura Familiar, a veces de individuos.  Si bien la tarea no es fácil, es posible, máxime las TICs disponibles hoy en día.

- From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?

Hello everyone. I work as advisor, consultant, lecturer and researcher on applications, analysis and development of traceability and geo-traceability, mainly in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region with high food production. For several years, the European Community, the United States and diverse countries in the Asia and the Pacific region have implemented traceability, establishing it as a requirement for countries exporting them their products, even with sell-by dates, basically for items mentioned in EC Regulation 178/02, not only to know their origin but as a tool to control food quality and safety. On this regulatory basis I would like to mention -as an example- the case of Haiti, producer of world-class mangos (Mangifera indica). Following the earthquake and the administrative unwieldiness, supply was shifted to the Dominican Republic simply because it was traceable.

-  What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security measures and trade rules?  Can rights-based approaches play a role?

In recent years, Argentina has become one of the leading soybean exporters in its different forms: seeds, oil, pellets, flour, etc. However, it has already been rumoured that these products contain chemical residues due to the indiscriminate use of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. This is why, for instance, the Chinese army -with a diet primarily consisting of pork, fed in turn with Argentinean soybean-, is questioning whether to continue buying these products from Argentina, containing so many chemical substances and even considering they are GMOs. In addition, environmental issues also play an important role, since Argentina has deforested native forests to extend soybean production, causing problems such as floods, changes in flora and fauna and even uprooting of people.

-  How can a food security strategy -including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings- be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a global market-based approach to food security?

With training. Large and small companies conduct training almost continuously. However, we all know that family farming -sometimes individuals-, yield between 60 and 70% of food production. Although it is not an easy task, it is possible, especially with the assistance of the ICTs available nowadays.

Dear Dennis, thank you very much for such a detailed and thoughtful post. Many excellent points here.

[original received in Russian on the FSN Forum in Europe and Central Asia]

Trade agreements have definitely affected the four dimensions of food security (FS): availability, access, utilization (nutrition) and stability. This situation is due to the accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the WTO.

This impact on the four dimensions varies. In order to determine microeconomic and macroeconomic aspects of this impact, it is necessary to conduct a special research. Increase in imports of mineral fertilizers, plant protection products, new varieties of seeds and veterinary preparations lead to an increase in crop productivity, i.e. availability. At the same time seed intervention as a result of international agreements (between Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation) destroys the current seed market, therefore seeds produced by seed-production farms don’t reach the consumer. Contraband and infringing goods (animal breeds, fruit crop plants) from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are threatening phytosanitary and epizootological situation. 

As it may favourably affect food availability, it will have an adverse effect on utilization and stability. Due to the accession to the Customs Union, food exports become rigid, since the Customs Union has high technical regulations. Therefore farmers or processors must ensure compliance of their products with ISO 22000 and HACCP. Compliance of their products with these standards allows them to export and to get profit. Growth of profits at microeconomic level may improve availability, access, utilization and stability.

The role of the government of the Kyrgyz Republic is to ensure certification of products in accredited laboratories. 

1)    From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?              

In our experience, trade agreements and rules have a mixed affect on all four dimensions of food security.  Jennifer Clapp’s 2014 paper provides an excellent survey of the literature both pro and con regarding cross-border trade agreements vs. free markets

The problem with much of the well-intentioned trade agreements and rules is the unintended consequences on local food production, storage, and markets that most global policy approaches tend to ignore until after the fact.

A better approach to global food security would be to focus more efforts on all aspects of the local food security value chain (see question #3 below), and then determine how national and regional trade agreements and rules can be applied to support the local food security value chain.

2)   What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security measures and trade rules?  Can rights-based approaches play a role?

Coherence between food security measures and trade rules is achievable, if the local food security value chain (FSVC) is addressed first.  Rights-based approaches can and should play a role, but must first be addressed from the “bottom up” of the local FSVC. 

One of the missing elements in the global food security, malnutrition, and trade agreements debate seems to be an understanding of what motivates farmers (including smallholder farmers) to grow a specific quantity and type of food.  Farmers are rational producers in our experience, and will not grow more food than they can use themselves, or can profitably sell.  Long-term food security depends upon all aspects of the Food Security Value Chain working in harmony.  When “blockages” occur in the FSVC, whether from lack of the right seed (farming), or onerous trade rules that force prices to be too high or too low (markets), food security is diminished. 

Similarly, if the participants in all aspects of the FSVC are not treated with dignity and respect, i.e., treated with basic human rights, then the FSVC and food security will be reduced because inefficiencies are introduced into the system.  Thus, we would again argue that a “bottom up” approach to the local FSVC, including the rights of all stakeholders for fair pricing, should then lead to a regional and national approach that is more supportive of the FSVC “system”.

3)    How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a global market-based approach to food security? 

At AfriGrains, we believe the “Food Security Value Chain” (FSVC) includes the entire food security "system".  This includes: 1) field preparation; 2) farming; 3) storage and handling; 4) transportation; and 5) markets.  Without attention to all elements of the Value Chain, and unless they are viewed as a comprehensive "system" (or as a "complex adaptive system"), food security will only be minimally improved.  International trade agreements and cross-border rules are only one small aspect of the Food Security Value Chain.

Policy makers should continually ask: “why would a farmer produce more food than they can store, transport and sell at a price that is greater than the cost of production-storage-transportation-sale?” If there is no way for the farmer to adequately store produce after harvest, resulting in post-harvest-losses due to disease, mold, or animal destruction, then the farmer is irrational to grow more food than can be safely stored prior to sale.  If the farmer has only a donkey for transport to market, or can only transport food to market on his/her back/head, then there is little incentive to grow more food than can be consumed by the family.  If the final price for the food at the market is less than the cost of storage, or cost of transport (even by donkey-back), or cost to produce, then the farmer is likewise irrational to grow more food than that needed to feed his/her family for the next year.

We believe that most farmers are rational, all else being equal. If farmers are rational producers, then they will only produce surplus food to the extent that they can reasonably expect to realize value from their efforts.  If that food is expected to be lost during storage, is unlikely to be transported to market at a reasonable cost, or cannot be expected to be sold at a profit after expenses, then the rational farmer will not grow surplus food.  Change that equation to correct the storage, transport or market incentives/prices, and the farmer will rationally grow as much grain as he/she is able to ultimately sell.

If our goal is to feed the 800million people who are food insecure today as well as the expected 2 billion more people by 2050, then we need to identify what systemic blockages exist within the FSVC that restrict the profitable production, storage, transportation and sale of food from farm to the consumer.  Crossing national borders is only one small element of the entire FSVC.  This assessment must be done at all levels: local, regional, national and international.

Historically, we see that it was not until the combination of farm mechanization, storage innovations, transportation improvements, and the creation of markets, that farmers in the Midwest United States transitioned from being subsistence-level farmers to food surplus producers.  This transformation occurred in approximately the fifty years between1825-1875 and required all 4 sufficient conditions to be present before the region became food secure.  The John Deere steel plow, the McCormick harvester, the steam-powered grain elevator, the Erie Canal, railroads, the telegraph, and the Chicago Board of Trade futures markets are just some of the changes that contributed to the transformation from subsistence level to food surplus farming over that time frame.  It was also during this time frame that the increased production of food enabled the formerly subsistence-level farmers to produce enough surpluses to feed the growing urban populations of New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.

These same challenges face us today in Africa and Asia.  Before addressing the trans-national trade agreement questions, we need to ask how x country is to grow enough food to feed its own urban population.  Are there blockages within the local FSVC that restrict local farmers from providing the amount of food to the end consumer within the urban centers in their own country?  If so, have they been identified, and what solutions are available to remove those blockages?   Only after we have addressed the local FSVC issues can we then address the trans-national issues and blockages.

For example, in our experience, farmers in East Africa have the capacity to produce more food than what the family/household needs to feed itself.  The growing urban populations are an easy market for local (smallholder) farmers to sell into.  The demand is there.  However, storage facilities are lacking, transportation systems (roads, railroads, trucks, trains) are not adequate, or not cost-effective, and thus the final price to the consumer is either too high, or locally produced food is simply not available.  Until the local storage, transportation, and pricing issues are resolved, local farmers will not increase food production because why should farmers grow something that will spoil in storage, not be transported, or not be sold because the local FSVC system is too inefficient.

If the local FSVC of production, storage, transportation and markets can be more adequately addressed, then local (smallholder) farmers will successfully be able to compete with alternative sources of food.  This levels the playing field between farm, storage, transportation, and merchants globally.  Sorghum produced in the US is much more efficiently produced than in East Africa.  However, capital costs of production are also higher in the US.  Storage is more efficient in the US than East Africa.  But the cost of transport should be much less from local producers in East Africa to urban centers than the cost of transport from the US.  Except that donkey-back is not an efficient means of transport, and cannot provide enough quantity of food to market.  Hence, the “blockage” to the local FSVC chain is the inefficiency of transportation, combined with poor (or non-existent) storage facilities.  Solve the “donkey-back” transportation issue, and local smallholder farmers will be more than competitive with global, more efficient but very distant (cost of transportation) farmers, in terms of “delivered cost of food”. 

In conclusion, achieving global food security is possible if policy makers such as FAO and Committee on Food Security change the paradigm, and address the entire FSVC systemically from the “bottom up”.  Private companies such as AfriGrains can profitably address FSVC in East Africa, through purchasing from local smallholders and its own production, fixing the local storage and transport issues in a way that allows us to compete against the large multi-nationals.  The solution is not more trade agreements and rules, but rather investors and companies willing to solve the world’s hunger challenge in creative, sustainable, and new ways, with human dignity and respect for all stakeholders.

Dennis Bennett

CEO

AfriGrains, Inc.

Greetings to everybody, I wanted to add my welcome to my co-facilitator Ekaterina.  I feel very lucky that Ekaterina has joined as a facilitator -- though it means you all are now in the hands of an economist and a lawyer!  

As Ektaterina points out, the relationship between food security and trade rules is complex.  We welcome input from all disciplines and from all stakeholders to help us gain a better understanding of how these two broad areas relate to one another.  Given the diversity of situations amongst and within countries we want to hear your experience with how trade rules have helped, challenged, hindered your quest for food security and a sustainable food system.

Let us know if there are particular ways in which we can help facilitate the conversation. In the meantime, we look forward to your contributions and will jump in with our comments and questions as well.

Best,

Susan 

Dear participants, I would like to welcome you to the discussion: “Examining the linkages between trade and food security: What is your experience?” I hope that we will have a very fruitful and interesting debate. This is not an easy topic, and country experiences with trade in relation to food security objectives vary a lot. But that is precisely why it is important to have the different views heard and use the rich experience in the countries (both positive and negative) to develop viable proposals that governments can take into consideration when designing public policy.

Trade and trade policy affect the four pillars of food security in a very direct way as they affect food availability and the relative prices of goods and factors of production. But trade in itself is neither a threat no a panacea when it comes to food security, but it certainly poses challenges and even risks that need to be considered in a debate, supported by proper analysis.

Food security is high on the political agenda these days, not only at the national level, but also in global processes, such as WTO negotiations, G-20, development of Sustainable Development Goals. The moment is therefore ripe for having this discussion on the implications of trade and trade policy for food security, and I am looking forward to hearing your views. As a facilitator, I will do my best to provide relevant inputs and steer the discussion towards constructive outcomes.

Best,

Ekaterina

I would like to give an example of one arrangement which made food more available from economical point of view for the residents of Russia in the situation of food embargo in 2014. At the request of the Russian authorities Brazil reduced the prices of pork deliveries to Russia. On some commodity positions decrease made up to 50%.

Greetings –

International food trade can contribute to the food security of those who are well off, but it tends to work against the interests of poor people who are not food producers and the small-scale producers who are not selling into the major markets. Thus trade is not a good means for ending hunger.

Some people think of the commodity-based global food system as if it were the only one, but for many people there are separate local food systems that have little connection with the global one. Small local farms, often dismissed as “inefficient”, play a crucial role in providing low-cost foods to the local poor. If those small local farms are consolidated, and made more “efficient”, perhaps under the ownership of outsiders, they are likely to ship their products out to people with money, whether in the same country or abroad. The local poor are bypassed.

Also, new large scale-farms are likely to do much more harm to the local environment than the agro-ecology that is traditionally practiced on small local farms.

Food exports from poor countries produce benefits for local people, but the distribution of those benefits is likely to be highly skewed, with much of the benefit going to outsiders, the local rich, and the government, not to those who work in the fields, and not to local non-farmers.

Many poor countries see trade agreements as increasing their vulnerability to exploitation by powerful outsiders. They become especially vulnerable when the agreements prohibit making any restrictions on imports. Powerful outsiders can easily displace local producers.

In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, it was clear from the outset that small-scale corn producers in Mexico would be hurt as a result of massive imports of subsidized corn from the United States into Mexico. The pressure to open domestic markets to foreign suppliers often means the flooding of domestic markets with food from outside. Local food producers cannot compete with the imports, with the result that their incomes plummet, destroying their food security.

The division between international trade advocates and its critics can be understood in terms of two connected points: markets are beneficial mainly to the rich and powerful; and strategies of self-sufficiency are beneficial mainly to the poor and weak.  

This explains why the strongest advocates of free trade are the rich, and the strongest advocates of self-sufficiency are the poor and their friends. Strategies of self-sufficiency protect the weak from potentially exploitative relationships with those who are stronger.

Richer countries promote trade in a way that suggests it would be beneficial to all, but it would not be equally beneficial, and it certainly would not favor the poor. Trade tends to provide its greatest benefits to those who are more powerful. It contributes to the widening of the gap between rich and poor. The market system promotes the flow of food and wealth toward money and power, not toward need.

One way to protect the vulnerable would  be to ensure that all parties have a clear voice in deciding what would be good for them. If small-scale corn producers in Mexico had a seat at the negotiating table, they might not have been overrun by the North American Free Trade Agreement.

It is possible to add elements to trade agreements to protect the vulnerable. Rather than relying on the market alone to improve living conditions for the poor, trade agreements could include non-market measures such as social safety nets that protect and improve their living conditions. Those who are confident that the safety nets for the poor will not be needed should have no hesitation about providing them, as a kind of insurance.

Packaging trade proposals together with protective programs of this kind might increase the likelihood that poor communities would support them.

Aloha, George Kent