From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Garance Upham</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fannie.upham@gmail.com" target="_blank">fannie.upham@gmail.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br><br><p><a name="134454ccd91be63b_13443bfd7dd7314b_letter">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.</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a name="134454ccd91be63b_13443bfd7dd7314b_letter"></a></p><p><a name="134454ccd91be63b_13443bfd7dd7314b_letter">The letter of Lamy:<br></a></p>
<p>Dear Professor De Schutter,</p>
<p>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. <br></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/docs_f/legal_f/14-ag_01_f.htm" target="_blank">Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)</a> and the <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/dda_f/dda_f.htm" target="_blank">Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations</a>.
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 <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/docs_f/legal_f/35-dag_f.htm" target="_blank">Marrakesh
Decision on measures concerning the possible negative effects of the
reform programme on net food importing developing countries</a> and is mentioned explicitly (or <a style="border-bottom:medium dotted;text-decoration:none" href="http://www.surfcanyon.com/search?f=sl&q=has&partner=afa" target="_blank">has</a> led the positions taken by Members) in several provisions of the <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/ag_modals_dec08_f.htm" target="_blank">December 2008 DDA draft modalities on agriculture</a>.
I am convinced that WTO Members are fully aware of the food security
objective and, indeed, that it is integral to their negotiating
strategy.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/food_security_f.htm#force" target="_blank">UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis</a>
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.” (<i>“Updated Comprehensive Framework
for Action”, United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food
Security Crisis, September 2010, paragraph 76.</i>) 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”. (<i>“</i><a href="http://www.wto.org/french/news_f/news11_f/igo_10jun11_f.htm" target="_blank"><i>Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses</i></a><i>”,
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.</i>) Indeed, our Members negotiate towards a more level playing
field in agriculture in order to enhance their ability to achieve food
security.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/food_security_f.htm#amis" target="_blank">Agricultural Market Information System</a>
in September 2011, in order to improve information about certain
agricultural markets. Within the WTO, many tracks are also already
available including the <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/negoti_f.htm" target="_blank">Special session of the Committee on Agriculture to negotiate</a> an improvement and strengthening of the AoA; the <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/agric_f/agric_f.htm" target="_blank">regular Committee on Agriculture</a> to monitor implementation issues; the <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/tratop_f/sps_f/sps_f.htm" target="_blank">SPS Committee on food safety and animal and plant health</a>; and various ad hoc informal information sessions organized by the WTO Secretariat or WTO Members.</p>
<p>I am glad of our cooperation in recent years, including <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/forums_f/debates_f/debate14_summary_f.htm" target="_blank">our debate in May 2009 in Geneva</a> and <a href="http://www.wto.org/french/news_f/news09_f/ag_02jul09_f.htm" target="_blank">your presentation to WTO Members in July 2009</a>.
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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>I hope we can agree on these objectives. </p>
<p>Yours sincerely,</p>
<b><span>Pascal Lamy</span></b>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <br></p></div><br>