Brussels - May 2001: Access to export markets or access to its own domestic market ?
The process of liberalisation and submission to the world market has pushed national agricultural systems to compete with each other, and in the process has obscured fundamental areas of common interest. The essential objective of this seminar will be to draw attention to these areas of common interest and suggest how trade and agricultural policies based on solidarity can be put into practice.
Background to the seminar
The initiative of the Commission entitled "Everything but arms" offers access to the common market for all products from the least developed countries (LDCs), without imposing tariffs or quotas. This initiative, approved by the European Council, is directly linked to the strategy for the negotiations undertaken by the European Commission for the future round of WTO negotiations. The European Union is calling for a new round, unlike the developing countries who in the first place want to review the implementation of the agreements made in Marrakesh.
Moreover, rich countries committed themselves, from the time of the Ministerial meeting of the WTO in Singapore, to open their markets to the 48 poorest countries a subject which will be discussed during the United Nations conference in Brussels from the 14-20 May 2001 in partnership with the European Union. This unilateral initiative of the European Union concerning the poorest countries (LDCs) will provide it with an opportunity to form new alliances within the WTO. This will be necessary, as direct agricultural aid (blue box) and the non-trade concerns, including social aspects and the multi-functionality of agriculture, will meet direct opposition from the LDCs and the other developing countries.
The principal argument to justify this initiative is based on the perceived benefits for the LDCs of direct access to the European Union markets. However, it has not been proven that there will be any benefits to these countries or that these benefits will reach their populations. In particular the ACP countries are not sure that the benefits of the measure will outstrip the expected losses.
So as not to deceive European Union citizens or those from the LDCs, it is advisable to identify objectively these perceived benefits and weigh them against the possible negative effects of opening up these markets. A number of representatives from small farmers, from different continents, have questioned the real benefits proclaimed by Commissioner Lamy and the WTO. In contrast they are convinced that this opening up of the agricultural markets will mortgage even more their sources of income, which are principally obtained from the prices they receive for their products, something which is never guaranteed on the international markets. The majority of small farmers are reluctant to be forced to compete in the international markets which are dominated by an oligarchy of transnational corporations. They believe that agricultural specificity must be considered and that national and international decisions which directly affect them must take into account their legitimate concerns, through representatives from their organisations. The need for solidarity between small farmers from both rich and poor countries would in practice be more effectively addressed through the maintenance of markets which provide fair prices for everyone, assured through a fair and global regulation of prices and production. An objective evaluation of the benefits and deficiencies of the Sugar Protocol linked to the common market organisation of sugar, in the context of the EU-ACP agreement and the Common Agricultural Policy, would allow the consolidation of trade and agricultural policy instruments which have already proved themselves. It must be acknowledged that this opinion is not shared unanimously, quite the contrary, and that a number of NGOs would like the complete opening up of rich countries’ borders. They will be invited to debate this issue.
On the contrary, the tendency for international institutions is to encourage poor countries to direct their production towards the international markets and to open up their own markets, as has been the case with structural adjustment policies and the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round. These have greatly contributed to the instability of poor countries economies.
General Objective
The process of liberalisation and submission to the world market has pushed national agricultural systems to compete with each other, and in the process has obscured fundamental areas of common interest. The essential objective of this seminar will be to draw attention to these areas of common interest and suggest how trade and agricultural policies based on solidarity can be put into practice.
The seminar should attempt to:
Come to an agreement to refute the reference to the world markets for agricultural products and show that it goes against the interests of peasant and family agriculture and leads to a modification, of systems of production unsupported by the majority of citizens.
Demystify ’access to national markets’ as an ’international right’ and as a ’benefit’ received by the population (development dogma based on growth through globalisation). Opposed to the market access approach is the food sovereignty approach.
Demystify the presumed conflict between farmers from the north and the south and propose an interpretation in terms of the conflict between modes of production.
Identify agricultural and trade policies based on solidarity between peasants and citizens from Europe, the LDCs and the developing countries.
Define ad hoc strategies.
JOINT PRESS RELEASE Brussels, May 17, 2001
Following the seminar " Solidarity in Agricultural Policies and Trade" organized in Brussels, May 12-13, 2001 by OXFAM-Solidarity-B, Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires (CSA), European Farmers Coordination (CPE) / Via Campesina, Belgian sugarbeet producers Confederation (CBB) , in the framework of the UNCTAD conference on less developed countries (LDCs), Vía Campesina and the Network of Farmers organisations and Agricultural Producers from Western Africa (ROPPA) publish the following statement: Access to export markets or access to its own domestic market ? Trade deregulation, world prices, or food sovereignty ?