FIVE main reasons why the WTO has "fundamentally failed" world farmers in both rich and poor countries, since its inception 12 years ago, have been set out by Malcolm Thompson, ICSA president.
These are:
CORPORATE AGRICULTURE
The WTO system favours corporate agriculture over individual family-owned farms. These large-scale farming practices, increasingly common in India, Brazil and Inner Mongolia, have led to drastic declines in rural populations in developing countries. More and more farmers are being driven from their lands (estimated at 200 million in China alone) into extreme poverty as huge corporations outsource production from developed nations to developing nations, where inputs are significantly cheaper and food safety regulations are less restrictive.
EQUIVALENCY
This is the WTO rule that recognizes that products (including food) are produced to different standards in different regions, but ensures that these products are recognised as acceptable in their destination countries. In other words, even if they are different, they must be seen as being the same and further inspections at borders are not necessary.
An example of this would be beef that is produced in countries which allow the use of growth hormones (Brazil) must be accepted by countries which don't allow the use of these products (EU). This raises huge food security issues.
GMOS
US business concerns are applying huge pressure at WTO level to force other nations to accept GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
This model of agriculture can be very damaging to small farm-ers, as GMO commodities are patented, and farmers have to either secure a licence to grow these crops or buy seeds every year. They are forbidden from harvesting seeds to replant their crops, and this distorts the traditional structure of agriculture common in many developing countries, but most particularly in African nations. These farmers then become entirely dependent on huge global concerns such as Monsanto or BASF.
DEVELOPMENT ROUND (DOHA)
While the current round of negotiations (Doha) is supposed to benefit lesser developed nations through freeing up market access, it is widely believed that the benefits will not be evenly distributed. Middle-income countries in Latin America, such as Brazil and Argentina, are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries among exporters from agricultural reforms in rich countries.
Some poor countries could lose if lower farm subsidies lead to higher food prices or if preferential access to European and American markets for their exports is eroded due to the generalized improvements in access arising from a multilateral agreement.
INCOME
WTO was supposed to improve farm incomes by liberalizing global markets. The Irish farmer has not seen any benefit from WTO activities, as the family farm income (income derived from farming) has changed little in the intervening years, averaging at 14,236 in 1994 and 16,680 in 2006. Removal of subsidies and further erosion of tariffs at the insistence of non-EU WTO members would cause immense hard-ship to farmers as they would struggle to compete with cheap food flooding Europe.Sligo Weekender
