Promoting Local Food Systems Globally:
The World Trade Organization versus People's Food Sovereignty
by Sarah Laeng Gilliatt
Agriculture takes us beyond ourselves to our connection with the world. The production of food is inextricably woven into community, and affects the health of the earth, global equity, and cultural and biological diversity. These questions ultimately lead us to consider political and economic forces–to dynamics of December’s World Trade Organization Meeting.
The WTO is one of the most influential mechanisms for promoting a model of globalized, industrialized agriculture for export. It is committed to agricultural liberalization--opening up countries to imports and exports and strengthening the trend to larger and larger scale monocultural production for trade.
Agriculture first came within the ambit of trade in '94 at the conclusion of the 8th Round of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT, that gave rise to the WTO). Prior to that trade involved goods only, and food security was deemed a domestic concern. This was a profound decision as access to food suddenly became vulnerable to volatile commodity prices. In 1995, the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) began to implement policies that eliminated governments' abilities to control imports and exports through quotas and tariffs, as well as their capacities to support domestic farmers through subsidies.
It is argued that removal of tariffs helps developing countries by allowing the importation of cheap food that the poor can afford. However, cheap imports also undermine rural livelihoods; farmers can no longer compete and are thereby pulled off the land into megalopolises where they face high levels of unemployment.
It is also argued that specializing for trade allows countries to benefit from "comparative advantages." The concept of comparative advantage holds that it is in everyone's interest for each region to specialize in the one product that it is best at producing and produce it on a large scale for export. Given the diversity of ecosystems, resource bases, traditions, and so forth, each region has their particular strengths and weaknesses. Thus, the strengths could be exploited and the weaknesses overcome. Practiced to a certain degree, this doctrine makes a lot of sense, and certainly the global justice movement is not against trade per se; however, in our current system we are practicing trade to the exclusion of strong local economies that can produce diverse goods and thereby be somewhat self-reliant. A doctrine of comparative advantage alone also doesn’t sufficiently take into account the environmental costs–CO2 emissions from the transport of food over vast distances, losses in biodiversity, and the many negative ecological impacts of monocultural production, to name a few.
The WTO’s Recent Hong Kong Meeting
From the 13th to the 18th of December, 2005, the World Trade Organization (WTO) held its Sixth Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong. It was an historic and highly significant event. Historic because the World Trade Organization's future was on the line: two of the last three rounds of negotiation failed, and without a deal in Hong Kong the organization would have been thrown into deep crisis. And it was significant because major concessions were made by the developing world that, very sadly, will have a negative impact on much of the world's population. Major disagreement surrounded the key issues up to the final closing session; but there was fear that if one opposed an agreement one would be blamed for the failure of this crucial round, and by the end of the contentious discussions the elite club of power brokers were successful in urging the developing world to sign onto agreements against their interests.
In terms of agricultural agreements in Hong Kong, "dumping" (the US and EU practice of flooding world markets with heavily subsidized agricultural products at prices well below the cost of production, thereby depressing commodity prices and forcing small farms out of business) will continue unabated. The highly trumpeted agreement by the EU to end export subsidies by 2013 will, in fact, result in zero cuts to export support. According to Focus on the Global South, "55 billion Euros per year will continue under AOA [Agreement on Agriculture] rules and in fact the EU has the provision to increase subsidies."
Regarding cotton, the rich countries' agreement to cut export subsidies by 2006 is heralded as a great concession to Africa, however, according to the Third World Network, "this constitutes only a small portion of the trade distortion. There is no action agreed for trade distorting domestic subsidies which amount to about USD 3.8 billion or 80-90% of total US support for cotton. Domestic subsidies also make up almost all of the European cotton subsidies." The African Cotton Producers Association's response to the outcome was that "there has not been any concrete proposal on the most essential request."
Movement for Food Sovereignty
The movement towards local food for local consumption is growing all over the world. Groups such as Via Campesina, South Korean rice farmers, French farmers, and many others have been working together to promote a platform of food sovereignty, "prioritizing local agricultural production in order to feed the people." They have been working for the removal of agriculture from the World Trade Organization altogether.
In New Mexico, there are many reasons why it would be vital for us to join this burgeoning global movement for food sovereignty and away from a highly unsustainable food trading system. We are in a good position to take innovative stands on these issues. First, we are extremely fortunate in that our topography does not lend itself to large scale agriculture, and we do not therefore have a legacy of pesticide-intensive agriculture to overcome. Second, Native American and Hispanic elders have memories of times of self- reliance and vibrant agricultural traditions and practices. But New Mexican agriculture is at a crucial moment right now, with chile farmers and others in dire circumstances. Some are arguing that we have reached a very significant threshold, and that if we go below this point New Mexican agriculture is in danger of collapsing.
Now is the moment for an all-out effort to save New Mexican agriculture, and our work here will be all the more powerful if we root it in the global context and movement. By linking hands with regions undergoing similar crises the world over, each will be strengthened and we can share lessons and victories, inspiring one another step by step. The movement can unite environmentalists, slow food enthusiasts, those seeking to maintain cultural sovereignty, small farmers, economic development people and those concerned with poverty and unemployment.
The Way Forward
Despite the recent defeats at the World Trade Organization, all may not be lost, and in fact, these next few months provide an extremely important window for the global justice movement. The WTO faces very tight deadlines to actually ratify the Hong Kong text. By April 30th they must work out the full framework on agriculture and industrial goods. After that, the date for final approval in the WTO's executive General Council is December 1-2. And then it must pass the US Congress before July 2007 when President Bush's trade promotion authority expires.
Given that these issues have been contentious for years, this timeframe is remarkably short, and if it is not adhered to the WTO would be severely undermined, and the world trading system would be at a real turning point. It would be time to promote a new development model altogether. The visions for another world exist and have been assiduously researched and articulated. For example, see the International Forum on Globalization's report, entitled "Alternatives to Economic Globalization" at www.ifg.org.
Rather than arguing about market access, and orienting developing countries' economies first and foremost around large-scale production for export, we could be promoting the local on a global scale. Rather than advocating trade as the highest law of the land at the expense of strong local economies, communities and bioregions, we could work to trade only when goods cannot be produced locally. Rather than focusing the conversation on subsidies that benefit monocultural producers and multinational corporations, we should shift the debate towards supporting small-scale, sustainable, diversified local production for local consumption. In so doing, soil, water, biodiversity-the earth itself-would be nourished for future generations. |
