COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONCLUDES TWO-DAY DIALOGUE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Press Release
ENV/DEV/541

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONCLUDES TWO-DAY DIALOGUE ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Sessions Brought Together Representatives of Government, Industry, Farmers, Trade Unions, Non-Governmental Organizations

For the vast majority of developing countries, the lowering of tariffs and removal of import controls and domestic support had undermined local food production and farmer’s livelihoods in an onslaught of cheap subsidized imports, a representative of a non-governmental organization told the Commission on Sustainable Development this afternoon, as it concluded its two-day multi- stakeholder dialogue segment devoted to sustainable agriculture.

The Commission monitors implementation of Agenda 21, the plan of action adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro. This afternoon’s dialogue session, which focused on “globalization, trade liberalization and investment patterns: economic incentives and framework conditions to promote sustainable agriculture”, brought together representatives of government, industry, farmers, trade unions and non- governmental organizations.

The non-governmental organization representative continued, telling the Commission that the assertion that globalization enhanced sustainable development was often based upon models and research whose premises and data were mistaken or manipulated to serve a political or corporate agenda. Liberalization in trade and investment had resulted in the privatization of indigenous and public lands. Also, indigenous knowledge and public research were increasingly expropriated by private corporations through intellectual property rights. The ecological dimension of globalization meant that natural resources, including seeds and water, were turned into private property for private profit.

An industry representative said that trade liberalization was necessary to achieve viable and sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agricultural development could be best achieved through market-oriented approaches. Open markets improved living conditions in both developed and developing countries, and new channels for partnership should be continually explored. Governments were encouraged to adopt sound policies to eliminate export subsidies and other agricultural trade barriers. Trade in agricultural products would ensure food quality and quantity and contribute to the protection of natural resources.

Sustainable Development Commission - 1a - Press Release ENV/DEV/541 6th Meeting (PM) 25 April 2000

A representative of farmers said that agriculture could not only meet the food needs of the world, but also contribute to the sustainability of rural communities. Trade negotiations and environmental problems had global impacts. There were several elements necessary for a framework to promote sustainable agriculture. Among them were a stable policy environment, a rural infrastructure, an appropriate regulatory framework and increased resources for agricultural development.

A trade union representative said that there were still many who believed that the solution lay in greater trade liberalization. The evidence -- increased malnutrition, a growing gap between the rich and the poor, a cost/price squeeze on farmers and growing international debt –- did not support that view. Production was increasingly monopolized by powerful transnational corporations. The goal was to put in place a world trade and investment regime that would stop the destruction of local economies.

Expressing the views of the developing countries, the representative of South Africa said the problem was that sustainability, which was the heart of Agenda 21, simply did not mean the same thing in different parts of the world. Developed countries spoke of agriculture as a lifestyle, whereas for developing countries it was a form of livelihood. The objective of Rio, to enhance food security in an environmentally sound way, could only be achieved if trade distorting practices and barriers to the markets of developed countries were exposed as acts against humanity and the planet.

Presenting the position of the developed countries, Australia’s Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Bernard Wonder, said the most effective solution to poverty was economic growth based on comparative advantage and competitive international trade. It was important that governments continued to work towards the elimination of trade barriers, such as agricultural price support mechanisms and restrictions on imports. The best way of achieving environmental objectives was through policies targeted at specific priorities.

Franz Fischler, of the European Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, said that economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainability must be mutually supportive. Such synergies did not come by default. Farmers had to respect environmental rules that formed part of “good farming practice”. Agricultural trade could be stimulated by providing tariff preferences that gave a real advantage to developing countries.

The Commission will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 26 April, to begin its high-level segment, with a thematic focus on land and agriculture.

Commission Work Programme

The Commission on Sustainable Development met this afternoon for its final multi-stakeholder dialogue session on sustainable agriculture. This afternoon’s theme is "Globalization, trade liberalization and investment patterns: economic incentives and framework conditions to promote sustainable agriculture". (For summaries of the reports before the Commission during the dialogue sessions see Press Releases ENV/DEV/537 and 538 of 24 April.)

Statements

SARAH FOGERTY, on behalf of industry, said that sustainable agricultural development could be best achieved through market-oriented approaches. Open markets improved living conditions in both developed and developing countries. New channels for partnership should be continually explored. Governments were encouraged to adopt sound policies to eliminate export subsidies and other agricultural trade barriers. Without a doubt, the opening of markets was the most important engine for growth and sustainable development. Trade in agricultural products would ensure food quality and quantity and contribute to the protection of natural resources.

Despite recent positive trends, government intervention in the agricultural sector was more intrusive than in any other sector and impeded growth, she said. Innovation brought best practices in agriculture to developing countries. There were numerous examples of agri-food businesses that had successfully tackled social issues in partnership with other stakeholders. Agri-businesses had developed codes of conduct and standards, which fostered enterprise and innovation and ultimately benefited consumers. Trade liberalization was necessary to achieve viable and sustainable agriculture.

G.J. DOORNBOS, on behalf of the farmers, said that today the pressures on farmers were global. Trade negotiations and environmental problems had global impacts. For farmers, there were at least six essential elements for a framework to promote sustainable agriculture. The first was a stable policy environment, including reducing armed conflict and encouraging economic cooperation among countries. Second was a rural infrastructure, which was essential for food self- reliance. Crucial in that regard was land tenure and financial services for farmers. Also, innovative ways of financing rural infrastructures must be explored. The third element was an appropriate regulatory framework, including legal safeguards, access to legal services and fair trade rules.

Effective stakeholder participation mechanisms was another element, he continued. The role of women in agriculture needed greater recognition and women needed clearer ownership rights. The formation of autonomous farmers associations should also be facilitated. In addition, increased resources for agricultural development were needed, as the lack of resources was one of the most serious threats to agricultural development. Official development assistance provided to the agricultural sector had declined drastically in recent years. The sixth element needed was effective technology transfer mechanisms to facilitate a more rapid and effective transfer of environmentally sound technologies. Agriculture could not only meet the food needs of the world, but also contribute to the sustainability of rural communities.

CHEE YOKE LING, speaking on behalf of the Third World Network, said that there was a growing concern that globalization was deepening inequities and marginalizing the weak and the poor. In light of the global financial crisis that started in Asia and the collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference in Seattle, there was an urgent need to reassess the trends of globalization. Four aspects of globalization that required consideration were the social, ecological, technological and economic dimensions.

Liberalization in trade and investment had resulted in the privatization of indigenous and public lands, she continued. Indigenous knowledge and public domain research were increasingly expropriated by private corporations through intellectual property rights. The ecological dimension of globalization meant that natural resources, including seeds and water, were turned into private property for private profit.

There was the continuing assertion that globalization enhanced sustainable development, she said. That was often based upon models and research whose premises and data had proved to be mistaken or manipulated to serve a political or corporate agenda. Non-governmental organizations called for honest information and analyses, based on valid and disaggregated statistics. They also called for decision-making, implementation and monitoring at all levels. Since the implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the impact of the rules and disciplines of the agreement and the WTO had added to the burden of developing countries. For the vast majority of developing countries, the lowering of tariffs and removal of import control and domestic support had undermined local food production and farmer’s livelihoods in the onslaught of cheap subsidized imports.

Non-governmental organizations called on the Commission to hold multi- stakeholder meetings to set a framework to assess the sustainability impacts of agricultural liberalization measures, she said. Social, economic and environmental factors were to receive equal treatment in the assessment. The Commission should also request technical assistance for Member States to calculate the costs of production and export price statistics for major agricultural commodities. In addition to reform of substantive rules that impede sustainable development, there was also an urgent need for institutional reform. The Bretton Woods institutions were unaccountable and unrepresentative in their governance structure.

CHRISTINE TAYLOR, speaking on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers 401 of Canada, said that core labour plans must be at the centre of any plan for sustainable agriculture workplaces. Too many food workers were denied access to the food they needed because they were unable to buy it. The main issues were control and distribution. The rules and agreements that controlled trade and investment would have to change. There were still many who believed that the solution lay in greater trade liberalization. The evidence -- increased malnutrition, a growing gap between the rich and the poor, a cost/price squeeze on farmers and growing international debt –- supported the opposite view.

Production was increasingly monopolized by powerful transnational corporations, she said. The Commission must ensure that international rules incorporated core labour standards regarding the protection of women workers. The goal was to put in place a world trade and investment regime that would stop the destruction of local economies. The Commission must replace rhetoric with action. Concrete steps must be taken. Countries could begin by restoring the 0.7 per cent level of official development assistance.

Responding to the presentations made, DIRK C. DU TOIT (South Africa) said the problem was that sustainability, which was the heart of the Rio Declaration, simply did not mean the same thing in different parts of the world. Sustainability as understood in Switzerland was completely different than the way it was understood in Africa. The killer disease affecting sustainable development in the developing world was the debt burden. Developed countries were talking about agriculture and environment as a lifestyle, whereas developing countries were talking of agriculture as a form of livelihood. The objective of Rio, to enhance food security in an environmentally sound way, could only be achieved if trade distorting practices and barriers to the markets of developed countries were exposed as acts against humanity and the planet.

BERNARD WONDER, Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, said that the most effective solution to poverty was economic growth based on comparative advantage and competitive international trade. It was important that governments continued to work towards the elimination of trade barriers, such as agricultural price support mechanisms and restrictions on imports. The best way of achieving environmental objectives was through policies targeted at specific priorities.

One such targeted policy was the community-based partnerships that featured in the “land care approach” to sustainable development adopted in his country and elsewhere, he continued. There were a few areas he felt the Commission’s work programme could add value and make a significant difference to future outcomes. Those included the link between export subsidies and world commodity prices and consequences for sustainability of production systems, and the investigation of targeted policy instruments to foster progress in sustainable development objectives, with minimum distortion of trade and agricultural production.

FRANZ FISCHLER, speaking on behalf of the European Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, said that economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainability must be mutually supportive. Such synergies do not come by default. A balance between those objectives was needed. Agriculture produced food and fibre and fulfilled the primary task of ensuring food security. Agriculture was an important factor in the economic and social fabric of rural areas. It also contributed to preserving the environment and the rural countryside. Meeting the World Food Summit’s objective of halving the number of undernourished people living in poverty by 2015 was of utmost importance.

Farmers had to respect environmental rules that formed part of “good farming practice”, he said. Farmers were encouraged to preserve the rural environment and landscapes through agri-environmental incentives. The European Union was already by far the world’s largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries. Further stimulus to trade could best be given by tariff preferences that gave a real advantage to developing countries.

The representative of Sudan said that the objectives for which the Commission was created, namely to support the universal family and apply the results of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio,, must be taken into consideration. He was awaiting tangible results that would permit the advancement of the Rio recommendations. He also asked for opinions regarding the statement made by South Africa, which represented the opinions of Africa. The positions expressed by others should be addressed, so that the dialogue would have significance and value vis-à-vis the subjects examined.

Commission Chairman, JUAN MAYR MALDANADO (Colombia), said that to make headway in the dialogue, he would raise a question for which he invited comments. One issue that kept resurfacing in all statements was that of subsidies. Were there instances where it was worth keeping subsidies intact to promote sustainable agriculture? he asked.

A representative of farmers said that farmers in the Philippines and the rest of the developing world enjoyed hardly any subsidies. Under the WTO Agreement, the low level of existing subsidies could not be increased. The WTO Agreement had not opened up greater access to markets in developed countries, as it was supposed to do. Non-tariff barriers were also being unreasonably imposed. Instead of adding to the existing safety nets, countries such as his were forced by the international financial institutions to further open up their markets.

An industry representative said that sustainable agriculture could be helped with the development of prices that truly reflected the costs of production. Also, for cases where clearly there could be unsustainable practices in the field, measures other than subsidies could be used. However, things did not change overnight and unfortunately, world agriculture was addicted to subsidies. Any removal of them would have to involve time for everyone to adjust to such changes.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that on the question of subsidies, the agriculture agreement in the WTO was imbalanced and unfair against developing countries. The South had very low protection in terms of subsidies and tariffs. The South also had low tariffs on agriculture, while northern countries had very high tariffs. Developing exporter countries would not be able to penetrate those markets. Small farmers in developing countries would have to be given special and preferential treatment. Subsidies in the North must be ended in five years. Small farmers would go bankrupt without new measures. It was a crisis ready to happen.

A representative of industry said that today there was lateral liberalization in countries that had had to lower customs barriers. Was total market liberalization needed and would it achieve positive results? Markets did not work that way. The question should also be asked, what was the way out? The right policies were needed. The right tools must be found. The WTO must take up the issue of equity. There were various approaches. What could be done to make markets work better in agriculture? Specific forms of subsidies were needed. The pace of liberalization must be slowed down or in some cases reversed.

A representative of the World Bank said that the Bank was concerned that high-income countries had reduced incentives to developing country farmers. Most developed countries taxed farmers and did not subsidize them. People in low- income countries remained in poverty. The subsidy policies of high-income countries had adverse consequences, by increasing poverty in the low-income countries. Developing countries also needed to give their farmers a better deal.

The representative of Japan said that developed countries were enjoying the benefits of agricultural trade, while most developing countries were excluded from enjoying the same benefits. For developing countries to eradicate poverty, the ground must be prepared for sustainable agricultural production. Food was indispensable for the maintenance of life and governments were responsible for providing access to food for its population. Japan was the leading country when it came to providing official development assistance to developing countries. The fundamental approach to address malnourishment was to improve food production capacity in each country.

A representative of indigenous peoples said that over the centuries indigenous groups had held land and had always intended to live in harmony with it. It seemed that money was the only thing being worshipped by the stakeholders. Indigenous peoples were capable of handling their own resources and managing their land. However, they were seen as people who needed to be educated about sustainability. Indigenous Mexican farmers were forced to grow crops that would bring in the most profit.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that liberalization of agricultural markets led to the removal of distortions. Yet, that was not enough. World market prices were distorted by subsidies. The “polluter gets subsidies” principle seemed to be in place in the world market. Paying farmers for environmental-friendly production practices, as was done is Europe, was not an option available to developing countries. Another issue was the presence of monopolies that controlled and dictated the markets. All of those factors must be considered before the gates were thrown open.

An industry representative said that free trade was essential for economic growth; restricting trade hindered growth. Protectionism created an ineffective market, because products were produced for which there was no demand. Developed countries must trade with developing countries, through the reduction of subsidies and other forms of protectionism.

A farmer said that she could not compete on an equal footing in international markets due to subsidies. Further, she could not take advantage of new technology because that would increase production costs.

Another farmer said that the debate should not be about tools, but about substance. Neo-liberal policies had led countries to produce for export, which was to the detriment of economies. It was a practice that only benefited multinational corporations. The conflict was more among models, than among countries. Markets must be turned around.

A representative of trade unions said that in Ghana subsidies had been withdrawn from farmers and as a result farmers were suffering tremendously. The world economy was most unjust. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank should promote policies that would reverse that situation. The Commission should engage the IMF and the Bank in developing new strategies that would ensure sustainable development. The market was not at all equal and there was a need for new arrangements that would benefit all.

A representative of trade unions said that free trade equaled growth. For too long, rules on trade had been set without a view to the rights of workers facing hazardous jobs. Those days were coming to an end. The essential role of core labour standards was essential. Member States must embrace sustainable practices. The current arrangement did not benefit workers in the North or the South.

A representative of the European Union said that it did not help to take extreme positions and the Union would continue to pursue policies that aimed at increasing market liberalization. Subsidies were neither good nor bad. What was the purpose of subsidies? That was the real question. As for developing countries, they deserved preferences for as long as they needed them. Developing countries needed preference in order to compete. If the European Union had been able to achieve a single market internally within its 15 members, it was only because they had agreed on the concept of a market with a human face, which discouraged monopolies.

The delegate of Germany said that there was an emerging consensus that trade reforms were needed to contribute to sustainable development. That implied the reintegration of trade reforms into a comprehensive development strategy. The World Bank and the IMF must identify conflicting goals, as well as best practices. The future trade agenda should also focus on the issues of intellectual property rights, special treatment of developing countries and how WTO rules could enhance the social situation in developing countries. The European Community decided that they wanted to reduce subsidies. That was a position that some did support.

The delegate of Sweden said that policies meant different things for farmers in Sweden as compared to farmers in South Africa. The reason for subsidies must be defined. Farmers in the European Union had produced a surplus. Subsidies had destroyed the market in developing countries. A more open trade system was needed. Instead of price subsidies, rural development could be supported in a non-food producing way. The current system in Sweden was impossible to maintain.

The representative of the United States said that the issue of the role of government in farm economies was being addressed not only in the Commission, but also in other arenas. Her Government was in the process of reducing the government’s role in farm economies. One of the roles of government was to help farmers thrive in a consumer-driven environment and to help them make the transition from an old way of doing business to a new way of doing business. It was also to help farmers move away from relying on subsidies and to diversify.

A farmer said that the market would not solve all problems related to sustainable development. Trade distorting subsidies did not have a future. Also, even if liberalization continued, it could not be an end in itself and could not solve all problems. Governments must develop new policies.

An industry representative said that the current international framework governing trade, environment and sustainable development needed refinement. A number of challenges existed, including the lack of a clear system for dispute resolution between environmental instruments and the WTO/General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system.

A non-governmental organization representative said that what was needed was an in-depth evaluation of the impact of unsustainability on areas such as poverty and deforestation. Worldwide, 70 to 80 per cent of deforestation was due to large, mechanized, export-oriented agriculture. Subsidies did not reach indigenous people at all. She called for a moratorium on WTO negotiations until such evaluations had been conducted.

The CHAIRMAN said that an issue not yet considered adequately was that of investment patterns. He asked how investment in developing countries could be improved to promote sustainable agriculture.

A farmer said that many of the statements made had given him a sense of déjà vu, when talking about the active involvement of government and the need to industrialize agriculture. That was what had happened in Russia. As a result, one could not find much on store shelves except vinegar. The only path was to return to market relations and ownership. Every three years, the Russian Government had been compelled to waive agricultural debts. Today in Russia, there were only two systems -- private and collective farms. It was not necessary to reinvent the wheel. The solution was in the ownership of land and the right to benefit from one’s efforts.

A representative of non-governmental organizations said that truly sustainable development required local circuits of movement and capital. One of the most important issues was the cancellation of debt. Canceling debt was necessary for the promotion of local economic development.

Another representative of a non-governmental organization said that the way to most readily encourage adjustment to trade liberalization was to promote relative freedom of investment. Countries must also promote free trade both within their economies and internationally.

A representative of industry said that there was lag in the evolution of an agreed upon systematic matrix. Notions of stewardship had not been understood in the last century. Broad global consensus was relatively recent. There was a need to more clearly articulate sustainability through criteria against which progress could be measured at the local level. A higher level of consensus on systematic indicators would better position all to judge the relevant efficacy of development patterns.

A representative from a non-governmental organization said that partnerships with local collectives were being formed. Local programmes were also being established, especially in Africa. Those programmes covered strengthening of capacities, the establishment of investment funding and accompanying measures for land reform.

A representative from the World Bank said that savings were necessary for development to be successful. The Bank was the largest investor in the developing world. Lending, however, could only respond to demands from the client countries with which it dealt. Towards that end, the Bank lent only to governments and it was governments that projected demands to the Bank. The Bank wanted to lend in support of projects, such as adaptive research, infrastructure, telecommunications and electrification. Ultimately, the political reality was that low-income people did not have much political clout in low-income areas. That was a great concern of the Bank.

A farmer said that over the past two days the dialogue had helped to narrow down the areas that needed concentrated attention by the international community. In India, the economy used to be pulled by the power of the bullocks. However, now it was run on LPG –- liberalization, privatization and globalization. The weak element in that trio was globalization. What was needed today was for the international community to believe that globalization was not needed only in trade, but also in mindsets. The solutions to problems also needed to be globalized.

The assistance that developing countries needed from developed countries was in maintaining sustainable agriculture, he continued. The most precious resource in agriculture was land and it was shocking that half of the cultivable land in India was under the threat of degradation. He hoped that international investment would help farmers save their land and have enough resources.

A trade union representative said that there should be social investment in addition to foreign direct investment. To confront competition, it was important to protect the rights of workers. He proposed that the international labour laws be strengthened. On a daily basis, 200,000 female and child workers were dying. The International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization had recently drawn up an agreement to deal with the problem of industrial security. The Commission should also join those efforts. Perhaps an international conference could be organized to draw up specific measures to address such issues.

The representative of Tunisia said stressed the importance of direct and indirect investment. A voluntary policy on the part of governments was needed for the protection of the agricultural environment and the tools and means of production, namely soil and water. That included the mobilization of water resources, conservation of soil and establishment of water purification plants. Implementation of such programmes required massive international financial input.

An industry representative said that industry did not work in isolation and so members of academia and the scientific community were included in the industry delegation. It was clear the business and industry would continued to play an important role in assisting countries in adopting a path of sustainable development. Since before Rio and in the past decade, business had gained experience in developing new technology to manage resources for maximum benefit. Among the points industry wished to emphasize were the necessity of a fair and open trade policy for sustainable agriculture, and improving communication between all entities involved in the pursuit of sustainable development.

A representative of indigenous peoples said that globalization and trade liberalization had created more problems than it had solved. In the past five years, indigenous people had seen the appropriation of their land and resources. Trade liberalization had dumped cheap imports into local communities. Many small- scale farmers had gone out of business. Investment liberalization had also inflicted much suffering on indigenous people. Structural adjustment policies were also to blame. The net effect was that the potential of indigenous people had been significantly diminished.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that not enough had happened in implementation since Agenda 21. Official development assistance had been reduced. Many technical assistance programmes had failed. Technical assistance programmes must not be donor driven. Trade preferences must be put in place for developing countries. Unbridled trade liberalization would be destructive to the economies of many developing countries. Globalization had attacked many pro-transnational programmes.

A representative of farmers said that it was fitting that the final sum up was a discussion of investment and trade and its link to sustainable agriculture. Some of the basic rules must be changed. The whole basis of liberalized trade was the natural competitive advantage of those most able to sell at the lowest price. Investment would go to its highest return, which was on the best and most productive land. If peasant and small-scale agriculture were allocated the best lands, they would have gone a long way to resolving the problem of unsustainable agriculture. There was a fundamental problem of the marketplace logic. If the fundamental rules could not be redone in favour of sustainable farming, then that criteria should be abandoned.

A representative of trade unions said that workers were more than a cost- factor of production. They were a skilled resource and could be a highly motivated resource, if they were properly involved. Waged agriculture workers were the most underpaid and poorly treated workers. Waged agricultural workers should be identified as a distinct multi-stakeholder group.

A representative of Brazil said the survival of bad farming practices was due to a lack of investment.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that the most important thing was food security. The rural sector should be improved.

* *** *