|
After two decades of
the destruction of agriculture, trade liberalization is the cause and not the panacea for the current food crisis.
14th May 08 - Aileen Kwa, IPS News
The high food prices that have sparked riots in
many parts of the developing world -- from Indonesia, India and
Bangladesh to Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti -- should come as no
surprise. These are only the latest in a series of events many
developing countries have suffered as a result of opening their borders
and neglecting domestic agriculture.
A large number of
developing countries have conscientiously implemented World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditions and World Trade
Organisation (WTO) commitments. They have applied the given structural
adjustment policies -- and have seen the damaging consequences to their
domestic agricultural sector.
The consequence has been the certain erosion of their capacity to produce their own food.
In the era of stronger state control in the 1970s and even the
early 1980s, domestic food markets in the developing world were often
in the hands of state marketing boards and cooperatives. Marketing
boards would guarantee floor prices, and provide fertilisers and seeds.
They also controlled import volumes, redistributed food where there
were production shortfalls, and purchased commodities from
cooperatives.
These marketing boards were not always run in the best possible way;
there were many instances of corruption or inefficiency, but they did
fulfil certain critical functions. Farmers were provided a market to
sell their produce to, which meant they had a livelihood. Prices were
stable even though they were often lower than what farmers would have
liked.
As a result of these policies, many developing countries were
either net food exporters, or at least were nearly food
self-sufficient.
All that has changed over the last 20 years. Investment support to
farmers was done away with. Small farmers were told to produce for the
international market, and their markets were opened to producers from
outside. Rather than supporting staple crops, government support went
to the export sector. Since all would specialise in the products where
they had 'comparative advantage', gains were supposed to accrue all
round.
But rather than producing winners, millions of the poorest subsistence
farmers were knocked out of their own markets. Imports took over what
was previously produced by local people. Over the last 20 years, the
production capacity in many countries has severely diminished.
The Philippines has been one prime example of such policies. "During
the 60s and 70s, we were self-sufficient," Jowen Berber of Centro Saka,
an NGO working on agrarian issues with farmers, told IPS. "That was the
time that the government was heavily investing in rice -- irrigation,
infrastructure, marketing support and production support such as
credits and inputs. But when the government stopped those incentives
and subsidies, rice production slowly decreased."
Berber said "the acreage of irrigated land has also been falling
because the government has not been maintaining irrigation facilities.
We also have a very high level of post-harvest losses in rice -- up to
35 percent because our post-harvest facilities are very old."
Instead of supporting farmers with guaranteed prices as
before, Berber said "the government now intervenes to buy less than 1
percent of the domestic rice that is produced. They are buying more
imported rice than our own local rice."
A study on import surges by David Pingpoh and Joean Senahoun,
commissioned by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in
2006, noted that the Cameroon government support to the rice sector was
removed in 1994 through implementation of IMF and World Bank policies.
The fertiliser market was privatised. Rice yields of poor farmers
dropped as fertilisers became unaffordable. Tariffs were liberalised,
and annual rice imports doubled from 152,000 tonnes to 301,000 tonnes
between 1999 and 2004.
This opening rendered the country vulnerable to the policies
of other countries. At the time, India was de-stocking its rice
surplus, and rice imports from India increased from 7,900 tonnes in
2001 to 60,300 tonnes in 2002. As a result of this import surge, rice
farmers were hard hit, and many left the sector. Land for rice
cultivation dropped 31.2 percent between 1999 and 2004.
According to the FAO, Cote d'Ivoire also saw imports flooding in when
the market was opened up. As a result of implementing commitments at
the WTO, Cote d'Ivoire removed import restrictions on key agricultural
goods, particularly rice. Duty on all agricultural products was set at
a maximum of 15 percent, except for 25 tariff lines.
As a result, rice imports increased at an annual rate of 6
percent from 470,000 tonnes to 715,000 tonnes between 1997 and 2004.
Imports were mainly from Thailand, China and India. Domestic production
dropped 40 percent over this period.
In Nepal, the civil society organisation ActionAid documents that rice
import surges came in 1994, 1996 and 2000, with imports increasing by
175 percent, 55 percent and 800 percent respectively. From 24,500
tonnes imported in 1999, by the year 2000 imports had hit 195,000
tonnes. The porous borders between Nepal and India, and the Nepal-India
Trade Treaty were widely seen as the cause of these surges. In certain
areas of Nepal, domestic prices fell by nearly 20 percent. The southern
belt bordering India saw a multitude of rice plants and rice mills
shutting down.
Today, in the latest twist of events, food prices have increased due to
global shortfalls. Food production has been redirected towards biofuel
production. Drought in Australia has contributed to shortages on the
world market. Speculators playing on commodity markets have further
increased prices.
Up to 37 countries have been gripped by protests and riots. In
Cameroon, seven people were killed in the unrest in February. Food
riots also took hold of Abidjan in the Cote d'Ivoire in March this
year.
At meetings in Berne in Switzerland to address the global food
crisis, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, World Bank president Robert
Zollick and WTO director-general Pascal Lamy again made a plea for more
free trade the panacea. But farmers remain unconvinced that more of the
same policies that have contributed to the last two decades of
destruction of agriculture can help.
Reacting to the push by the WTO leadership, the World Bank and the UN
to stitch up the Doha Round so that further liberalisation can assist
in resolving the food crisis, Henri Saragih, international coordinator
of the global network of peasant farmers La Via Campesina writes,
"Protecting food has become a crime under free trade rules.
Protectionism has become a dirty word. Meanwhile, countries have become
addicted to cheap food imports, and now that prices are shooting up,
hunger is raising its ugly head."
Link to original source
 |
Comments 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Write comment
