Agricultural trade and food security

The effect of trade liberalisation on women

In most developing countries, women have felt the influence of liberalisation most sharply. Since women produce most food for own consumption, they have been disproportionately affected by the elimination of subsidies, the drying up of credit and the surge in cheap imports.

John Madeley estimates that up to 30 million jobs have been lost as a result of trade liberalisation in developing countries. This has had a number of ripple effects, including an increase in urban migration mostly by men, which in turn has put a greater burden on women remaining in rural areas.
It is apparent that trade liberalisation has made it increasingly difficult for small scale and resource poor farmers in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world to produce food. The result is greater food insecurity and increased dependence on imports for poorer sections of the population. In South Africa, trade liberalisation will certainly make it more difficult to build a wider base of food producers, especially when this is coupled with a reduction of government support to agricultural producers.
Leaving aside the issue of whether it’s possible or not for the moment, if international agreements are negotiated in favour of developing countries, they still merely create the breathing space to begin constructing alternative systems of production internally. This means that domestic agricultural policy needs to be oriented to establishing and strengthening a broad and diverse base of local producers. This requires increased access to productive resources, and enhanced control over production decisions by local populations, especially those engaged in food production.
As indicated previously, national policy is more oriented to creating a commercial class of farmers combined with an export orientation in agriculture. As such, the ‘right to export’ takes precedence over food sovereignty.
Recommendations on negotiating positions to enhance food security
In order to meet GEM’s approach of influencing policy within the conventional paradigm while at the same time trying to shift that paradigm, policy recommendations should serve to strengthen the ability to shift the broader paradigm. The limitation of the issues over which the WTO can negotiate, and the inclusion of policies favourable to resource-poor food producers, can perform such a function.
If trade is to be used as a tool to enhance food security, it must contribute to increased equity among and within countries, and must lead to sustainable use of the environment and its resources⁸¹. Whether this is possible through negotiations or through altering the global balance of forces, or what precise combination of the two, is a tactical question for popular organisations to decide upon. The following recommendations, if adopted, may create space for resource poor farmers in the developing countries to begin to build up their own productive base and ability to produce food independently.

• 
  A significant reduction of domestic levels of support and an elimination of all forms of export subsidies to agricultural producers in industrialised countries is required. This is not an opposition to farmer support as a principle, but asks the question of which farmers are being supported, why and who bears the costs? The “blue box” and the peace clause that goes with it should be abolished. These have served as special treatment for the EU, allowing it to protect producers while it restructures its agricultural sector to become more competitive.
  

• 
  The use of “green box” subsidies and the extent to which these uses have prejudiced producers in the developing countries needs to be analysed and resolved in favour of developing countries.
  

• 
  Developing countries, and countries with a significant resource-poor agricultural producer sector, should be given an unlimited opportunity to protect and support small scale and resource poor farmers. Rather than adopting the position of exemptions for domestic support in developing countries to create and strengthen the base of agricultural producers for a period, the position should be one of permanent exemption for support for food security and domestic food production. In other words, domestic food and fibre production should be excluded from any agreements reached in the WTO.
  

• 
  Insofar as negotiations on agriculture continue, there should be permanent special and differential treatment in trade related issues for developing countries – or any country with a significant resource-poor farming population — with SDT defined on the basis of agreed upon social indicators and not only on GDP⁸². The details of this should be negotiated as a separate issue in its own right. Existing SDT provisions should be converted from “best endeavour” clauses into binding and operational elements of the agreement.
  

• 
  Increased market access in industrialised economies for agricultural products (including value-added products) from developing countries should be included in any new agreement. This could include preferential access and the elimination of tariff barriers for specific categories of producers (small scale and resource poor).
  

• 
  The South African government needs to meet its commitments to its own population. In this regard, budgets and resources should be shifted to implement the rapid transfer of productive resources to those who have been dispossessed through colonialism and apartheid, and to providing meaningful support to resource poor food producers.
  

It is one thing to appeal for the theoretical right of developing country governments to support food production for local food security purposes. However, those same governments need to put this support into practice. In the South African context, a reliance on market mechanisms for both land reform and agricultural support to resource-poor farmers has meant that neither of these has yet been successful.

It is therefore recommended that the government increase the resources going to land reform and agricultural support, and develop a policy that allows for the rapid redistribution of existing resources and a programme of support to food and fibre producers for the domestic market.
This domestic support should build on the existing production base of subsistence and resource-poor producers first and foremost, and also expand the base of such producers. This means a policy able to increase the assets or entitlements of individuals – with particular emphasis on women – and to ensure that the exchange of these entitlements allows for a “commodity bundle” that includes sufficient food. This may need further formal transfers from government as one element of entitlements, for example through vastly increasing the value of social grants from the state.