 |
cap and the south The EU model of agriculture damages developing countries
in different ways: by excessive exports, unfair trade barriers
and by squeezing developing countries of their fair share
of environmental space. Export obsession Export subsidies and European over-production have a negative
impact on developing countries. The dumping of surplus production,
such as dairy and beef, for very low prices supported by export
subsidies to poorer nations is a threat to food security and
blocks economic progress in developing countries. Producers
in developing countries cannot compete and are driven out
of jobs. Imports of European pork at subsidised prices to
the Ivory Coast are three times lower than production costs
in that country. Exports of EU dairy surpluses to India and
Jamaica, and beef to West Africa have severe negative impacts
on local producers. The result of these dumping practices
is that world market prices are driven down.
| The US and the EU account for around half of all wheat
exports. Their export prices are respectively 46% and
34% below costs of production. The EU is the world's largest
exporter of skimmed-milk powder. It exports at prices
representing around one-half of the costs of production.
The EU is the world's largest exporter of white sugar.
Export prices are only one quarter of production costs
[1]. Even though export subsidies have gone down over
the years, still in 1999 around 5.6 Billion Euro was spent
on direct export subsidies (14% of the CAP budget); in
1991 more than 10 Billion Euro were spent on direct export
subsidies (33% of the CAP budget [2]). |
To a certain extent, direct export subsidies have been replaced
by 'dumping in disguise'. The direct payments of the CAP (income
support) and part of the EU Structural Funds, just like direct
export subsidies, give EU farmers an artificial advantage
on the world market, driving down prices, at the expense of
farmers in developing countries. Unfair trade barriers Current market access policies of the EU are detrimental
for developing countries by imposing measures such as higher
tariffs for processed products, such as coffee and cacao.
This system of tariff escalation locks developing countries
into their role of raw material exporters. Environmental Space: surpassing the ecological footprint
| Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest
income countries account for 86% of total private consumption
expenditures - the poorest fifth a minuscule 1.3%. The
richest fifth consume 45% of all meat and fish, whereas
the poorest 20% eat just 5%. 20% of the world consume
58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%. [3] |
This unequal distribution of environmental space leads to
environmental problems in two ways: excessive use of resources
by the rich and lack of resources among the poor. Current
trade patterns reinforce this unequal distribution. The EU
uses large amounts of land in developing countries in order
to sustain its factory farming systems.
| Soybeans are grown on a large scale in Brazil causing
environmental destruction and deforestation. These soybeans
are mainly grown for export to Europe, where they are
used as animal feed for industrial livestock farming.
But the nutrients in soybean based feedstuffs are not
all absorbed by livestock; they are also spread over the
countryside in the form of manure resulting in soil being
saturated with imported nutrients, leading to pollution
of soil and groundwater with nitrates and phosphates.
In Brazil, on the other hand, the land is depleted of
nutrients resulting in barren soil, soil erosion as well
as deforestation. Cattle are poor converters of foodstuffs
and much protein is lost. So huge areas of land in the
developing world are being used to continue over consumption
of meat in Europe at the expense of local food production
in developing countries. |
Almost a billion people in 40 developing countries risk losing
access to fish, their primary source of protein, as over-fishing
driven by export demand for animal feed and oils puts pressure
on fish stocks. [4] Stimulate sustainable development and food security worldwide Exports The basis of the relationship of the EU to its trading partners
needs to be changed to better reflect principles of equitable
and sustainable trade. Today the EU export subsidies effectively
dump agricultural products on the world market. Moreover,
these export subsidies also facilitate continued overproduction
within Europe. Export subsidies simply have to be phased out.
The US should also stop subsidizing exports, but the EU cannot
continue to use the US export subsidies as an excuse to not
phase out its own dumping practices. The EU has reserved the right for itself for years to protect
its own market. In fact, the "success" of its productivity
and export oriented agricultural model is based on protectionism.
But now, through institutions like the WTO, World Bank and
IMF, the EU is denying this right to developing countries.
|
|
The EU is actively pushing developing countries to open up
their markets for its Transnational Companies. This is unfair:
developing countries have the right to protect their own producers
and farmers, just as the EU has done for years. Present WTO
agreements must be changed to allow countries to give priority
to local food production for local needs, based on locally
available resources.
Peoples' Food Sovereignty
Friends of the Earth supports the principle of Peoples' Food
Sovereignty in agricultural policy. This means that international
trade agreements can not overrule national concerns about
social or environmental aspects of food and agriculture. All
countries should have the ability to determine their own food,
health and agricultural policies (including subsidies to agriculture),
which includes the rejection of products which do not meet
standards in sustainability and social criteria (e.g. hormone
meat, GMO s). Imported goods should have to fulfill the same standards
regarding quality and production methods as those the EU prescribes
to its own producers.
Where this affects producers in developing countries, the
EU should assist these countries in building up the expertise
to meet EU standards regarding products and production processes.
EU standards should also take into account specific circumstances
for small producers and developing countries. Market access The issue of market access is a complicated one, where situations
differ greatly from sector to sector and from country to country.
There are considerable differences between different developing
countries and huge questions as to who will benefit from opening
up markets by the EU: rich countries and transnational corporations
or the poor sectors in developing countries? Export-led development
in poor countries may help investors, agricultural companies
and wealthy farmers to improve, yet large parts of the rural
population are likely to suffer displacement from small farms,
loss of livelihoods, and forced migration to cities. A closer look at the EU market access policies illustrates
the complexity of the situation. For example, the EU application
of tariffs to processed products (known as tariff escalation),
which protects the European food processing industry can have
very damaging economic and environmental impacts elsewhere
as it locks developing countries into being primary commodity
exporters. Tariff escalation should be abolished.
On the other hand, the EU open market policy for fodder products
such as soya also has negative consequences both within the
EU and in the exporting countries. Every year, the EU imports more than 55 million tons of animal
feedstuffs (soya, tapioca, residues and wastes from food industries,
such as citrus peels, etc.) from various countries, including
Brazil, Thailand, Uruguay and USA. These massive imports are
damaging to sustainable development in developing countries
(particularly through loss of land for subsistence agriculture
and forest clearance) and have fuelled an enormous growth
in industrial factory farming in the EU with disastrous consequences
for animal welfare and pollution. These massive imports of
fodder have to be reduced. There is also a tension between the short-term economic need
that many developing countries have to earn foreign currency
to service debts and meet local conditions; and longer term
requirements to promote food security, food sovereignty and
sustainable agriculture, that cannot be met through export-oriented
agriculture. Increased market access can never be more than
a stop-gap solution - a 'band-aid' measure - since it often
conflicts with the need to increase food security and sustainable
agriculture and is incompatible with the need to reduce transport,
prevent more climate change and reduce the ecological footprint
of the north. The real solutions to the current crisis require a deeper
and more radical shift away from exported-oriented, industrial
agriculture. Critically, debt cancellation is urgently needed
to enable developing countries to move away from the need
to earn foreign exchange and prioritize the needs of the domestic
population. In addition to debt cancellation, the social and
environmental impact of all quota and tariff regimes regulating
agricultural trade with non-EU countries should be evaluated,
sector by sector, on the basis of sustainability criteria
that encompass both EU and non-EU countries. Market access policies (such as quotas and tariffs) should
be used to discriminate in favour of more sustainable production
methods, fair trade products and small producers in the Least
Developed Countries. In short, market access policies must
prioritize sustainable development and food security.
[1] Oxfam/Novib: Rigged Rules and Double
Standards, Make Trade Fair, 2002, p. 115
[2] European Research Office, Paul Goodinson: "The CAP Dimension",
2001, p.3
[3] UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998, p.2
[4] UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998, p.5
|
![[photo]](../images/spacer_blue.jpg)
