PHM-Exch> Pascal Lamy versus Olivier de Schutter on FOOD security- / WTO versus Human rights!

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Garance Upham <fannie.upham at gmail.com>


The WTO head is angry at Human Rights / Right to Food special UN rapporteur
Olivier de Shutter who attacked WTO's for putting Trade above human well
being.

I heard them both at a WCC event some 3 years ago. It is interesting that
Lamy refers to the UN High level Task Force on Global Food Security for his
defense; the latter is headed by Dr David Nabarro formerly at WHO. In that
World Council of Churches event which Nabarro also attended and De Shutter
criticized him head on, saying that the policies of the latter were used to
force countries to open up to food imports that bankrupted their national
food production and that Nabarro's policies worked for Lamy.

The letter of Lamy:

Dear Professor De Schutter,

In your recent activity report, “The World Trade Organization and the
Post-Global Food Crisis Agenda” of November 2011, you question whether WTO
rules are compatible with efforts to bolster food security. I was pleased
that we had the opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this report.

I wish to take this opportunity to summarize where I agree and disagree
with you in three important areas: the objective of food security in the
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the role of trade in global food security,
and the scope within WTO rules to ensure that Members have access to
flexible policy options to achieve their food security objectives.

First, I agree with you that food security is an essential policy objective
for governments. Governments have a sovereign right to pursue policies to
achieve food security within their international obligations. WTO Members
have placed food security at the center of both the Agreement on
Agriculture (AoA)
<http://www.wto.org/french/docs_f/legal_f/14-ag_01_f.htm>and the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA)
negotiations<http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/dda_f/dda_f.htm>.
The preamble of the AoA stresses that commitments should take into account
food security concerns. Food security is explicitly mentioned several times
in the AoA, is referenced in the Marrakesh Decision on measures concerning
the possible negative effects of the reform programme on net food importing
developing countries
<http://www.wto.org/french/docs_f/legal_f/35-dag_f.htm>and is
mentioned explicitly (or
has <http://www.surfcanyon.com/search?f=sl&q=has&partner=afa> led the
positions taken by Members) in several provisions of the December 2008 DDA
draft modalities on
agriculture<http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/ag_modals_dec08_f.htm>.
I am convinced that WTO Members are fully aware of the food security
objective and, indeed, that it is integral to their negotiating strategy.

Secondly, I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that countries need
to limit reliance on international trade to achieve food security
objectives. On the contrary, there is agreement among most UN-led experts
that international trade is part of the package of solutions to achieve
food security. The UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security
Crisis<http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/food_security_f.htm#force>in
their 2010 Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action noted that “more
liberalized international markets would contribute to global food and
nutrition security through increased trade volumes and access to diverse
sources of food imports.” (*“Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action”,
United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis,
September 2010, paragraph 76.*) The Inter-agency report for the G-20
stated, for example, that “trade is an essential component of any food
security strategy” and that “Policies that distort production and trade in
agricultural commodities potentially impede the achievement of long run
food security”. (*“**Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets:
Policy Responses*<http://www.wto.org/french/news_f/news11_f/igo_10jun11_f.htm>
*”, Policy Report including contributions by FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD,
WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF, 2 June 2011, page 23.*)
Indeed, our Members negotiate towards a more level playing field in
agriculture in order to enhance their ability to achieve food security.

WTO Members negotiated and committed to an AoA that specifies their rights
and obligations with respect to trade distorting practices. A goal of these
obligations is to limit policies that distort price signals, in order to
encourage an efficient allocation of resources at the national level and to
enhance purchasing power, fundamental to food security, through GDP growth.
With trade as part of a coherent macroeconomic and structural economic
strategy, resources will tend towards an allocation based on comparative
advantage, limiting inefficiencies. In response to an enhanced transmission
of unbiased price signals competitive producers adjust their production and
investment decisions. This supply response helps to mitigate price
pressure, contributing to improved availability of affordable food. Thus,
trade can contribute to solutions to food security challenges.

I agree with you that the current state of global food security requires
policies that encourage and strengthen investment in agriculture, and
ensure appropriate safety nets for urban and rural poor. Current WTO rules
in agriculture and possible outcomes from the DDA allow policy space and
flexibility in these areas. Hence, the Agreement on Agriculture leaves
developing countries broad room to implement measures to achieve their
national objectives, including food security, notably through Green Box
support and Article 6.2 development programmes. As you rightly mention, the
Doha Round would further increase this flexibility by relaxing some of the
Green Box criteria to make it easier to use by developing countries, for
example on public stockholdings for food security purposes.

On the other hand, I question the report’s recommendations on interventions
aimed at insulating domestic from international markets. Policy tools like
public stockholding for food security purposes, tariff rate quotas,
safeguard measures or the use of marketing boards can indeed be legitimate
tools, under some circumstances. However, if used improperly, these actions
can introduce distortions and undermine economic efficiency, exacerbating
the negative impacts on poor consumers of high food prices. In addition,
given that about 60 per cent of developing countries’ agricultural exports
go to other developing countries, these suggested interventions increase
the vulnerability of agricultural producers in exporting developing
countries by reducing access to their main export markets. Highly trade
distorting support, the use of export subsidies, high levels of protection,
and unpredictable trade measures restricting imports or exports were among
the causes of the price spikes in 2008 and 2010. Policies that create
distortions in the global market threaten rather than improve global food
security. In agriculture WTO rules distinguish between practices that are
trade distorting and those with limited trade impacts — encouraging
countries to move towards less trade-distorting practices.

I am surprised by the quasi-absence of reference in your report to rules
applicable to export prohibitions and restrictions on food products. This
issue is complex and controversial, but again there is a wide consensus
that those measures, and the architecture of multilateral trade rules
applying to them, have some significant influence on food security.

I agree that food security concerns require improved international
governance. However, I am not convinced of the need to create new processes
to discuss and evaluate food security and trade. Many international,
regional and national organizations already provide in-depth analysis of
trade and food security. For example, the G-20 led process on price
volatility in agricultural markets has led to the creation of the Agricultural
Market Information
System<http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/food_security_f.htm#amis>in
September 2011, in order to improve information about certain
agricultural markets. Within the WTO, many tracks are also already
available including the Special session of the Committee on Agriculture to
negotiate <http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/negoti_f.htm> an
improvement and strengthening of the AoA; the regular Committee on
Agriculture <http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/agric_f.htm> to
monitor implementation issues; the SPS Committee on food safety and animal
and plant health <http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/sps_f/sps_f.htm>; and
various ad hoc informal information sessions organized by the WTO
Secretariat or WTO Members.

I am glad of our cooperation in recent years, including our debate in May
2009 in Geneva<http://www.wto.org/french/forums_f/debates_f/debate14_summary_f.htm>and
your
presentation to WTO Members in July
2009<http://www.wto.org/french/news_f/news09_f/ag_02jul09_f.htm>.
I hope we can continue this exchange of views and I am happy to welcome
you, as UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, to the WTO to present
your report to our Members.

In conclusion, I will continue to work to ensure that the multilateral
trading system allows our Members to respond flexibly to food security
concerns, while simultaneously creating conditions for them to benefit from
economic opportunities. More specifically, I will continue to work so that
the current DDA negotiations deliver outcomes, in agriculture and
elsewhere, that improve the multilateral system, including with a view to
ensuring improved food security.

I hope we can agree on these objectives.

Yours sincerely,
*Pascal Lamy*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20111215/a9de9820/attachment.html>