| The Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA) will be one of the most important issues at the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Cancun, Mexico in September.
From January to March 2003 there will be heavy lobbying
in the WTO as members try to negotiate new rules for trade
in agriculture. These negotiations are expected to culminate
in an agreement before the end of March leading to official
signing in September.
The agriculture talks come
at a time when the much vaunted liberalisation of markets
has failed to bring any meaningful development to developing
countries. If anything, the liberalisation of markets especially
in the agriculture sector has resulted in the marginalisation
of small farmers and the unbridled growth of the big farmer.
In a strange twist of logic, the agriculture sector seems
to operate on the basis of actually giving more to those
who have while at the same time taking away even the little
of those who do not have.
The much touted Doha “development”
agenda is in tatters as Canada, the European Union, Japan
and the United States of America (US) continue to put obstacles
in those areas of Doha that give advantages to developing
countries. The EU and US particularly stand accused of hypocrisy
over their agricultural trade policies. The huge subsidies
that they give to their farmers for example are hurting farmers
in developing countries. The US continues to dump subsidised
cotton exports in Africa while the EU is doing the same with
its sugar exports. Last year US subsidies to its cotton growers
amounted to $3.9 billion. This figure is actually three times
the US foreign aid budget for the same year. Against this
background, it is therefore shocking that developed countries
and some gullible developing countries want the agriculture
talks to focus on market access and the breaking down of barriers
in developing countries. This is being done at the expense
of dealing with basic distortions and the dumping of
agricultural products in developing countries. These market
distortions are a direct result of rich countries’ domestic
support and subsidies. Yet the WTO continues to speak the
language of liberalising the agricultural markets irrespective
of the disruptions visited on poor countries’ economies.
This hypocrisy has not
gone unnoticed because even those institutions that have previously
acted as cheerleaders for the WTO are beginning to question
the actions of the rich countries. This is what led Nicholas
Stern, World Bank chief economist to remark in November 2002,
that: “It is hypocritical to preach the advantages of trade
and markets and then erect obstacles in precisely those markets
in which developing countries have a competitive advantage.”
The US 2002 Farm Act and
the agreement in Europe to delay the reform of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) are the kind of examples that the
developing countries should seriously think about. The CAP
says EU agricultural subsidies must be maintained at the present
level until 2013. The question must be asked why poor countries
are being asked to open up, while rich countries are coming
up with more protectionist policies. The developing countries
must be wary of making serious trade concessions in exchange
for promises of support that never come.
At the special negotiating
session of the WTO Committee on Agriculture from 22-24 January
2003 there was no common position. The chairman of the agriculture
talks, Stuart Harbinson expressed “serious concern” about
the slow pace in reaching an agreement on the agriculture
negotiating modalities. Despite this slow pace, Harbinson
expects that he will have a draft text ready by February 12
in time for the mini-Ministerial meeting scheduled for Japan
from 14-16 February. Developing countries must make it clear
in no uncertain terms that the text that Harbinson comes up
with must capture their concerns. If this does not happen
then they should seriously consider withdrawing from the entire
negotiation process.
If the AoA is to be taken
seriously it must appreciate that there are fundamental differences
between agriculture in the developed and the developing world.
These differences provide the basis for different rules to
apply in the different settings. If the agriculture talks
are to be termed progressive, they must call for:
- an end to dumping;
- the right of developing countries to come up with
enforceable rules to protect themselves against dumping
by the developed countries;
- a ban on export subsidies and credits;
- an agricultural system that ensures food security
for the people, and livelihoods of small farmers;
- Commodity price stabilization;
- Lowering of tariffs for exports of Agricultural
value-added products.
The
priority for any agricultural agreement must be food security
not profit. The right to food is a human right. Poverty and
hunger should be recognised as systematic violations of human
rights. The respect for civil and political rights cannot
be divorced from the enjoyment of economic rights. Agricultural
agreements whose intention is to open African markets to
transnational corporations leading to the obliteration of
the small farmers must be resisted. So if the text by
Chairman Stuart Harbinson ignores the concerns of the developing
countries, then the countries must consider pulling out of
the entire negotiations. And it is practical to do so for
eventually, developing countries must plan to subsequently
disengage themselves from the current model of economic order
that is driven by purely commercial interests.
*Makombe is a Programmer
Officer with SEATINI and Assistant Editor for the Bulletin. |
