|
||
|
Doha Round will
not prevent another food crisis The article below
was published in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) #6614,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Special Rapporteur
Prof Olivier De Schutter, an independent human rights expert, said States
should define their positions in trade negotiations in accordance with
national strategies for the realization of the right to food and always
conduct human rights impact assessments of trade agreements. In some preliminary
conclusions in a first-ever report on this issue, Prof. De Schutter
examined whether the current path of trade liberalization in agriculture
complies with the WTO Members' obligations towards the human right to
adequate food, as recognized under international law. Presenting the preliminary
conclusions at a media briefing at the UN on Wednesday, just as the
WTO was holding a formal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee,
a day before the final General Council meeting for the year, the independent
expert said that up to now, the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture has failed
to solve the problem of hunger in the world. He pointed to 963
million people who are hungry in the world and that the figures are
up in comparison to 2005 and 2006. The global food
crisis itself is responsible for over 100 million more people falling
into hunger since the figure of 852 million in 2005, which had been
stable for a number of years before that. "... it is
fairly consensual that we have not succeeded yet to ensure that trade
works for development and works to combat hunger," the rights expert
said. He noted that there
is one view that "we haven't gone far enough. We should do more
in order to remove trade-distorting mechanisms, remove in particular
subsidies in industrialized countries, and we should do more to improve
further market access for developing countries." He said that there
are many problems with the existing system which is heavily distorted
in favour of OECD countries. "We all know
the very damaging impact on agriculture in developing countries which
export subsidies and domestic support schemes (of the OECD countries)
have led to. We know that this is a serious problem which has to be
remedied, and there are many obstacles which are both linked to tariffs
and non-tariff barriers [that] remain which prohibits developing countries
from benefiting from openings to trade of their products." He emphasized that
the further implementation of the reform program "is based on an
illusion that by removing existing distortions, we will achieve a level
playing field." "This is simply
not true. We all know that even without the subsidies, which are heavily
biassed in favour of OECD countries in the current situation, the differences
in productivity will remain extremely important between developing countries
and developed countries in general." He noted that there
is an exception for countries of the Cairns Group, which are much better
equipped and have a much stronger competitive advantage in agriculture. The rights expert
stressed that trade is not a substitute for building the capacity of
each country to feed its population. "That is the core message
of the report." "We should
not trust international trade to achieve food security in a sustainable
manner," De Schutter said. The report by the
independent expert was the outcome of a mission to the WTO and broad
consultations with a range of actors, including a number of Ambassadors
to the WTO. It is the first time that the WTO has accepted a request
of the Special Rapporteur to conduct such a mission. His mission to the
WTO has brought him to consider controversial issues such as safeguard
mechanisms and the "specificity" of agricultural products,
which are at the core of the negotiations. The independent
expert is expected to present the official report at the March 2009
session of the Human Rights Council in The report argues
that if trade is to work for development and to contribute to the realization
of the right to adequate food, it needs to recognize the specificity
of agricultural products, rather than to treat them as any other commodities;
and to allow more flexibilities to developing countries, in order to
shield their agricultural producers from competition from industrialized
countries' farmers. The reason for this
is at the heart of what justifies special and differential treatment
for developing countries, De Schutter said. Even after the removal of
existing trade-distorting measures, which currently are disproportionately
benefiting industrialized countries, the average productivity per active
labourer in agriculture will remain much lower in developing countries. In 2006, agricultural
labour productivity in least-developed countries was just 46% of the
level in other developing countries and below 1% of the level in developed
countries. In this context,
the idea of establishing a "level playing field" is meaningless,
says the report, adding that the deepening of the trade liberalization
path will not result in farmers in developing countries being able to
compete on equal terms with producers in industrialized countries, unless
wages and agricultural prices in the South are repressed at very low
levels to compensate for a much lower productivity per active labourer. This will inevitably
result in more violations of the right to food, says the independent
expert. The report examines
trade liberalization in agriculture from the perspective of the human
right to adequate food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. This has four implications,
he said. First, it leads
to emphasize the need for States to prepare national strategies for
the realization of the right to food, in which the role of trade should
be determined in reference to human rights and development objectives. Second, it leads
to highlight the importance of a collaborative multilateral trading
system, and one which should not impose on States commitments that are
contrary to their human rights obligations, thereby emphasizing the
importance of ensuring that States have a sufficient policy space. Third, says the
report, the perspective from the right to adequate food requires a shift
from abstract aggregates (such as There are 963 million
people hungry in the world today. The majority, representing at least
50% of the hungry, are small-holders living off 2 hectares of cropland
or less. 20% are landless labourers, and 10% are pastoralists, fisher-folk,
and forest users. The remaining 20% are the urban poor. Any trade regime
which does not benefit these categories, far from solving it, is likely
to lead to further violations of the right to food. Fourth, because
it focuses on the perspective of the right to adequate food, the report
recalls the unique value of safe, nutritious, healthy, culturally appropriate
and sustainable food as a fundamental right for all. Impacts on health,
nutrition and the environment should therefore be fully integrated in
trade discussions. Isolating the impacts
of WTO agreements from other factors discouraging States from seriously
implementing their human rights obligations is an impossible exercise,
since the disciplines imposed under the Agreement on Agriculture have
an impact only in combination with the trade, fiscal and social policies
pursued at domestic level. Nevertheless, in
order to assist States in implementing the reform program of the Agreement
in compliance with the right to food, the report seeks to identify the
impacts of trade liberalization in agriculture on the ability of States
to protect this right. The report notes
the following risks, which States should take into account in developing
their national strategies and in defining their position in the negotiations
within the WTO: -- Increased reliance
on international trade in order to ensure food security results in a
dependency on international trade, which is a source of various vulnerabilities:
loss of export revenues when the prices of export commodities go down,
threats to local producers when low-priced imports arrive on the domestic
markets, balance of payments problems for the net food-importing countries
when the prices of food commodities go up, as witnessed during the recent
food crisis. -- Increased reliance
on international trade in order to ensure food security also reinforces
the power of highly concentrated transnational corporate actors: increased
cross-border trade implies an increased role for transnationals rather
than domestic agro-food systems. Global sourcing increase the number
of suppliers and thus, the competition between them, leading to dominant
actors to force outrageously low prices on agricultural producers. The current trade
regime also encourages the segmentation of the farming sector, increasingly
divided between one segment which had access to high-value markets,
and as a result, to the best technologies, inputs (including land, water,
and state support), credit, and political influence, and another segment
which is left to serve only the low-value, domestic markets and is comparatively
neglected and marginalized. -- Increased reliance
on international trade in order to ensure food security promotes long
supply chains which imply long distances in transport and unsustainable
modes of production, with serious implications for climate change and
human health and nutrition. The Special Rapporteur
goes beyond the technicalities of the Doha Round and draws important
lessons from both the food crisis and the emerging threat of climate
change. These two issues,
the expert argues, are vastly under-estimated in the current WTO negotiations.
He also proposes, in his report, ways to reconcile trade with the right
to food, addressing the failure of global governance mechanisms to tackle
the fragmentation of international law. Consistency between
obligations imposed under trade agreements and human rights obligations
cannot be rescued through domestic policies, if such consistency is
not ensured in the preparation of the trade agreement themselves. Indeed, because
trade agreements are backed by the threat of economic sanctions, States,
when faced with situations of conflict, generally opt for compliance
with their trade obligations at the expense of human rights. This results
in a "chilling effect": when the Members do not know whether
or not any particular measure they take, in order to comply with their
human rights obligations, will be considered acceptable by the other
Members or instead expose them to retaliation, they will prefer not
to adopt such measure, out of fear that they will be facing economic
sanctions. The report presents
four substantive recommendations on how to make the international agricultural
trade system "human rights compatible." First, the Special
Rapporteur calls on States not to accept undertakings under the WTO
framework which would be incompatible with their right to food obligations.
In order to do this, States should define their positions in trade negotiations
in accordance with national strategies for the realization of the right
to food and always conduct human rights impact assessments of trade
agreements. The Special Rapporteur
highlights the important democratizing effect of open and participatory
consultations, emphasizing the role of national parliamentary hearings
for example. Peasants' organizations would play a key role in drafting
national right to food strategies, and such strategies would serve far
beyond the WTO context, supporting the position of governments in their
discussions with international financial institutions, with donors,
or in bilateral trade negotiations. It is indeed a particular
source of concern that, in a large number of cases, States have been
unable to use flexibilities allowed under the WTO agreements - or to
apply certain tariffs remaining under their bound tariffs - because
of prescriptions from such institutions or because of bilateral free
trade agreements. Secondly, safeguard
measures are crucial. States, particularly developing States in accordance
with the principle of special and differential treatment, must retain
the freedom to take measures which insulate domestic markets from the
volatility of prices on international markets. Although a relatively
small proportion of the food produced, estimated at 15%, is traded internationally,
prices fixed on international markets have a disproportionately negative
impact on the ability of small-scale farmers in the world to make a
decent living. Indeed, there is a tendency for domestic and world prices
to converge as a result of trade liberalization. Unless and until
appropriate mechanisms are put in place at the international level to
deal with the issue of volatility, it is crucial that States have full
flexibility to protect their market against import surges. Supply management
schemes and other orderly-marketing mechanisms have an important role
to play in this regard. Thirdly, States
should avoid excessive reliance on international trade in the pursuit
of food security. In building their capacity to produce the food needed
to meet consumption needs, States should support in particular small-scale
farmers. Throughout the developing
world, agriculture accounts for around 9% of Fourthly, States
should control market power in the global supply chains and counteract
the risk of increased dualization of the farming system. One major imbalance
in the current multilateral trade regime is that, while disciplines
are imposed on States, transnational corporations, whose freedom to
act has been significantly increased as a result, are not subject to
any obligations as regards the exercise of their power on the market. This is an important
gap in global governance. In the medium to long-term, a multilateral
framework may have to be established to ensure a more adequate control
of these actors. In the short-term, States should protect human rights
by adequately regulating actors on which they may exercise an influence,
including in situations where these actors operate outside the national
territory of the States concerned. +
|
||
