Opening the Floodgates: APHD’s Position Paper on Agriculture, Food and Trade Issues

Introduction

1. Asia Partnership for Human Development (APHD) is an association of 22 Catholic development agencies from Asia, Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Drawing inspiration and vision from scriptures and the Catholic Church’s social teachings, APHD works in solidarity with the poor, marginalized and oppressed peoples of Asia in their efforts for empowerment, development, and the promotion of their dignity and rights. The partnership commits itself to sharing, learning and capacity building in the context of the Asian realities of poverty, exploitation and exclusion, and the unfolding challenges of globalization.

2. In its regional advocacy work, APHD collaborates with Asia General (AG) partners ANGOC, AsiaDHRRA, SAWTEE and SEACON. At the global front, it strengthened its solidarity with Caritas Internationalis and its trade advocacy partner CIDSE. These collaborations are vital to APHD as it supports national advocacy work of partner agencies on sustainable agriculture, food security, and farmers’ rights, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and seed rights, and other trade-related issues centering on the WTO negotiations on TRIPs and agriculture (AoA).

3. This paper summarizes APHD’s positions and policy recommendations on agriculture, food and trade issues in preparation for the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Meeting. It has been developed from the national policy papers and position statements of APHD partner agencies and research studies conducted by its AG partners.

4. Food and agriculture are elements fundamental to all human beings. Thus, access to sufficient and appropriate food is a human right. Peoples and governments acknowledge this human right through various international laws, treaties and instruments. As such, it is the obligation of states to ensure that food is available to all regardless of gender, religion, societal standing and ethnicity. Food is more than another market commodity. Food is life; a fundamental right on which other rights depend. Food security will be achieved not just by providing food but by improving the basic standard of living which underpins food security, good health care, land on which to cultivate crops, clean water sources, access to credit, skills training and education.

5. In order to guarantee people’s food sovereignty, it is important that food is produced through biodiversity and community-based systems of production. Food sovereignty is about self sufficiency at all levels, and governments must uphold this right by adopting and implementing pro-poor agricultural policies that promote sustainable and family-based agricultural production systems, rather than the input intensive and export-oriented production.

6. Agriculture in the 21st century is confronted with a plethora of challenges, particularly the need to produce more food for its continuously growing population. Although enough food is produced globally, one of seven people in the world is chronically hungry. Every 3.6 seconds, an individual dies of hunger and three quarters of these are children. Undoubtedly, there is food and nutrition insecurity in the world.

7. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that there are 852 million undernourished people in the world today. Of this number, 815 million are found in developing countries, while the remaining (28 million) are found both in transition and developed countries (9 million). Meanwhile, more than half (60%) of the undernourished people are found in Asia and the Pacific, followed by sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for 24% of the total. Also, as of August 2003, 38 countries are facing serious food shortages and had requested for international food assistance.

8. Such glaring realities contribute to the growing fear on the state of world hunger and poverty. September this year, signals the start of the 10-year countdown towards the target date for achieving the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs is a set of time-bound and quantified targets for reducing extreme poverty and extending universal rights. It provides tangible benchmarks for measuring progress in eight areas with the year 2015 as the target date.

9. However, according to the 2005 UN Human Development Report, if current trends continue, the MDGs will be missed by a wide margin. The target to reduce child mortality will be missed, with a margin equivalent to more than 4.4 million avoidable deaths in 2015. On halving poverty, the gap between the MDG targets and the projected outcomes is equivalent to an additional 380 million people in developing countries living on less that $1 a day by 2015.

10. There are various reasons for hunger but strategies to combat these have to focus first on the root causes, which are primarily due to lack of access to land, seed, water, energy, affordable credit, local markets and infrastructures. Greater investment in agriculture and rural development, unfailing commitment to agrarian reform, participatory and democratized decision-making processes within institutions, and fairer rules governing international agricultural trade are some of the key changes needed to address the complex causes of hunger. The World Food Summit recognized that poverty underlies hunger and that no single factor such as technology will end it. Instead, hunger and malnutrition are results of the way quality food or wealth is distributed and how the benefits from increasing food production are shared.

11. Free market policies have changed the nature of food production and distribution in the last two decades. Food production in the developing world has become a highly profitable agribusiness enterprise wherein more and more farmers have lost their land and livelihoods and large transnational firms have taken greater control over agriculture. Land and crop conversion schemes were institutionalized and government support for agriculture was shifted to cash crops for export, rather than food crop, further marginalizing resource-poor and subsistence farmers.

12. Trade liberalization has changed and is continuously changing the dynamics of domestic and international markets. It is imposing new demands and pressures on all producers (large and small), but small producers are more negatively affected as they cannot compete in the global market since their production is relatively small and they have limited capital to make improvements in the quantity and quality of their products. Lack of government support in terms of the needed investments on rural infrastructures (i.e., farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities, etc.) and appropriate agricultural RD & E that could have helped increased productivity further aggravate the situation.

13. APHD believes that international trade plays an important role in human development. It can contribute significantly to the eradication of poverty and in providing solutions to food insecurity and world hunger. However, this can only happen if the benefits of trade are shared more equitably between, and within countries. This position is in accordance with the Catholic Social Teaching on the development of peoples: “Free trade can be called just only when it conforms to the demands of social justice. (#59)…In trade between developed and underdeveloped economies, conditions are too disparate and the degrees of genuine freedom available too unequal. In order that international trade be human and moral, social justice requires that it restore to the participants a certain equality of opportunity (#61).”

14. The current set-up of global trade does not guarantee such equality. Trade rules are biased against poor people and poor countries. It is not flexible enough in many areas to allow poor countries to develop and implement trade policies consistent with both short- and long-term development objectives. The rapid and increasing integration of markets, brought about by trade agreements, resulted to liberalized agricultural markets characterized by lowered tariffs and trade barriers which made the entry of imports easier and faster. With the market widely open to products of other countries, resource-poor farmers are gravely affected, displaced from their land and dislocated from their traditional sources of livelihood due to the shift in production patterns.

Agreement on Agriculture

15. WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is a classic example of trade scheme creating a negative impact on the development of poor developing countries. One of the most significant agreements negotiated in the Uruguay Round, AoA regulates the liberalization of trade of agricultural products. It covers three main areas: reductions in farm export subsidies, increases in import market access, and cuts in domestic producer subsidies. AoA promotes an export-oriented model of agriculture aimed at satisfying the demands of the world market wherein products for export are primarily coming from large, highly modernized and chemical-intensive farms rather than those produced traditionally by resource-poor farmers and small producers.

16. This kind of intensification and industrialization of agricultural production has led to increasing degradation of the environment. It resulted to acute pollution of land, water and air; and allowed for dumping of inappropriate technology and external inputs (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) from TNCs who are mostly based in the North. Furthermore, to make way for the cultivation of cash crops, deforestation and massive conversion of prime agricultural lands allotted for growing staple crops are hastily being done.

17. AoA has also legitimized the use of subsidies in developed countries while forcing developing countries to cut tariffs which are in many cases their only means of protecting vulnerable farming communities. The removal of tariffs has opened the floodgates for rich countries, which because of subsidies were able to dumped products on the world market at prices below the cost of production. “Dumping is what is driving millions of farmers off the land throughout the Third World and into urban slums and international migratory streams. It causes the low crop process that makes earning a livelihood off the land increasingly impossible.”

18. In APHD’s view, trade-distorting domestic subsidies and visible and hidden export subsidies of developed countries should be significantly reduced if not eliminated. Dumping of products should be stopped. To protect food security and the interest of its farmers, developing countries should be allowed to impose counterveiling duties and other forms of protective measures against products being dumped by exporting countries at a price less than its production cost.

19. APHD also believes that sensitive agricultural products of developing countries, particularly those that resource-poor farmers depend on for their basic food needs and livelihood should be exempted from further tariff reductions. A list of special products (SPs) with lower tariff reductions should be established and it should be based on the development needs of each countries. To prevent abuse, there should be a ceiling on the maximum number of tariff lines based on the percentage of all domestic agriculture products.

20. Special safeguard mechanisms to cover all, if not most of agricultural products must also be made available to all developing countries to help them address import surges and price volatility. Such mechanisms should not be an alternative to special products as the two mechanisms addressed different problems. SPs’ concern is on dumping while SSMs deal more with fluctuations on imports and prices.

Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)

21. Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) is another structural change in the global economy that concerns APHD. Described as one of the pillars of the WTO, the agreement binds member countries to provide effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) through national legislation. IPRs are exclusive rights given to a person or company who invented a product, design or technology to use the invention/creation for a certain period of time and earn royalties for its use by others. It covers patents, copyright and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, lay-out designs of integrated circuits and undisclosed information.

22. TRIPs is the first global system of IPR on biological diversity and, specifically, plant varieties. Its inclusion in the WTO was insisted by the United States under pressure from major business interests particularly the US film and pharmaceutical industries. A handful of corporations and lobbyists were responsible for crafting its terms and pushing, via various developed country governments, the agreement through the Uruguay Round and into the WTO.

23. A controversial provision in the agreement on TRIPs is Article 27.3 (b) on patenting of life forms and processes. This provision states that WTO members “may also exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.” Further, “Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. However, the interpretation of the term “effective sui generis system” is subject to many interpretations and its ambiguity has been a source of debates and disagreement.

24. Developing countries reluctantly agreed to sign TRIPs because of this ambiguity, but were finally convinced when the agreement included a clause saying that Article 27.3 (b) would be reviewed before developing countries would have to implement the agreement However, this mandated review that began in 1999 have so far achieved little progress.

25. APHD supports the position of the Africa Group on the issue regarding TRIPs’ Article 27.3 (b). The Group reiterated that “Patents on life forms are unethical and the TRIPs Agreement should prohibit them.” Thus, plants, animals, microorganisms and all other living organisms and their parts should be excluded from patentability and that the control over genetic resources and its related knowledge should rest on the control of the local community.

26. APHD also believes that while TRIPs encourages innovation and the disclosure of information on inventions, it also creates monopolies and power concentration of agricultural development in the hands of the few. TRIPs lacks measures to protect traditional knowledge and allows life-sciences TNCs to appropriate collectively shared knowledge for private gain. It restricts farmers from saving and exchanging seeds and promotes enslavement of farmers in the form of royalties.

27. Furthermore, TRIPs restricts access to biological resources, hampering research and development, and impede the access of poor countries to technologies they need for their development. It impacts negatively on farmers as it disregards the collective achievement of previous generations who have nurtured, identified and improved plant varieties that are now contributing to human knowledge and well-being.

Genetically Modified Organisms

28. Closely linked with TRIPs are today’s technological innovations, particularly the promotion of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is one of the applications of modern agricultural biotechnology whose products are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs also referred to as ‘transgenics’ are plants, animals, microorganisms and other living things that have been altered, modified, transformed, manipulated to contain genes from other species or organisms that express desired traits or characteristics .

29. Proponents of this technology are saying GE is the “answer to problems ranging from hunger in Africa and Asia to Obesity in the West.” However, many scientists, civil society organizations, farmers’ federations and Church-based groups are opposed to these promises for reasons of food and health safety, possible environmental risks, loss of biodiversity due to genetic erosion, and most of all corporate monopoly of agriculture.

30. APHD’s concern on GMOs is not centered on questions of their food and health safety, but more importantly on its social implications particularly to resource-poor farmers. Genetically modified seeds are patented, thus, are heavily protected by laws under intellectual property rights (IPRs). These IPRs force farmers who use GM seeds to sign contracts obliging them to pay royalties (technology fee), thus preventing them from sharing, saving, and replanting seeds. Human right is also an issue as corporations gain access to farmers’ properties to verify compliance. Such systems give seed and agrochemical companies unprecedented control of agricultural production as they provide both the seeds and the chemicals needed to grow it. It greatly increases corporate monopoly of agriculture prices and markets narrowing the choices for farmers and consumers and leaving them vulnerable to TNC control.

31. Furthermore, GM technologies are more suitable for resource-rich, rather than resource-poor farmers in the South. Its products are often inappropriate for the farmers of developing countries because it often require large amounts of external inputs to express its high yield potentials. Also, the present applications of genetic engineering are designed for crops (i.e. soybeans, maize, cotton, canola) that are important to the industrialized world, not for crops on which the world’s hungry depend.

32. APHD believes that there are more sustainable ways of improving crop productivity rather than resorting to genetic engineering. These are the tried and tested sustainable methods of production practiced by farmers in developing countries. Millions of farmers have improved crop production through sustainable agriculture practices based on renewable and locally available materials, and their rich indigenous knowledge.

Policy Recommendations, Alternatives and Proposals for Change

33. Institutions and groups advocating for a fairer trade environment and the promotion of food sovereignty and farmers’ rights, have recommended several approaches for farmers to use in agricultural production. Primary to these is sustainable agriculture (SA). Unlike the prevailing system of modern agriculture which is characterized by heavy use of chemical inputs, intensive mechanization, contract growing and large-scale mono-culture, sustainable agriculture gives emphasis on the use of indigenous natural resources and the local autonomy of farmers in deciding what to plant and how to improve their crops and livelihood.

34. Various definitions have been provided for what constitutes sustainable agriculture. These definitions ranged from a narrow focus on economics or production to the inclusion of ecology, spirituality and culture. Over time, a working definition that fuses the diverse elements of SA has been developed and accepted by farmers, academicians, policy makers and civil society groups.

35. Sustainable agriculture is a philosophy and system of farming that is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate, humane and grounded on holistic approach. These dimensions of SA apply to all aspects of the agricultural system from production and processing to marketing and consumption. Thus, its approaches are integrated, nature-based agro-ecosystems designed to be self-reliant, resource-conserving and productive in both the short and long terms. SA’s uniqueness is because it is rooted in a set of values that reflects an awareness of both ecological and social realities.

36. The growing interest in sustainable agriculture can be attributed to the main concerns on the conventional modern agriculture: its negative effects on the environment particularly on resource availability and use (soil degradation, soil nutrient and water depletion, loss of biodiversity, natural ecosystems destruction); the deterioration of human health (pesticide exposures, pesticide contamination in the food chain, declining nutritional value) and the declining economic situation of resource-poor farmers and small scale producers brought about by trade liberalization.

37. There is considerable evidence showing sustainable agriculture can provide solutions to most of these problems. SA practices help conserve and improve soil quality by reducing erosion and improving soil structure, organic matter and effective microorganisms content, water-holding capacity and nutrient balances. Some SA approaches proven effective by farmers in the South include the use of compost, leguminous plants, check dams, terracing and crop rotation.

38. Because SA applies little or no chemicals, problems associated with groundwater pollution and nitrate leaching are avoided. Also, contrary to claims that losses due to pest would increase due to the non-application of pesticides, researches conducted showed that pest management is achievable with SA because of the increase in population of natural enemies of pests.

39. Sustainable agriculture also plays a major role in conserving biodiversity. In SA, there are more trees, wider diversity of crops, and integration of poultry and livestock (including fish). Diversified crop production systems contribute to improved and more varied wildlife habitat. The complex interactions between the different plant and animal species in SA results to environmental services in the form of organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling, pest control, soil and water conservation, biomass production and yield efficiency and water cycling, among many others.

40. There is now considerable evidence showing that farmers practicing sustainable agriculture can achieve higher or comparable productivity and yield. In a review of 208 projects and initiatives from 52 countries, reliable data showed that substantial increases in food production per hectare were achieved. About 50-100% increase were observed in rainfed crops and 5-10% in irrigated crops.

41. Furthermore, a review of SA projects and initiatives showed significant increases in household food production . These increases were in terms of yield improvements, cropping density and diversity of produce. The report also found that as food supply increased, domestic consumption also increased with direct health benefits, particularly for children and women.

42. Indeed, the simple and reliable approaches in sustainable agriculture have shown that it is a viable alternative to the highly specialized and complicated technology of genetic engineering, and the increasing trend of neo-liberal economic policies brought about by trade agreements like AoA and TRIPs. APHD supports the promotion and use of sustainable agriculture technologies since they have been proven to improve food security and provide many other benefits to rural communities.

43. SA approaches can result to substantial increases in food production and diversifies livelihood sources. It also contributes favorably to the empowerment of farmers as it recognizes the value of traditional and indigenous knowledge, and the importance of farmers’ experiences and innovation. Moreover, it allows farmers to improve local food production using low-cost, readily available technologies and inputs that does not lead to environmental degradation. SA can be economically, environmentally and socially viable, yielding positive results to human health and the environment.

44. APHD believes that governments and international financing institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund should provide adequate support to sustainable agriculture and other programs aimed at strengthening the development of alternative models in agriculture. Models that adhere and recognize food and nutrition sovereignty and the inherent rights of farmers. More pro-poor policies must be created and implemented that will respond and give priority to the needs of resource-poor farmers and small scale producers, and not cater to the demands of the export-oriented, profit-driven agribusinesses.

45. Specifically, APHD call on governments to support sustainable agriculture by:

 Extending financial and technical support for the promotion of sustainable agriculture
– Recognizing the viable alternatives on production, trading and marketing that various civil society organizations have implemented, and come up with policies and programs that will support , even mainstream, these alternatives;
– Protecting and promoting farmers’ rights to the control the seeds; refuse policies on patenting;
– Putting a stop to conversion and commercialization of prime agricultural lands.
– Promoting small farmers’ and producers’ access to and control of production resources foremost of which are land, water and capital.
– Banning the imports and trans-boundary movements of genetically modified seeds and foods
– Legislating the mandatory labeling of GMO foods now being sold in the market.

46. Furthermore, APHD is recommending and demanding that governments and members of developing countries bloc such as the G20 and G33 to support the following positions during the 6th WTO Ministerial in Hongkong:

A. Negotiate using the framework of sustainable rural development and the nation’s right to produce its staple food in sufficient quantities. The foremost concern in the negotiation is the protection and welfare of the small farmers and producers who form the bulk of Asian agricultural sector;

B. Undertake a thorough review of both the implementation, environment and social impacts of neo liberal policies such as WTO-AoA, TRIPS and many other provisions that impact negatively on the development of people, particularly those in the developing world;

C. Review present WTO-AoA commitments and impose more stringent trade regulations such as raising bound tariffs and maintaining quantitative restrictions on commodities vital to the livelihood of peoples in the South;

D. Work for significant reduction of trade distorting subsidies of developed countries while providing sufficient government support for small farmers and producers to make them more competitive;

E. Demand for the significant reduction, if not elimination, of trade distorting domestic support measures and export subsidies of developed countries with an early end date. Such subsidies undermines developing countries’ trading prospects by dumping cheap products on the world market affecting prices;

F. Ensure that developing countries gain meaningful access to special products selected on grounds of food and livelihood security to rural development. Developing countries should also be allowed to introduce import controls and tariffs on dumped agricultural products to protect their domestic markets from dumping;

G. Support revisions on TRIPs Article 27.3 (b) to exclude all life forms and processes from any form of IPR and subsequent removal of the requirement for plant variety protection. Ensure that the revised agreement contributes to achieving internationally agreed development targets and gives countries the right to use precautionary principle when it comes to GE organisms and foods.

47. Finally, as governments participate in the WTO negotiations, we demand that they do the following in their respective countries :

A. Ensure democratic and meaningful participation of civil society leaders in task forces and committees engaged by governments in trade policy formulation and reviews;

B. Recognize and mainstream viable, on-ground alternative development models of global agricultural trade;

C. Create domestic trade policies that responds to the needs of the resource-poor farmers;

D. Calibrate market access and tariff reforms in consideration of the people’s agricultural conditions; impose more stringent trade regulations such as raising applied and bound tariffs and maintaining quantitative restrictions on commodities vital to the livelihood of peoples in the South;

E. Stop entering into regional and bilateral free trade agreements – the primary tactic employed by developed countries in securing more commitments to the existing WTO agreements;

F. Study the impact of liberalization as it relates to poverty reduction; and consequently review its membership with the WTO;

G. Formulate policies that will protect the small-scale farmers and minimize the debilitating effects of WTO agricultural policies.

H. Popularize and disseminate information on international trade developments that affect farmers and threaten their rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds;

I. Institutionalize, maintain, and continuously update a database of existing or commonly/publicly known plant varieties. This will protect existing wild species of plants from being privately owned or granted a Plant Variety Protection;

48. Along these recommendations, calls and demands, APHD as a partnership of Catholic agencies, commits itself to the continuous development and support of programs for the farmers and their communities that will empower and liberate them against the adverse impacts of globalization and liberalization of agricultural trade. It will intensify information dissemination and education of farmers regarding WTO-AoA and other trade issues before and beyond the 6th WTO Ministerial meeting. It will also conscientiously work and collaborate with its partners at the national, regional and international level on trade campaign activities.

Conclusions

49. Negative development impacts of international trade policies and agreements such as the WTO-AoA, TRIPs and the promotion of GMOs are all becoming too evident and increasingly understood (and thus challenged) by civil society organizations and their partner farmers. Given the wide differences among WTO members and the ambiguity of the critical issues of the negotiations, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the 6th WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong. But whether in Hong Kong or at any place/time thereafter, agreements and reforms resulting from the negotiations should not add additional burden to the developing countries.

50. A genuine reform in trade negotiations particularly on agriculture is essential to the development of peoples in the South. Trade negotiations like the one happening in Hong Kong serves an important opportunity for countries especially from the North to refocus attention on strengthening rural communities and make substantial progress against hunger and poverty. Developed countries should no longer overlook the plight of rural communities and resource-poor farmers. Instead, they should go beyond national interest and consider the wider interests of humanity. APHD believes that global trade, when treated fairly and equally among countries, contributes significantly to human development. It is hoped that powerful trading blocs within the WTO will finally realize this.