JP\/7\/YANU<\/p>\n
Liberalization of agriculture
\ndestroys more than food security<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho
\nDirector
\nThe Business Watch Indonesia
\nSurakarta
\nyanuar-n@unisosdem.org<\/p>\n
During the international trade talks last month in Cancun,
\nMexico, South Korean leader of its farmers' and fishers' union,
\nLee Kyung-hae, 54, stabbed himself at a violent protest. The
\nformer lawmaker, who later died, had earlier climbed a high
\nsecurity fence and waved a banner that read "WTO kills farmers".<\/p>\n
With regard to the controversy upon his death, he may have
\nbeen correct in addressing that concern.<\/p>\n
Farmers' protests happen elsewhere, as in Thailand and India,
\nwhere the same demand is raised: Stop liberalization of
\nagriculture. For them, it is completely unfair to keep opening
\nmarket access and to give domestic support and export subsidies
\nin the midst of unfair word trade.<\/p>\n
Up to 1995, international trade rules under the former General
\nAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were highly ineffective in
\n"disciplining" agricultural trade. In particular, export
\nsubsidies came to dominate the world agricultural trade, while
\nthe disciplines on import restrictions were often flouted.<\/p>\n
The 1986-1994 Uruguay Round went a long way towards changing
\nall that. Agricultural trade is now firmly within the WTO
\nmultilateral trading system. The Agreement on Agriculture,
\ntogether with individual countries' commitments to reduce export
\nsubsidies, domestic support and import barriers on agricultural
\nproducts were a significant first step towards restructuring
\nagricultural trade.<\/p>\n
This restructuring brought all agricultural products (as
\nlisted in the agreement) under multilateral disciplines,
\nincluding "tariff bindings" -- WTO members have bound themselves
\nto maximum tariffs on virtually all agricultural products, while
\na significant number of industrial tariffs remain unbound.<\/p>\n
The negotiations are difficult because of the wide range of
\nviews and interests among member governments, and the complexity
\nof issues. The progress of liberalization of agricultural trade
\nshould benefit those countries, which can compete on quality and
\nprice rather than on the size of their subsidies.<\/p>\n
That is particularly the case for many developing countries
\nwhose economies depend on an increasingly diverse range of
\nprimary and processed agricultural products, exported to an
\nincreasing variety of markets, including to other developing
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
Countries seem to have been deadlocked over agricultural trade
\nand investment rules, which many believe have created barriers to
\nglobal trade. Many poor countries want their rich counterparts to
\ndeliver on a promise they made in Doha to cut US$300 billion in
\nsubsidies they hand out each year to their farmers. These
\nsubsidies, along with high tariffs, are seen as obstacles to poor
\nnations breaking into those developed markets.<\/p>\n
According to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the reality of
\nthe international trading system today does not match the
\nrhetoric. Instead of open markets, there are too many barriers
\nthat stunt, stifle and starve. And this is to the detriment of
\npoor countries. The reaction varies -- a group of 21 developing
\nstates, including China, India, Brazil and Cuba, have formed an
\nalliance to demand the rich countries scrap the handouts, saying
\nthey condemn millions of their farmers to poverty.<\/p>\n
What is crucial here?<\/p>\n
First, siding with the producers -- farmers and fishermen --
\nis very important. Protection of the domestic agricultural sector
\nis vital, particularly for agrarian countries like most
\ndeveloping countries. Thus, its governments are strongly asked to
\nprotect agricultural products from imported ones.<\/p>\n
Second, liberalization of agriculture is closely related to
\nthe issue of food sovereignty -- more than food security, which
\nhas been destroyed throughout the world. At the beginning of last
\ncentury, food was grown and distributed locally. At its end, just
\n20 multinational corporations dominated the food trade. The
\nresult? Two-fifths of the world population is malnourished. Half
\nof these are hungry -- while the other half simply eats too much
\nunhealthy junk food.<\/p>\n
It comes as to no surprise since most nutrition research has
\nbeen privatized and is now funded by and for industrial
\nagribusinesses. So, it is in their interest to develop and
\nadvertise food that will appeal to the rich, not the poor; to
\nencourage growing for export, not to meet local needs; to make
\nfarmers dependent on purchased seed, chemicals and machinery --
\nit is not their interest to make farmers self-sufficient.<\/p>\n
The issue of agriculture is not only about trading food or
\nagricultural products. At its very heart, it is related to the
\nway we live. If we eat local food, we would of course know where
\nour food comes from and there is, consequently, less need for
\nregulations and transport expenses.<\/p>\n
It is also true for agriculture that sustains a rural
\ncommunity, which provides opportunities for people who enjoy
\nworking with plants and animals, that keep society in touch with
\nnature.<\/p>\n
Agriculture of this kind may be less efficient in achieving
\nprofits for big business, but surely it is vastly more productive
\nper hectare in real terms. It could bring the countryside to life
\nand make agriculture -- particularly farming -- a modern, viable
\nand satisfying occupation.<\/p>\n
In the neo-liberal view, however, agriculture is just another
\nmachine to produce money. But beware, a wrong approach to the
\nagricultural sector will turn it into a killing machine.<\/p>\n
The writer is also a lecturer at the Sahid University in
\nSurakarta and a researcher for Uni Sosial Demokrat, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp7yanu-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}