planting the rights seed

7/31/2019 PLANTING THE RIGHTS SEED

1/30

PLANTING

THE RIGHTS SEEDA hu m an righ ts

perspect ive onagriculture trade

and the WTO

No. 1in theTHREADseries

Trade,Human Rights

and the Economy,

Action Updates

April 2005

Publi shed byINSAF

Trade,Human RightsEquitable EconomyandI nsti tut e forAgricultureand Trade Policy

3D


2/30

This Backgrounder was written by Carin Smaller, andedited by Caroline Dommen, Ben Lilliston and Sophia

Murphy.3D and IATP would like to thank Tobias Reichert , CaroleSamdup, Sigrun Skogly, Alexandra Strickner and DaleWiehoff for their comments on an earlier draft of thispaper.

20053D -> Trade - Human Rights - EquitableEconomy and Institute for Agriculture and TradePolicy. We encourage copying, distri but ing and quot ingfrom this Backgrounder for non-commercial purposes, aslong as t he source is acknowledged. Thi s Guide i s made

available under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlikeCreative Commons License.


3/30

I. Int roductionAround 70% of the world's poorest people live in rural areasand are dependent on agricult ure for their income, food sup-ply and livelihoods1. I f we are t o improve t he lot of t hemajority of the poorest people in the world then we mustbuild up and promote the rural sect or, put t ing people, rat herthan production, at the centre of agricultural policies.

This Backgrounder examines the global agriculture systemfrom a human right s perspect ive. I t explores t he linkbetween the rural sector, agricultural trade, and the realiza-t ion of human rights. I n so doing it highlight s t he limi t a-tions of the agriculture trade liberalization agenda that cur-rent ly dominat es policy-making, i ncluding in t he WTO. Thi sBackgrounder suggests ways to approach the global agricul-tural trading system with a view to making it more respon-sive to human needs.

Human righ t s law provides t ools th at can help define an agri-cult ure syst em th at guarantees human right s for all. Humanrights are particularly relevant because most States, includ-ing all WTO Members, have ratified at least one of the inter-national human rights instruments, thereby committingthemselves to the realization of human rights.

II. The Rural Sector, Food Systems and TradeLiberalizationI f we in t end to improve people's livelihoods t hen we have t ofocus on the rural sect or. Around 2.5 bil lion people li ve inrural areas and are engaged in agricultural production as a

3 / / A human rights perspective on agriculture trade and the WTO

1. FAO, Some Issues Relating to Food Security in the Context of the WTO Negotiations on Agriculture, Discussion paper, Geneva, July 2001.


4/30

source of livelihood2. Many ofthese are small-scale, subsistencefarmers, and t he vast majori t y pro-

duce food for local consumption.Agriculture is thus an activity ofcentral importance, not only forproducing and consuming foodbut also for broader elements oflivelihoods including culture andt radit ion. Developing t he farm

sector, particularly in countrieswhere a high percentage of thepopulation is engaged in agricul-ture, is an effective way to gener-ate employment and reduce pover-ty, as well as to increase levels ofhealt h, nut rit ion and educat ion.

Yet agricultural policies todaylargely focus on increasing pro-duction and trade, rather than ont he livelihoods of food producers. These aim at li berali za-tion of the agriculture sector, and began under InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank structural adjustmentprogrammes (SAPs) in t he 1980s. The li berali zat ion policies

pursued include reducing the role of the State in agricultur-al markets, for instance by cutting its support to the farmsector, and reducing barriers to international trade in agri-cultural products.

Its advocates claim that liberalization will bring the greatestefficiency and therefore the greatest welfare gains to rural

Planting the Rights Seed \ \ 4

2. Bill Vorley, 200 3, Food, I nc. - corporate concent rati on from farmer to consumer, UK Food Group, 2003, UK.

Box 1: Percentage ofpopulation engaged in agriculture

Developing count riesNepal 93%Burkina Faso 92%Rwanda 90%Tanzania 80%China 70%Niger 88%I ndia 60%

Bangladesh 60%Pakist an 53%Thailand 52%

OECD countriesJapan 5.3%Aust ralia 4.8%USA 2.7%Great Bri t ain 1.7%

Sources: OECD, 1998 and FAO, 1999.


5/30

sect ors, making us all bet t er off . Liberalization has indeedresulted in huge growth in agricultural production accompa-nied by huge increases in the volume of products traded.Large farmers can survive wi t hout St ate support . And whil stagribusiness thrives, liberalization has driven many small-scale farmers out of business.Indeed, agricultural imports can complement local produc-


Box 2: The Indian dairy sector under threat from dumping

In India, the dairy sector has been hit hard by subsidized exports from theEU. I n 1999-2000 I ndia import ed over 130,000 t onnes of EU skim m ilk pow-der. This was the result of EUR 5 million export subsidies that were providedto EU producers. EU subsidies to butter exports are also extortionately high.Consequently, butter oil import into India has grown at an average rate of7.7% annually. This has had a dampening effect on prices of ghee in thedomestic market. Ironically, India is the biggest producer of milk in theworld. What is more worrying for I ndia is that t here are now signs of declin-ing productivity growth for many agricultural products in India which willhave severe implications for the majority of the population.

Devinder Sharma, WTO and Agriculture: The Great Trade Robbery , 2003.

ANNUAL RATES OF GROWTH FOR SELECTED CROPS I NINDIA, 1980-2000

Government of I ndia ( 200 2) , qu oted i n Devinder Sharma, WTO and Agricult ure: TheGreat Trade Robbery, 2003.

Crop Product ion Level(1980-81 to 1989-90)

Production Level(1990-91 to 2000-01)

Rice 3.62 1.79Wheat 3.57 3.04Coarse Cereals 0.40 0.06Pulses 1.52 -0.58Food Grains 2.85 1.66Non-food Grains 3.77 1.86Oilseeds 5.20 0.66Sugar Cane 2.70 2.62Cot t on 2.80 0.92All Crops 3.19 1.73


6/30

tion, increase dietary choices and provide an alternatesource of nut rit ion . Export ing local produce can also offernew markets and opportunities for employment and income.

But not everyone benefits from the opportunities ofincreased t rade - in many cases t he livelihoods of small-scalefarmers and agricult ural labourers have worsened. The real-ity is that simply expanding or liberalizing trade does notautomatically translate into poverty reduction, for a numberof reasons.

First, most food is produced for local consumption,and only a small proportion - about 10% - is tradedint ernat ionally. Whi lst export market s provide auseful secondary channel for some producers, and avital primary channel for a few (such as coffeegrowers); the vast majority of small-scale farmerssell their goods to local consumers, which meansthat export markets are limited to a small numberof large-scale farmers.

Second, there is no guarantee that food producedfor export to rich countries will be accepted.


Box 3: Liberalization: the case of ZambiaAfter liberalization of maize, the producer price fell and the consumer price

increased. The consequence was a 20% drop in maize consumpt ion by 20%between 1990/ 1 and 1996/ 7. The adverse human right s impacts of t hi s havebeen document ed. For instance, malnut rit ion and relat ed mortalit yincreased. Due t o poverty, health indicators decreased and fewer fami liessent t heir chi ldren t o school. Girl s suff er disproport ionat ely as householdlabour i s perceived of greater benefit t han educat ion . The I MF's evaluat ion ofthe situation, in 1998, was "While in the long term, [liberalization] wilimprove allocative efficiency and thereby income, in the short term, itreduced food consumption."Source: Sally-Anne Way, presentation at 3D ->THREE Workshop on I nt egrat ing Human Right s int o t he Fut ure of Agricult urNovember 2004, report available at:


7/30

Access to developed country markets for developingcountry products depends on producers being ableto meet specific international standards, such as on

food safet y or packaging . Many developing coun-tries do not have the capacity or infrastructure tomeet these standards, which are high and result inlimit ing developing count ry export s.

Third, liberalization also means opening the domes-t ic market t o higher levels of import s. Thi s canactually increase food insecurity because imported

food can displace local product ion . Higher levelsof imports are particularly damaging when devel-oped countries maintain artificially high levels ofproduction and then sell surpluses abroad at pricesbelow their cost of production, a practice known as"dumping."3 Dumping can be caused by directpayments by a State to its exporters (export subsi-

dies); or by transnational commodity traders andprocessors who use their market power to pushdown the prices they pay to farmers and soincrease their profits.

In 2003, for instance U.S. wheat was sold abroadat an average price of 28% below what it cost toproduce it and cotton was sold abroad at an aver-age price of 47% below what it cost t o produce it .4

Fourth, few people can benefit from internationalagricultural trade because a handful of companiesdominate world market s. I n 1986 it was est imat ed


3.. There are variou s defini ti ons of dum ping. We use th e defini ti on th at compares cost s of produ ctio n wit h sales price. The one most comm onl y used

in the WTO is one that compares domestic sale prices with world prices.4. See Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), United States Dum ping on World Agricult ural Markets, 2 004 .


8/30

that 85-90% of global agricultural trade was con-trolled by five companies5. Around 75% of globalcereals trade is controlled by two multinational

companies - Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland(ADM). And whi lst approximately 50% of worldcoffee supply comes from small-scale farmers, 40%of global coffee trade is controlled by four compa-nies6. To int ensif y mat t ers, many of t hese compa-nies, particularly in the U.S., are the beneficiariesof billions of dollars of State subsidies, which

enable them to maintain and increase their shareof world agricult ural market s.

Transnational commodity traders and processors, predomi-nantly from developed countries, have the means to investin the production, processing, transporting and tradingprocesses, giving them a massive advantage over small-scaleproducers.The key to realizing human rights and improving livelihoodsin the rural sector is to develop policies from a people-cen-tred perspective rather than a narrow economic-centeredperspect ive. A human right s framework can help us definepeople-centred policies.

III. The Human Righ ts FrameworkHuman rights are legally binding on all States of the world.Some of these rules are set out in countries' national laws,


5. Althou gh th e UN is no lon ger empowered to keep track, esti mat es sug-

gest t hat t he number is sim ilar today. Nick But ler, The In ternat iona l Grain Trade: Problem s and Prospects, New York: St Mart in 's Press, 19 86 .

6. Bill Vorley, see Note 2 above.


9/30

ot hers are set out in int ernational human right s t reaties. AllStates in the world have ratified at least one of thesetreaties, which include theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Econom ic, Social and Cul t ural Righ t s ( I CESCR) and t he Convent ion on t he Righ t s of t he Chi ld ( CRC)7 .

Other recent international commitments affirming humanrights relevant to agriculture include the MillenniumDevelopment Goals in which all States of the world empha-


Box 4: I nternat ional Human Rights I nstruments ( ext racts)Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "everyone has theright to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of him-self and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care."(Article 25)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees theright t o li fe and st ates t hat " in no case may a people be deprived of it s ownmeans of subsist ence." (Art icles 1 and 6)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)guarantees an adequate standard of living, housing, work, food and health.(Articles 6, 11 and 12)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognizes the right of everychild t o an adequat e st andard of l ivi ng, as well as t he obligat ion of St ates t ocombat malnutrition. (Articles 24 and 27)

Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)requires countries to take action to guarantee women's human rights, andfocuses on t he part icular problems of rural women, including parti cipation i ndevelopment planning and access to adequate living conditions and healthcare. (Art icles 3 and 14)

7. Unit ed Nation s ( UN) , I nt ernat iona l Covenant on Civil and Polit ical Right s,196 6, I nt ernat iona l Covenant on Economic, Social and Cult ural Right s, 19 66,Conventi on on t he Right s of t he Chil d, 198 9. For the ful l text of t hese and oth er treaties, an d t he li st of St ates parties, see


10/30

sized their commitment to combat poverty, hunger and dis-ease8. I n 2004, t he 188 members of t he Food andAgricult ure Organizat ion (FAO) adopt ed Volunt ary Guideli nes

on the Right to Food.9

Many internationally-recognized rights are affected by agri-cultural trade policy, including the right to life, to food, tohealt h, t o work and t o be free from discrimination. Humanrights law requires States to respect, protect and fulfilhuman rights. I n relation t o the right t o food, for inst ance,t he obligat ion t o " respect" means t hat t he St ate should nottake actions that deprive people of their existing access toadequat e food. The obligation t o "protect " means t hat t heState should enforce appropriate laws to prevent third par-ties, including powerful people and corporations, fromdepriving individuals of their access to adequate food.Finally, t he obligat ion t o " fulf il" means t hat t he St at e shouldidentify vulnerable groups and implement policies to ensuretheir access to adequate food by facilitating their ability tofeed t hemselves. As a last resort , the Government i s alsorequired to provide adequate food to those who cannot feedt hemselves. As t he UN Special Rapport eur on t he Right t oFood has noted, it is also fundamental that participation,accountability and access to effective remedies be ensuredat all times and at all levels of the implementation of the

right to food.10

Some rights such as the right to life must be implementedimmediat ely. Ot hers, such as t hose t o food and to health,

Planting the Rights Seed \ \ 1 0

8.UN, Millenniu m Development Goals, 200 0.

9. FAO, Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, 2004. 10. See UN, Report subm it ted by t he Special Rapporteur on t he right to food to t he General Assembly, A/ 59/ 385 , 2004 .


11/30

can be reali zed progressively. Progressive reali zat ion meansthat States must move as expeditiously as possible towardst he realizat ion of t he right s. To thi s end t hey must use " t he

maximum of available resources," which refers both to theresources available within a State and those available fromthe international community through international coopera-tion and assistance11. States also have international andextraterritorial human rights obligations, for instancet hrough ensuring t hat t heir own policies do not i mpact neg-atively on t he enjoyment of human rights in ot her count ries,

and through ensuring that activities or decisions of an inter-national organi zation of which t hey are a member are humanright s-consistent . Human right s st andards come wi t h arange of procedures for their implementation and people areable to turn to the courts, or to international redress mech-anisms, when they are not able to enjoy their rights.

The human rights framework provides useful tools forapproaching economic and t rade policy-making. Humanrights' emphasis on the needs of the most vulnerable mem-bers of society, and on prevent ion of di scrimination, providea people-centred yardstick against which proposed policiescan be measured. Moreover, human right s require t hatStates, at the very least, have a policy in place towards therealizat ion of human right s. Thi s means t hat any proposed

policies must be measured against the likelihood of improv-ing t he lot of t he poorest and most vulnerable. I n otherwords, the human rights framework provides support for theview that there must be assessment of the likely impacts oftrade policies, something many public-interest and develop-ment advocates have been consistently calling for in recent

1 1 / / A human rights perspective on agriculture trade and the WTO

11 .UN, Com mi t t ee on Econom ic, Social a nd Cult ural Right s, General Com men t No. 3 ( 199 0) , The Nature of Stat es Parti es' Obligat ions.


12/30

years. The int ernational mechanisms for implement ationand supervision can be seized by groups, States or individu-als, and are further tools for holding economic actors

accountable when domestic processes fail to promote or pro-t ect human right s.

IV. The WTO and Agricultural TradeLiberalizationThe WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which came into

force as part of the WTO Agreement in 1995,12

does notadopt a people-cent red approach t o agriculture trade policy-making. I nst ead it h as entrenched liberalized, export -ori -ented agricultural trade policies, which benefit large-scaleproducers and food t raders. The AoA does cont ain provisionsthat would allow WTO Members to institute a fairer and morepeople-centred agricultural trading system, but these provi-sions are largely undefined and underused.

Thi s backgrounder focuses on t he AoA. But t he AoA must belooked at in conjuction with other factors, such as IMF andWorld Bank policies, and bilateral and regional trade agree-ment s t hat many count ries are now engaged in. These areall part and parcel of a broad agenda promoting liberaliza-tion and forsaking people and their rights.

1 . THEAGREEMENT ONAGRICULTURE- MAIN OBLIGATIONSAccording to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO,t he inst it ut ion 's aims are t o raise living st andards, ensure fullemployment and increase incomes.13 As part of t he WTO, t he


12.For the text of the AoA, as well as details on WTO negotiations and disputes relating to agriculture, see the WTO website Agriculture section, at . For a presentat ion from a human rights perspective, see 3D/ FORUM-ASI A, Pract ical Guide to t he WTO, 2004.

13 . WTO, Marrakesh Agreement Estab li shi ng t he WTO - Preamble.


13/30

AoA is meant to further the WTO's aims by "establishing afair and market-oriented agricultural trading system."14 TheAoA is structured around three "pillars:" market access,

domestic support and export subsidies. Market Access: The AoA aims to increase interna-

t ional t rade of agricult ural p roduce by reducing bor-der obstacles to trade such as taxes and duties,commonly known as t arif fs. Thi s pil lar alsorequires countries to abolish restrictions on thequantity of agricultural goods entering their mar-ket s, known as " quant it ati ve rest rict ions." Duringthe negotiations that led to the AoA, all "non-tar-iff" barriers to trade, such as health standards andpackaging requirements, had to be converted intotariffs, a process known as "tariffication."

Domestic Support: The AoA defines domestic sup-port as all types of government support to farmers,ranging from subsidies for producing specific prod-ucts or guaranteed prices, to agricultural infrastruc-t ure and research. Developed count ries are t hemajor providers of domestic support and pay theirfarmers bi ll ions of dollars each year. The st at edobjective of the AoA's domestic support pillar wasto reduce the amount of money going into produc-

tion of farm goods; in other words, to reduce subsi-dies that distort farmers' decisions about what andhow much they wi ll produce. The AoA dividesdomestic support into three categories, set out inthree so-called "boxes," each of which is subject todifferent WTO requirements.Amber Box subsidies are considered to be the


14 . WTO, Agreement o n Agricul t ure - Pream ble.


14/30

most t rade dist ort ing . Their amount is measuredon the basis of an "Aggregate Measure ofSupport" (AMS), which attempts to calculate all

the financial factors that influence a farmer toproduce a cert ain product . The AoA requiredindustrialized country Members to reduce theiramber box subsidies by 21% by 2003, and devel-oping country Members to reduce them by 13.3%by 2005.

Blue Box subsidies are allowed, permitting coun-tries to make direct payments to farmers if thepayment s are l inked t o programmes that l im it t heamount of product ion . These subsidies do notneed to be reduced and can be increased.

Green Box subsidies are assumed not to affect pro-

duct ion levels. The box includes payment s li nkedto environmental programmes, pest and diseasecontrol, infrastructure development and domesticfood aid. I t also includes direct payments t o pro-ducers if those payments are not linked to currentproduction and prices, known as "decoupled pay-ment s." The WTO does not require reduct ion ofgreen box subsidies, and allows them to beincreased.

Export Subsidies: are government payments thatcover some of the cost of doing business for firmst hat export p roduce. The AoA li st s export subsidiesthat WTO Members have to reduce, and bans theintroduction of new subsidies.

2 . THEAGREEMENT ONAGRICULTURE- PEOPLE-CENTRED PROVISIONS?The AoA contains provisions that could protect particular



15/30

countries, or groups of people within countries, from theharmf ul effects of li berali zat ion . These include Non- TradeConcerns, Special and Differential Treatment, the Special

Safeguard (SSG), and the Marrakesh Decision on Net-FoodI mport ing Developi ng Count ries. Alt hough these are notimplemented in a way that ensures protection of livelihoodsand human rights, they do offer openings within the exist-ing st ructure of t rade rules th rough which WTO Members canmeet t heir human right s obligations.

I n i t s preamble, t he AoA st ates t hat it should beimplement ed wi t h regard for"Non-TradeConcerns," including food security, rural develop-ment , rural li velihoods and t he need t o protect t heenvironment . However, what non-t rade concernsmean in practice, how they should be implementedinto the AoA or what the human rights dimensionsof these could be, has not been developed orimplemented by WTO Members.

Special and Differential Treatment (SDT)is animportant feature of all WTO agreements includingt he AoA. SDT is in t ended to grant developi ngcount ries more flexibili t y in how t hey implementWTO rules, in recognition of the disadvantages theyface in t he world t rading syst em. The AoA, for

example, exempts developing countries fromdomestic support reduction commitments for low-income farmers, to encourage rural development.At the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, in Doha,Qatar in 2001, Members agreed that: "SDT fordeveloping countries shall be an integral part of allelement s of t he negoti at ions ( ) so as t o be oper-

ationally effective and to enable developing coun-tries to effectively take account of their develop-



16/30

ment needs, including food security and ruraldevelopment."15 However, developed countriesconsistently fail to honour SDT commitments and

aggressively fight to weaken such provisions inWTO agreement s. The resul t ing mechanisms areoften weak, such as longer implementation periodsand lower reduct ion rat es on agreed commit ments,or useless, such as unlimited spending allowancesfor countries that face unsustainable debt levelsand chronic budget short falls. Moreover, develop-

ing countries that have joined the WTO in recentyears have been given only limited access to SDT. The Special Safeguard ( SSG)is a mechanism open

to countries that underwent tariffication to providetemporary protection to domestic farmers whenthere are sudden surges of imports or falls in worldprices. Thi s could be a vi t al mechanism to prot ect

local farmers because it provides domestic marketswith some protection from dumping, even if it doesnot protect f rom chronic dumping. A major short-coming of the SSG though, is that it is only avail-able to 21 developing countries: many developingcountries did not have as many non-tariff barriersas developed countries, and therefore did notundergo t he t arif fi cat ion process.

Special attention to food needs of least devel-oped countries (LDCs) and net food-importingdevelopi ng countries ( NFI DCs) .The negot iatorsthat crafted the AoA acknowledged that the AoAwould have negative impacts on LDCs and NFIDCs.They therefore adopted the 1994 MarrakeshDecision on Measures Concerning the Possible


15 . WTO, Doha Mini st erial Declarat ion - paragraph 15.


17/30

Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on LeastDeveloped and Net Food-I mport ing Developi ngCount ries, as part of t he WTO Agreement . Thi s

Decision provided for compensation for LDCs andNFIDCs should they be negatively affected by high-er food prices or reduced food aid following imple-ment at ion of the AoA. Many st udies concurredthat after the AoA was adopted, LDCs and NFIDCswere increasingly forced to buy food on commercialterms, while their incomes were declining.16

Nevert heless, Members have failed t o properlyimplement the Decision.

V. How Doe s t h e AoA Aff e ct Hum an Rig h ts?From a human rights perspective the AoA has four key fail-ures: first, its export-oriented approach puts the emphasison expanding production and exports rather than improvingthe livelihoods of those involved in agricultural production;second, t he AoA fails t o t ackle t he market power of t ransna-t ional commodi t y producers and t raders; t hi rd, t he inadequa-cy of the rules legitimizes and institutionalizes dumping;and fourth, the AoA locks developing countries into anunlevel playing field.

1 . PROMOTES EXPORTS RATHER THAN LI VELIHOODSThe AoA's approach to agriculture is based on the ideologyof trade liberalizat ion. I t ent renches t he " right t o export "rather than human rights. The AoA is designed to open mar-ket s worldwide and expand t rade. Thi s export -ori entedapproach does not guarantee improvements in people's


16 . Panos Konan dreas, et al. , Cont in uat ion of t he Reform Process in Agriculture: Developing Country Perspectives,1998 .


18/30

livelihoods. I n fact, it benefi t s t he privileged minorit y t hathave access to resources, infrastructure, credit and foreignmarkets.

2 . FAI LS TO TACKLE CORPORATE CONTROLTrade liberalization has increased the market power oftransnational commodity traders and processors, while tak-ing power away from t he producers. The AoA cont ribut es t othe consolidation of corporate power by ignoring the domi-nant role that a handful of large companies play at all levelsof the food system.

Companies gain an increased share of themarket by consolidating and acquiring pro-ductive resources and by extending theiract ivi t ies beyond simply producing. Cargil l,for example, runs a huge financial servicesunit, a seed and fertilizer business, is one of

the top three beef producers in the U.S. andruns a worldwide transportation business.Wit h a business li ke t hi s, known as a vert ical-ly integrated business, Cargill is more inter-ested in high sales volumes and in keepinginputs cheap for its more profitable livestockand grain processing operat ions. The marketpower of companies such as Cargill leave producers as price-t akers, forced t o accept whatever price Cargi ll and companieslike it are wi lli ng to pay. Farmers, t he weakest l ink in t hechain, are left accepting prices below their cost of produc-tion year after year and cheap produce is dumped on worldmarket s, whi lst corporate profi t s rise.

This threatens livelihoods of farmers all over the world, leav-

ing them either impoverished or dependent on subsidies toearn a living.


Box 5: Farmers,the weakest linkin the corporatechainFarmers in Mexico andthe Philippines whodepend on maize fortheir livelihoods, donot compete with U.S.farmers but with thecompanies t hat exportthe maize to theircountries.


19/30

This situation would not raise human rights concerns if gov-ernments were able to discipline corporate behaviour andensure that farmers who sell to large companies are able to

negot iat e a fair price. However, many government s are sim-ply unwilling or unable to control the activities of compa-nies, and WTO rules do not help them do this.

3 . ALLOWS DUMPING TO CONTINUEThe WTO does have rules designed t o prevent dumping. TheAoA for instance aims to address dumping by decreasingState subsidies that affect production and prices, but thisdoes not st op dumpi ng for a number of reasons. On t he onehand, the complex box system has enabled developed coun-t ries t o keep a large port ion of t heir St ate subsidies. On t heother hand, the AoA rules do not address the root causes ofdumping, namely excess production and the market power ofcorporations.

In addition, it is complicated and time-consuming for coun-t ries t o t ake act ion against dumping. For inst ance, a coun-try must have domestic anti-dumping laws in place in orderto impose import duties on dumped products, and many


Box 6: Volumes and value of imported productsA 1999 FAO study of 14 countries showed that all experienced a rise in food

imports, and therefore of food import bills between 1995-98 compared withprevious years. The cost of food import s more t han doubled for India andBrazil and increased by 50-100% for Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru andThailand. I n I ndia, t he volume of veget able oil s imported increased almostseven-fold during the 1995-98 period as compared with 1990-94, and palmoil imports increased 646% from 249 000 to 1 609 000 t onnes. The volumeof cereals imported int o I ndia increased by 332% during t he same period. I nBrazil, wheat and wheat flour imports increased by 43.3% between 1990-94and 1995-98. Dairy product import s increased by 194.6%. As a result , theshare of domestic production in the consumption of these productsdecreased, and dependency on imports intensified.

Source: FAO, Agriculture, Trade and Food Security, Vol. II, Rome: FAO, 2001.


20/30

developing countries have no such laws, and their onlyrecourse is then to turn to the WTO dispute settlement sys-t em, which can take up t o four years t o issue a ruling. Thi s

is further complicated by the fact that WTO Members are stillstruggling to define which payments to farmers should beallowed by WTO rules.

Dumping i s a human right s issue because farmers in devel-oping countries are unable to protect themselves againstdumpi ng. Coupled wit h t he lack of social safety nets, t hi shas caused serious human ri ght s concerns sin ce t he impl e-menta t ion of the AoA,particularly for small-scalefarmers who lose theirlivelihoods due to compe-t i t ion f rom subsidized,dumped imports.

The human rights frame-work calls for governmentsto implement safety nets,and requi res of St at es t hatthey implement policiesthat pay particular atten-t ion to the needs of thepoor.17 Whi lst t here are cert ain ly cases where government sare sim ply unw il li ng t o i mplement such policies, li beraliza-tion commitments made at the WTO (and at the WorldBank and t he I MF), also prevent count ries from being ableto design and determine their own national policy strate-gies which might address the problems at the border, for


Box 7: A UN human rights body'sview of IMF and World Bank pro-grammes human rights effects" some aspect s of st ruct ural adjust mentprogrammes and economic liberalizationpolicies introduced by the Government ofEgypt, i n concert wit h i nt ernational finan-

cial institutions, have impeded the imple-mentation of the Covenant's provisions,part icularly wi t h regard t o t he most vulner-able groups of Egyptian society."

Source: UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Egypt, E/ C.12/ 1/ Add.44, 2000.

17 . See UN, Com mi t t ee On Econom ic, Social an d Cult ural Righ t s, Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,E/ C.12/ 2001/ 10, 10 May 2001.


21/30

instance through raising tariffs, or imposing import quo-tas to protect against import surges.

4 . LOCKS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES INTO AN UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELDSince the 1980s World Bank and IMF structural adjustmentprogrammes have pressured developing countries to reducemost of their t rade barriers. Thi s has created t he si t uat ionexisting today, which sees many developing countries withlow border protection measures, little scope for domesticprice controls and little possibility to provide subsidies duet o t heir limi t ed resources. Conversely, developed count riesare not subject to World Bank and IMF liberalization require-ments to reduce and eliminate trade barriers and they havethe financial means to provide support to their farmers.

Instead of seeking to redress the imbalance, WTO rules havelocked all countries into the existing unfair system, which ischaract erized by many developing count ries having few t rade

barriers, l eaving t hem li t t le space to re-int roduce t rade poli-cies to support t heir agriculture sect or.

From a human rights perspective, this situation is problem-atic, as it deprives developing countries of the policy spacet hey need t o implement policies t o protect t heir people, forinstance to t ake st eps t o manage t he flow of i mport s, t o pre-vent dumped products from abroad or to maintain domestic

price cont rols. I n part icular, it can hinder developing coun-tries' ability to take steps to respect, protect and fulfilhuman rights.

Countries' obligations to cooperate internationally for therealizat ion of human right s means that richer count ries havean obligation to ensure that practices within their jurisdic-tion do not prevent other countries from taking the stepsnecessary to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.



22/30

Another dimension of this obligation is that through theirmembership and inf luence over the policies of organizat ionssuch as the IMF and the World Bank must take steps to

ensure that IMF and World Bank policies are not undermin-ing count ries' abili t y t o fuf il t heir dut ies in t he are of humanright s. UN human right s t reaty supervisory bodies have rec-ogni zed t hi s on several occasions. I n 2000, for instance, t heCommittee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights encour-aged "t he Government of I t aly, as a member of [ t he] I MF andthe World Bank, to do all it can to ensure that the policies

and decisions of those organizations are in conformity withthe obligations of States parties to the Covenant, in partic-ular t he obligat ions [ ] concerning int ernat ional assistanceand cooperation."18

Finally, more and more people are arguing that internation-al organi zat ions t hemselves have obl igat ions. Thus, t he IMF,the World Bank and the WTO would be considered to bearresponsibi li t y for sust aini ng such an unequal and inequit ablepattern of liberalization worldwide.

VI. Some Simple Steps Towards EnsuringFair Agricultural Trade Rules1 . SUPPORT STRONGER AND SIMPLER RULES TO PREVENT AND COUNTER DUMPING

The WTO should improve and strengthen the definition ofdumping so that products are considered dumped when theyare sold below their cost of product ion. I n addit ion, import-ing count ries should have the abilit y t o immediat ely imposecountervailing and ant i-dumping dut ies where goods are soldabroad for less than the cost of production.


18. UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: I taly, E/ C.12/ 1/ Add.43, 2000.


23/30

Groups working on agricultural policy also advocate the pub-lication of annual full-cost of production estimates for OECDcount ries. They are also calling on government s t o develop

a more thorough and transparent methodology to measurethe extent of dumping, and make the relevant data publiclyavai lable in a t imely way. Human right s advocates can sup-port efforts to this end by recalling governments' obligationsrelating to freedom of information, and participation in pol-icy-making, as well as bringing to bear the human rightsarguments that plead against dumping itself.

2. TAKE NON-TRADE CONCERNS INTO ACCOUNT AND USE SAFETY NETSReflecting and incorporating non-trade concerns into agri-cultural trade policy can change the economic-centered per-spective of the WTO and bring in social, environmental andcult ural concerns. A people-cent red approach can help dis-tinguish between non-trade concerns that serve to protectalready powerful interests and those that promote liveli-

hoods and human rights.Some countries have attempted to include non-trade con-cerns in agricult ure negot iat ions.

Industrialized countries like Japan, Norway and Switzerlandhave called for protection of the domestic agriculture sectort o be allowed, on t he grounds t hat agricult ure is " mult ifunc-

tional," i.e. plays a cultural and environmental role in addi-tion to serving food protection.

Developing countries, grouped in the "Alliance for SpecialProducts (SP) and a Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM),"known as the G33, advocate WTO recognition of SPs and theSSM. The SSM would allow developi ng count ries t o prot ecttheir domestic markets against volatility and sudden importsurges. They would be exempt f rom new t arif f reduct ioncommit ment s on SPs. SPs have not yet been defi ned but



24/30

would probably be determined according to criteria of foodsecurit y and rural development needs. Alt hough it is st il lunclear what the SSM and SPs will look like, they could be a

welcome mechanism through which to promote fairer andmore people-centred agriculture rules.

Gender groups are looking at how gender considerations canbe reflect ed in t he defi ni t ion of SPs and the SSM. Thi s i s anapproach human rights advocates could usefully learn fromand support.19

3. MAKESPECIAL ANDDIFFERENTIALTREATMENT PROVISIONS MORE MEANINGFULDeveloping countries have long insisted that existing SDTmechanisms are insufficient to address the disadvantagest hey face. I n response, t hey have t abled 88 proposals atthe WTO to improve SDT, which are currently under review.Human rights advocates could usefully support theseefforts, for instance through contacting their trade min-

istry or t rade negot iat ors in Geneva to ensure t hat t he July2005 deadline is met.

4 . CONDUCTIMPACTASSESSMENTSArticle 20 of the AoA calls for the current WTO agriculturenegotiations to be informed by a review of how the AoA hadworked by the end of 2000. Assessment of t he eff ect s of t heAoA subsidy reduct ion commi t ments was t o be cent ral t o t he

review. The review was also t o focus on experience wi t h non -trade concerns including food security, rural developmentand prot ect ion of the environment. Although an "Analysisand I nformat ion Exchange" process t ook place at t he ti me int he WTO, i t s approach was narrow and is generally considerednot to have fulfilled the Article 20 review requirement.


19. For descript ions of th is work, see th e websit e of the I nt ernat ional Gender and Trade Netw ork, at For other papers on how SPs and SSMs can be defined in a


25/30

Human rights law requires States to monitor the enjoymentof human rights in their country, and to ensure that policiescont ribut e t owards t he realizat ion of human right s. Given

t hat liberalizat ion, as defi ned and implement ed th rough t heWTO, has caused retrogression from the enjoyment of humanrights, it is essential that the human rights impacts of anynew negotiations be assessed before entering into new com-mi t ment s. Nat ional government s, as well as on t he WTO, I MFand World Bank, should be called upon to ensure that suchassessments take place.

Given that WTO Agreements, including the AoA, primarilyregulate relations between States and not within them, ahuman rights approach to assess agriculture trade liberal-ization would be of particular value, since it would dealwith questions of how resources are allocated within acount ry. Human right s can support eff ort s t o ensure t hatany countries' trade policy commitments in the area oftrade policy do not result in discrimination betweengroups wit hi n t he count ry.

5. TACKLE CORPORATE CONTROLTrade and development organizations are calling for bettermanagement of t he power of TNCs. Meanwhile, an increas-ing number of human rights advocates are focusing on thehuman right s obl igat ions of private business. The humanrights framework is indeed a powerful tool for holding pri-vate corporate actors accountable for the harmful humaneffect s of t heir activit ies.

6 . ENSURE COHERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS' ECONOMIC AND HUMAN RIGHTSOBLIGATIONS

States' human rights obligations cannot be discarded when

countries are negotiating at the WTO or with the IMF orWorld Bank. Whi lst t he WTO is now paying more at t ent iont o t he quest ion of policy coherence, i t focuses almost exclu-



26/30

sively on coherence between countries' trade, finance andeconom ic pol icies. Thi s view of coherence needs t o bebroadened to ensure that countries do not enter into trade

or financial agreements that undermine their social policiesor their ability to meet their human rights obligations.

Human rights, trade and development advocates could con-tact their ministries responsible for trade, as well as theirnegotiators in Geneva and call on them to ensure thathuman rights obligations are upheld in any new trade agree-ment s. Human right s advocates could useful ly increaseefforts to share information and coordinate activities withthose working to promote development to put pressure onStates to share information and coordinate activities acrossministries, in order that trade rules do not forsake peopleand t heir right s.

VII. Conclusion: A Vision for a Global FoodSystemThe majority of poor people in the world live in rural areas.To promot e t rue development and fulf il human right s, St atesmust implement policies that have an explicit focus on theneeds and capabilities of these people. This does not pre-clude the expansion of trade, as trade can be a valuable tool

for development . I t does however, require t hat t rade policybe clearly people-cent red. Trade seen as an end in i t self wi llnot improve enjoyment of human rights or contribute tolast ing economic or social development .

As it stands, the WTO Agreement on Agriculture fails to pro-vide an adequat e framework for agricult ure that is consistentwit h human right s. I nst ead, it s focus on liberalizing theagriculture sector worldwide and has led to an agreementthat risks displacing poor farmers who have no other



27/30

opt ions, and leaving t hem prey t o t he behaviour of commod-ity traders and agribusinesses.

Trade and development NGOs as well as farmers groups havestarted their quest to develop and advance their vision of afairer global food system, one that promotes human rightsand guarantees food security, livelihoods and sustainabledevelopment . Human right s groups should join t hi s process.In the meantime, this Backgrounder offers an initialapproach to understanding the main problems with the agri-culture trade system, and ideas for steps to improving it.

Further Contacts and Sources of InformationAct ionAid

Agribusiness Accountability Initiativewww.agribusinessaccountability.org

Bilaterals.org

Cathol ic Agency fo r Overseas Development (CAFOD) www.cafod.org.uk

Christi an Aid

Food First Information Action Network

International Gender and Trade Network

Oxfam I nt ernat ional

Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and NegotiationsI nst it ut e (SEATI NI )

Third World Network (TWN)

UN Food and Agriculture Organization

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Research Unit on theRight to Food

Via Campesina

World Trade Organization

WWF I nt ernational



28/30

Further ReadingActionAid, WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Briefing Paper, 2003.

ActionAid, Power Hungry : Six reasons to regulate global food cor-porations, 2005.

FAO, Agri cult ure, Trade and Food Securit y: I ssues and Opt ion s in t heWTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries,Volume 1, 1999.

Bipul Chatterjee, Trade Liberalisation and Food Security, 1998.www.cuts-int ernational.org/ 1998-6.ht m xxx t o be confirmed

FIAN and Via Campesina, Violations of peasants' human rights: AReport on Cases and Patterns of Violation, 2004.

Hiramani Ghimire and Ratnakar Adhikari, Agricultural TradeLiberalization and its Impact on South Asia, SAWTEE and CUTS-CITEE, 2001.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, World Trade OrganizationAgreement on Agriculture Basics, WTO Cancun Series Paper No 2,2003.

Soph ia Murphy, Managing t he I nvi sible Hand - Market s, Farmers andInternational Trade, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,2002.

James R. Simpson and Thomas J. Schoenbaum, 'Non-trade Concernsin WTO Trade Negotiations: legal and legitimate reasons for revis-ing the "box" system,' International Journal of AgriculturalResources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 2, Nos. 3/ 4, 2003.

UN, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the UN SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food to the Commission on HumanRight s, 2004.

Bill Vorley, Food, I nc. - corporat e concentrat ion from farmer to con -sumer, UK Food Group, 2003.



29/30

THETHREAD [ TRADEHUMANRIGHTS AND THEECONOMY:ACTION UPDATES]

SERIES IS A TOPICAL INFORMATION

AND ACTION-ALERT SERIES ONTRADE, DESI GNED FOR PEOPLE CON-

CERNED WITH HUMAN RIGHTS.

THREAD PUBLICATIONS AREDESIGNED TO PROVIDE HUMANRIGHTS GROUPS WITH THE INFOR-

MATION TOOLS TO ENABLE THEM TO

ENSURE THAT TRADE AND TRADE

RULES PROMOTE AND PROTECT

HUMAN RIGHTS.

THIS PUBLICATION IS THE FIRST INTHETHREADSERIES DESI GNED TO

ANALYZE THEWORLDTRADEORGANI ZATION(WTO) AGREEMENT

ONAGRICULTURE FROM A HUMANRIGHTS PERSPECTIVE. AS A

BACKGROUNDER I T FOCUSES ON THERULES AND THE MAI N CHARACTER-ISTICS OF THE GLOBAL SYSTEM OF

AGRI CULTURE TRADE. FUTUREPUBLICATIONS IN THIS SERIES WILL

FOCUS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE

AGRI CULTURE TRADE NEGOTIATI ONS.


30/30

INSAF ( Ind ian Soc ia l Ac t ion Forum) was e s t ab l i shed in 1993 ,when the soc ia l ac t ion g roups and peop le ' s movement s weres t r u g g l i n g t o c o p e u p w i t h t h e c h a n g i n g r e a l i t i e s o f g l o b a l i z a -

t i o n & r el i g i o u s f u n d am e n t a l i sm i n t h e co u n t r y.Wi t h t h e t i m e , i t h a s g r o w n i n t o a n a t i o n a l f o r u m w i t h a p o l i t i -c al t h r u s t , b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r so m e 5 1 5 so c i a l a ct i o n g r o u p s, p e o -p le ' s movement s and p rogressive i n t e l l ec t ua l s t o r e si s t g lo ba l i za-t i o n , c o m b a t c o m m u n a l i s m a n d d e f e n d d e m o cr ac y.

INSAF be l i eves tha t the t a sk i s to work fo r the de fense o f sove r-e i g n t y a n d su r v i v a l o f t h e n a t i o n . I N SA F i s a p l a t f o r m f o r a l l su c h

g r o u p s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s w h o , i n a c t i o n , d e f e n d a n d p r o m o t e v a l -ues and pr inc ip les such as soc ia l i sm, secular i sm, democracy,f r e e d o m , p e a c e , j u s t i c e - s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c a n d c u l t u r a l - h u m a nd i g n i t y, e qu a l i t y, h u m a n r i g h t s, a n d j o i n t l y w o r k t o w a rd s t h e ra d -i c a l so c i a l t r an sf o r m a t i o n o f t h e so c i e t y t o a c h i e v e t h e s e g o a l s.

S p r e a d i n 1 5 s t a t e s o f t h e c o u n t r y, I N S A F f u n c t i o n s t h r o u g hSt a t e Uni t s. Campa ign s, p ro t est s & so l i da r i t y ac t i ons a re t hem a i n p l a n k s o f i t s p r o g r a m m a t i c t h r u s t , c o n d u c t e d b y m e m b e ro rg an i z at i o n s i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h o t h e r se cu l a r an d d e m o cr at i cf o r c e s . D u r i n g t h e p a s t f e w y e a r s i t h a s c o n c e n t r a t e d i t s e f f o r t sto b r ing ing in to sha rp focus the Guja ra t Carnage , emerg ing fa s -c i s t t h r e a t s , p o l i t i c s o f w a t e r, p r o t e s t s a g a i n s t d r a c o n i a n l e g i s -l a t ion s l ike POTA and a rmed fo rces ( spec ia l po wers) ac t , c i t i zen ' sa g e n d a f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g s e c u l a r d e m o c r a t i c p o l i t y i n I n d i a ,G e n d e r s t r a t e g i e s , s o l i d a r i t y w i t h p e o p l e w o r k i n g f o r a l t e r n a t ep a r a d i g m o f d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h s o c i a l j u s t i c e e t c .

I NDI AN SOCI AL ACTI ON FORUM ( I NSAF)

A12 4/ 6 1ST FLOOR, KATWARIASARAI,NEWDELHI110 016TEL: +91-11-55663958 TELFAX: +91-11-2651781 4

EMAIL: INSAF@VSNLCOM

planting the rights seed

Documents