Toward world food security via WTO-free zones

Scores of farmers' groups are among the "anti-globalization" movement striving to stem a strong, seemingly unstoppable tide toward freer global trade. Some of these groups, among others, hail from Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, East Timor and Indonesia, met in Jakarta this week, organized by the Indonesian Federation of Farmers' Unions, the International Farmers' Movement, Via Campesina and the Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN). What are the concerns regarding consumers here?

The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to Japanese researcher Mika Iba, director of the Tokyo-based Network for a Safe and Secure Food Environment, during a break at the Regional Conference for Farmers' Rights of Southeast Asia and East Asia, which will conclude on April 5. The following are excerpts of the interview with Iba, who has spent some 20 years in the movement:

Question: We were informed that your group acts as a bridge between consumers and farmers. How do you do that?

Answer: We bridge consumers and farmers in many different ways. We have contracts between groups of consumers and farmers, which obliges consumers to buy the farmers' produce for a certain period of time. In some groups it's 10 consumers to a farmer, in others, 250,000 consumers to many farmers and usually involves such staples as rice, vegetables, or milk. People pay in advance.

Q: Why are such steps necessary?

A: It's very important for consumers to know their farmers. In Japan there were widespread complaints of false labeling scandals, such as claims to be "organically grown" or claims that the products were of Japanese origin, where in fact they were, for instance, from the United States.

Japan has lots of rules, such as the compulsory fumigation of all vegetables entering the country. Imported rice or wheat can be mixed with post harvest pesticides, because they need to be transported over long distances, and consumers don't like that. We have a big consumers' movement.

But since 1995 standards for food unified. Japan had to adjust its standards according to those of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Suddenly the level of pesticides allowed for potatoes was 6,000 times lower. Our research revealed that this was to allow the entrance of American potato chips. The standard for food additives was also relaxed -- pink food coloring was for instance, earlier banned -- so we were free to import more American chewing gum.

Many consumers criticize free trade as it can have the potential for allowing harmful food to be exported much more.

Apart from the above contracts we have 4,000 consumer cooperatives, though most are like regular supermarkets. They sell the local products, even though our local supply is very small compared to our imports. It's good for retailers because the local products have a little more added value. Consumers regard them as safer compared to imports, which are cheaper.

Q: So what is your main concern with global free trade?

A: It is the global uniforming of standards, to facilitate trading for the world's large transnational firms. People have different habits of eating, so standards should be diverse. People in Indonesia may eat 10 times the amount of rice compared to the French. It is the people who should decide, not the scientists the big companies.

There was huge pressure against Sri Lanka by the United States when that country was to ban genetically modified crops. The U.S. said it would be illegal under the WTO rules, and it could sue Sri Lanka. Eventually the ban was dropped. Such decisions should be each country's own decision.

Q: But global trade is supposed to eventually benefit everyone, isn't it?

A: The ways (employed) are wrong. There has been no profit for farmers. In the U.S. it has been only the big exporters who profit as they get the subsidies. (In the U.S. local market) the corn farmers cannot compete with cheap corn from Mexico. The exporters get subsidies and sell corn cheaper in Manila supermarkets compared to the corn from Philippine farmers, who must spend more on shipping the products from their islands.

So even with the cheaper labor in developing countries the farmers cannot compete with imports.

This is not sustainable, and it is not healthy.

Q: Why?

A: To be able to compete with imports, farmers in the U.S., for instance, must expand their land, which is an average of 500 hectares for corn. The (resulting) monoculture leads to loss of soil and water. And the Philippine farmer also tries to expand to be able to compete with imported corn in his local market. Unable to compete, farmers are disappearing.

Q: But is it realistic to stop the trend to a free global trade?

A: The key is that farmers and consumers must build alternative models, even in small ways like the above contracts. Rallies in Geneva and Doha, for instance, are fine but they are not the center of action. Even changing WTO rules does not change (the core issues).

In Japan we indeed have little hope with farmers rapidly decreasing by the day, leaving only 6 percent of the population.

Japan is not like Afghanistan, where the land is so bad even if you wanted to grow crops. The Food and Agricultural Organization says there are 800 million hungry people the world over, and if we grew more crops we could send some 70 percent of our produce where it is needed. But we're only selling Nissan and Sony (automobiles and electronics).

Each nation has a responsibility (to contribute to global food security), to grow if you can. It is not good to depend on the world market for food security. Japan imports rice from Thailand. What if there was a typhoon there?

In case of such a natural disaster, Japan has insisted on a rule under the WTO that if such a natural disaster did happen, Thailand would have to allocate its intended exports for Japan (even if the Thai people need it more during such a shortage).

The logic is that the money from Japan in purchasing Thailand's rice could be used by poor, starving Thailand to buy much more wheat from the U.S. This is so humiliating. Why should I sell my rice to my neighbor while my grandmother is dying (of starvation)?

Q: So this is why the farmers' movement and others are calling for the WTO to keep out of agriculture?

A: Yes, we're saying that food is not a commodity. (The aim) should not be food for the world -- but the right food for your food culture, grown by farmers who decide for themselves what to grow and on their own land. Their governments must have the right to protect such "food sovereignty". Food is like water and air, it is indispensable for survival.

The WTO prioritizes trade and economic gain. Diversity, sustainability, and values, are also important.

We should have an entirely different (instrument) regulating trade in food to ensure fair trade, such as a food security convention, not the WTO.

Realizing this goal depends on strategies. Bangladesh has 50,000 farmers engaged in organic farming. The produce is for themselves; their contribution is invisible as it is not reflected in Bangladesh's gross domestic product.

We should try to create such "WTO-free areas" and "WTO-free food habits". Eating is not just to fill you up, it's a means of enjoyment and sharing, also between elders and the young. Monoculture (blamed as a negative knock-on effect of competition for world markets) threatens diversity, not also in food but also in culture.

I'm encouraged by developments here. In a meeting in Yogyakarta with farmers, they were so enthusiastic and determined to continue working in agriculture, unlike in Japan where most have given up.

Like in the women's movement (in which she was initially active) the underlying issue here is inequality and injustice.