THE RIGHT TO FOOD FOR A CAP FAIR TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES › sites › › files › 29-pac-solid… · Small-scale farming is dominant: about 85% of ... world’s food. Therefore,

THE RIGHT TO FOODFOR A CAP FAIR TODEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Proposals for Europeanand ACP Members ofParliament

C A M P A G N E

ALIMENTERRE

pg.3 / THE CAP AND COHERENCE WITH THE FIGHTAGAINST HUNGER: A LEGAL OBLIGATION!

pg.4 / ONE PRIORITY: RESPECT DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES’ FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

pg.5 / EUROPE’S AGRICULTURAL EXPORT SUBSIDIES:ARE DEVELOPING COUNTRY FARMERS TRULY OUT OFDANGER?

pg.6 / KENYA: FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, EFFECTIVEPROTECTION FROM THE CAP

pgs.7-9 / EUROPE’S SOY EXPORTS: MEDIOCRERESULTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICA

pg.10 / OUR TEN PROPOSALS FOR A CAP THAT ISFAIR TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

pg.11 / INTERVIEW WITH BIRGIT SCHNIEBER-JASTRAM,EU STANDING RAPPORTEUR FOR POLICY COHERENCEFOR DEVELOPMENT

2

Since the 1970s, Europe haspassed off part of its agriculturalcrisis by exporting to developingcountries with the help of aid forexporters. Wheat, milk and meatreaches developing countrymarkets at knock-down prices.Unable to fight this unfaircompetition, hundreds ofthousands of farming families

have been ruined. They have left the countrysides and joinedthe swelling shantytowns in capital cities.

This situation—decried by many civil society organizations—hasnot been resolved by the WTO, quite the contrary. The subsidieshave been disguised, renamed. They are still there, but theyare less visible, more pernicious. They continue to destroysmallholder farming in both developing and developedcountries. This scandalous state of affairs must end.

In some African countries, more than 70% of the populationmakes its living from farming. Supporting this sector is acrucial challenge. Governments must be able to pursueproactive policies to develop smallholder farming. Resourcesare needed. The simplest way is to re-establish border taxesthat would make it possible to raise the prices paid to farmers,allocate credits for training and organizing local farmers, andsubsidize the food purchases of the poorest people. Thesebudgetary revenues would return a degree of financialautonomy to governments. They could conduct economicpolicies that are less influenced by international organizationssuch as the IMF or the World Bank who still bet mainly on theagro-industrial sector.

Trade liberalization has not managed to curb the problem ofworld hunger. By 2050, the world population will reach 9 billion.Feeding humanity without destroying the environment whilesimultaneously adapting to global warming is a considerablechallenge. Cooperating, sharing and helping each other willcertainly be more useful in meeting this challenge thancompeting with each other, vying with each other, and givingin to national selfishness. Europe must increase the budget itdevotes to development aid, and encourage its partners todevote a consequential share of their aid to agricultural andrural projects.

Europe must seize the opportunity provided by the reform ofits CAP in 2013 to help re-balance the global agriculturalproduct trade. By shoring up its plant protein production whilereducing its grain exports, by ceasing to support industrialmeat and dairy production, it would create the space necessaryfor other regions of the world to build their own agriculturalpolicies and ensure their own food sovereignty. It must be adriving force in the creation of a market regulation system byforbidding financial speculation. It must revive global marketorganizations for the main tropical products.

It is by building food sovereignty in Europe that we will makethis right a reality for other regions of the world.

FOREWORDby JOSÉ BOVÉEurodeputy, Vice-Chair of theEuropean Parliament Committee onAgriculture and Rural Development(Greens/EFA, France)

For developing countries, the CAPis both a model and a threat.A model because it has advancedthe European Union along the roadto food independence. Yet, fewdeveloping countries have institutedequally ambitious agricultural policies.The CAP is not exempt from criticism,however, far from it: degradation ofthe environment, massived isappearance of small familyfarms, etc. In the eyes of developingcountries, it is also a threatbecause it encourages agriculturalexports at artificially low prices thatharm local production.

The CAP has, however, reached akey moment in its history. Over thenext two years, its content for the2014-2020 period will be defined.How can the CAP be made fairer todeveloping countries? How can itcease to hinder—or even begin tofoster—attainment of the right tofood and the development of small-holder farming in developingcountries, as 75% of those sufferingfrom hunger are small farmers?This document attempts to answerthese questions.

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS

CFSI - FOR A CAP FAIR TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

3

Despite a slightdrop in 2010,nearly one billionpeople are stillgoing hungry. Mostof them are far-mers and their fa-milies. The currentconsensus is that

priority should be given to promoting agriculturein developing countries to defeat undernourish-ment and poverty. The importance of greater sup-port for smallholder farming—the most prevalentagricultural model in developing countries—is alsoincreasingly acknowledged.

The European Union’s Commitments:In compliance with the Lisbon Treaty, the CAPmust be coherent with the advancement of de-veloping countries. Article 208 of the Treaty sti-pulates that: “Union development cooperationpolicy shall have as its primary objective the re-duction and, in the long term, the eradication ofpoverty. The Union shall take account of theobjectives of development cooperation in thepolicies that it implements which are likely toaffect developing countries.” The CAP is one suchpolicy.

On May 18, 2010, the European Parliament alsoemphasized the importance of the coherence ofEurope’s policies, including the CAP, with de-velopment when it adopted Eurodeputy FransiskaKeller’s report on this subject.4

In particular, the CAP must contribute to, or nothinder, attainment of human rights. These rightsare international standards that have higher legalvalue than other legal rules. This is the case forthe right to food. “The right to adequate food isrealized when every man, woman and child, aloneor in community with others, has physical andeconomic access at all times to adequate food ormeans for its procurement.”5

But is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)consistent with the attainment of human rightsand, in particular, the right to food?

THE CAP ANDCOHERENCE

WITH THE FIGHTAGAINST HUNGER:

A LEGAL OBLIGATION!1

“[E]vidence shows that investments in thesmallholder sector yield the best returns interms of poverty reduction and growth. [...]Small-scale farming is dominant: about 85% offarmers in developing countries produce on lessthan 2 hectares of land. Mixed crop/livestocksmallholding systems produce about half of theworld’s food. Therefore, sustainable small-scalefood production should be the focus of EUassistance to increase availability of food indeveloping countries.” The EU must “[a]ctivelysupport greater participation of civil society andfarmer organisations in policy making andresearch programmes and increase theirinvolvement in the implementation andevaluation of government programmes.”3

AN INDISPENSABLE REFERENCE: THE EU’S STRATEGYFOR FOOD SECURITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES2

1- For more information, see the brochure: “Policy Coherence for Development to Reduce World Hunger” published by CFSI in 2010: http://www.cfsi.asso.fr/upload/policy_coherence_for_dev_102010.pdf

2- “An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges”, pgs. 3, 4 and 9.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0127:FIN:EN:DOC

3- This strategy is in line with the proposals of seven national platforms of West African farmers’ organizations, which were adopted in Dakar in November 2010: “Miser sur les exploitations familiales pour se nourrir” http://www.cfsi.asso.fr/upload/Propositions_paysannes_resolutionAPP_Kinshasa_2.pdf

4- http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0174+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

5- General Comment 12 on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999, §6.

© CFSI


In 2003, competition from cheap importedchickens thrust Ghanaian poultry farming intoserious crisis. The Parliament of Ghana thereforeadopted Act 261, raising customs duties from20% to 40% on these imports. Under pressurefrom the IMF, this law was applied only fourdays!

Germanwatch, FIAN, etc.: “Right to food of tomatoand poultry farmers in Ghana”, 2007, pg. 21http://www.germanwatch.org/handel/ffm-ghana.pdf

A FOX IN THE HENHOUSE: THE IMF IN GHANA

4

The CAP’s impacton developingcountries de-pends in part onthe other policiesof the EU andits members.We therefore

ask that all these policies respect the right to foodand, consequently, the food sovereignty of de-veloping countries, that is to say the right of acountry or group of countries to establish theagricultural and food policies best suited to theneeds of their populations without having anegative impact on the populations of other countries.

Yet, the EU’s trade policy (EPA negotiations,etc.) helps lessen the food sovereignty of develop-ing countries. We ask that the EU respect de-veloping countries’ right to protect theirmarkets when cheap imports threaten theiragricultural production.

Among other things, since the 1980s, inter-national financial institutions (the Inter-national Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.)have conditioned their support on the establish-ment of structural adjustment plans. These plans:

liberalize agriculture in developing countries(elimination of customs protections, governmentfinancial support and aid for agriculture, etc.);

give priority to export crops to generatemonetary income; and

neglect food production and favor food imports,the price of which was dropping consistentlyuntil 2007.

The consequence: these policies helped changeAfrica from a net exporter of agricultural products toa net importer starting in the 1980s.

We ask the European Union and its member-States to take action within these institutionsso that the food sovereignty of developingcountries is respected. They must be able tocommercially protect their agricultural sys-tems and elaborate and implement agri-cultural policies suited to the food needs oftheir populations.

The official development assistance of theEuropean Union and its member-States neglectsagriculture and, in particular, smallholderfarming. Although interest has been reviving overthe past three years, it remains insufficient. TheOECD indicates that the share of European ODAdevoted to agriculture fell from 25% in 1980 to3% in 2005-2006 before rising slightly (to 5%) in2007-2008.6 We ask the EU to devote 15% ofits ODA to financing smallholder farming.

ONE PRIORITY:RESPECT

DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES’ FOOD

SOVEREIGNTY

6 000

4 000

2 000

0

‐ 2 000

‐ 4 000

‐ 6 000

‐ 8 00061‐65 66‐70 71‐75 76‐80 81‐85 86‐90 91‐95 96‐2000 2001‐05 2006/07

SUBSAHARA AFRICA NET TRADE VALUE

5 year averages

Mio

. U

S-$

total agricultural productsfood excluding fishcereals and preparationsmilk equivalentmeat and preparations

6- OECD-DAC: “Measuring aid to agriculture”, April 2010http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/38/44116307.pdf


source : FAO

5

Powdered milk,grains, meat, etc.sold on the marketat cut-rate pricesthanks to exportsubsidies financedby the CAP, allowingthe EU to sell atprices below itsproduction costs.Farmers in develop-ing countries ruined

because they cannot sell their products in theface of unfair competition from Europeanproducts... Is all that really over?

Export subsidies accounted for 50% CAP expend-iture in 1980, and had been cut to 2% by 2008.7

As part of the ongoing talks at the WTO, the EUhas promised to eliminate them totally after2013, if all countries adopt similar measures. Aredeveloping country farmers really out of danger?Nothing is less certain…

A more discrete system of direct aid to farmers isalready replacing product aid. This direct aid issaid to be “decoupled” from production, and paidto farms no matter what they produce. It ac-counted for an average of 29% of Europeanfarms’ income during the 2007-2009 period.8 Atthe end of the day, even if exported foodstuffs nolonger receive direct aid, the farms that receivesubsidies can continue to sell their goods at pricesbelow production cost. This allows the EU tocontinue its dumping on international markets.And, certain foodstuffs (notably wheat, dairyproducts and sugar) are primarily exported to thepoorest countries on the planet, whosepopulations are mostly farmers.

This evolution is recent, and assessments of theimpact of this type of subsidy on agriculture indeveloping countries are rare. In these condi-tions, it is easy to claim that there is no longer aproblem. The EU must ensure that theproducts it exports do not harm agriculture

in developing countries. We ask thatindependent impact assessments pilotedby representatives of the actors concerned,including farmers’ organizations in developingcountries, be conducted on a regular basis.The next “health check” or “mid-term reviews”that will evaluate CAP implementation shouldanalyze the CAP’s coherence and possibleinconsistencies with development, unlike the“health check” conducted in 2008. Measures thatharm developing countries should be removed.

EUROPE’S AGRICULTURALEXPORT SUBSIDIES:

ARE DEVELOPINGCOUNTRY FARMERS

TRULY OUT OFDANGER?

7- European Commission: “How the EU’s agriculture and development policies fit together”, 2010, pgs. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/developing-countries/publi/brochure2010/text_en.pdf

8- ODI: “CAP reform and development”, draft background paper, March 29, 2011, pg. 15

© CFSI


Dairy production in Kenya is 40% higher than theproduction of all West African countries combinedeven though they have more livestock. This isnot surprising as most of these countries do notsupport this sector. Customs duties barely reach5%. Actors in the dairy value chain oftencomplain about the lack of policies to developthis sector. Because of this, regional productionis unable to meet the population’s needs.In Burkina Faso in 2006, for example, nearlyone out of every two liters of milk consumed wasimported. Even worse, the proportion was nineout of ten liters in cities. And, half of this wassubsidized European milk... Difficult indeed forlocal milk to compete when it sold, in January2010, for 700 CFA francs per liter compared to340 CFA francs for one liter of reconstituted milkmade from imported powder.

DAIRY POLICY: WEST AFRICA CAN DO BETTER!

6

Many Africanc o u n t r i e scould producethe milk theydrink, andeven export

milk. According to the FAO, 200 million Africansraise cattle. Most of them produce milk, butproductivity is often low. In these conditions, it isimpossible to meet the growing demand fromconsumers. Yet, with political determination, asmidgen of economic anti-conformity, and the be-lief that the government can intervene in agricul-tural development, including by protecting it fromcheap imports, it is possible to meet the popula-tion’s food needs. Kenya proves this.

In 2003, Kenya was heavily dependent on im-ports. Faced with the dumping by some of its sup-pliers, including the EU, the government decidedto raise customs duties on imports from 25% to60% between 1999 and 2004. As this was notenough, it established a value chain supportpolicy that combined aid to farmers, training,marketing support, and market regulationthrough the Kenya Milk Board. This properlymixed cocktail had the desired effect: dairyproduction leaped by 84% from 2000 to 2007.Today, not only is Kenya able to meet consumerdemand, it has also begun exporting to neighbo-ring countries!

“Egypt has limited farmland in the Nile Valley.Yields there, among the best in the world, havereached maximum levels and production istherefore hitting a ceiling. To feed a growingpopulation, Egypt must therefore import itswheat. However, to protect its farmers fromunfair competition, the government has for yearsset up a strict price control policy. Imports aremanaged by a public body, wheat is purchased athigh prices from local producers, and the sale ofbread to poor populations is subsidized.European export subsidies are therefore ratherpositive for Egypt as the country can lower itsfood bill while maintaining its farmers’ incomes.”EU export subsidies are therefore a boon forEgypt because the country was able to exerciseits food sovereignty and take into account theinterests of both farmers and consumers.

Bénédicte Hermelin: “Exportations : les européens,plaie des pays du Sud ?”, Alternatives internationales,March 2008, pgs. 37-39.

SUBSIDIZED EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS:AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EGYPT?

KENYA:FOOD SOVEREIGNTY,

EFFECTIVE PROTECTIONFROM THE CAP9

9- Unless stated otherwise, the information contained on page 6 comes from a GRET study:“The CAP’s impact on African Agriculture: focus on milk”, February 2010,

published by VECO (Belgium), Terra Nuova (Italy) and Practical Action/UK Food Group.http://www.europafrica.info/en/documenti/advancing-african-agriculture

© AL Constantin


7

Since the 1960s,the expansion ofintensive stockfarming has ledEurope’s cows to

eat less and less grass and more and more im-ported soy. Poultry and pigs have also been pla-ced on the “soy diet.” This dependency, whichbegan in the wake of World War II, would in-crease with the establishment of the CAP in 1962.The United States used considerable commercialpressure to ensure that Europe did not apply anycustoms duties to its soy imports, for which it wasthe main supplier. Today, the EU obtains most ofits imported soy from Brazil, followed by the USAand Argentina. The EU is the second largest soyimporter in the world, right behind China since2008.

An Environmental DisasterInitially located in southern Brazil, soy productionis spreading northwards where, to meet growingworld demand, it is devouring the Amazon foresteither directly or indirectly (the forest is first clea-red to make pasture lands, which are rapidly re-placed by soy crops). Between 1998 and 2007,more than 135,000 sq. km. of the Amazon forestin Brazil have disappeared, the equivalent of onefourth of France! In 2002, 70% of the 1.1 millionhectares of new farmland in this region were usedfor soy crops according to the Brazilian Ministryof the Environment. Soy is currently the largestthreat to the Amazon forest.

Widespread use of GMOs and the massive use ofpesticides, herbicides and other chemical productsaffect the environment and even, in some cases,people’s health. The consequences of the pollutionfrom the crop dusting of Roundup Ready soycrops are so serious that some researchers speakof an “ecological bomb.” Indeed, these productsaccumulate in the soil and are found in agriculturalproducts. They have an impact on consumers’health. But the people most affected are farmersand all rural people living near fields where theseinputs are used massively. Rural populationssuspect that soy cropping, which makes heavy

use of pesticides, is responsible for the rise incancers and cardiovascular diseases. The localcoordinator for the Land Pastoral Commission(CPT), Antônio Gomes de Morais, accuses soy ofhaving polluted the water supply in the Balsasregion (Maranhão) in 2007, causing seriousdiarrhea, vomiting and the death of two childrenin a rural community.

A Mixed Social OutcomeSoy is mostly grown on large farms. In Brazil, forexample, only 16% of production comes fromsmallholder farming. One should clearlydifferentiate between the smallholder farmingsituations in different regions.

In the Brazil’s southern states (Rio Grande do Suland Parana), small farms are relatively wellorganized, within the FETRAF-Sul or variouscooperatives. Approximately 80% of soy producersare smallholder farmers who supply one-third oflocal production. Soy is seen by many farmers assynonymous with progress and development.Farmers agree that it has until now offered moreremunerative prices than other competing crops(corn, beans). For now, it has done more toconsolidate smallholder farming than it has todestabilize it. Along with this promised income,soy brings the “public goods” financed by thegovernment that are needed to support itsgrowth—education, research and infrastructures—

EUROPE’S SOY EXPORTS:MEDIOCRE RESULTSFOR DEVELOPMENT

IN LATIN AMERICA10

10- CFSI and GRET: “L’impact des importations européennes de soja sur le développement des pays producteurs du Sud”, February 2011. This chapter on soy is drawn from this study containing detailed analyses and proposals. It can be consulted athttp://www.cfsi.asso.fr

© IRD


8

to the regions where soy cropping is developing.The situation is much less favorable in the Centro-Oeste and Nordeste, where land concentrationand evictions, often conducted with the compli-city of local political oligarchies, are still the mainproblem facing small farmers. Antônio Gomes deMorais, from the CPT, has stated that: “Before,we had many communities with people whoearned their livings from the land without muchdifficulty. After the arrival of large-scaleagro-industrial [soy] projects, the situationdeteriorated and serious conflicts began tomultiply. Many families were evicted to makeroom for agribusiness. People left the countrysidefor the cities. Cities (such as Balsas) swelled, andfavelas sprang up where people lived in povertybecause they had not found other sources ofincome.”

In conclusion, while some smallholder farmersmake a profit from soy production, it has aboveall benefited agribusiness and caused considerablesocial harm and provoked an environmentaldisaster.

Alternatives to Soy and Soy Alternatives11

We request:

- the development of European productionof alternatives to soy (support for legumeproduction, grass-fed stock farming,etc.); and

- the promotion of alternative soy valuechains without GMOs, from smallholderfarming in Latin America.

Food sovereignty is a universal right, and webelieve that Europe, like other regions of theworld, must be able to ensure its foodindependence. However, as the CoordinationEuropéenne Via Campesina farmers’ organizationemphasized in January 2010: “But make nomistake: food sovereignty does not meanautarky or a retreat behind borders. Nor is itopposed to international trade: all regions of theworld have their own specific products that theycan trade; but food security is far too importantto allow it to depend on importation.”The poorest countries on the planet (primarilyLDCs and ACP countries) must therefore be ableto continue to have free access to the Europeanmarket without anything in exchange. However,European quality standards and sanitary rulesset up by the EU with the legitimate aim ofprotecting consumers can be a barrier for thesecountries’ exports to the European market,especially for smallholder farmers.Before these standards are established, weask that impact assessments be conductedand measures taken to allow smallholderfarmers in LDCs and ACP countries tocontinue to have access to the Europeanmarket.

IMPROVE ACCESS TO THEEUROPEAN MARKET FOR THE POOREST COUNTRIES

11- Specific proposals are covered in detail in a report by CFSI and GRET: pgs. 58-71.http://www.cfsi.asso.fr


9

As do the CAP and the EU’s trade policies, European energy policy canhave a negative impact on the food security of developing countries. In2009, the EU committed to incorporating 10% of renewable energy(agrofuels) in transportation by 2020. To do so, the EU must have someof the raw materials it needs produced in developing countries,sometimes to the detriment of local food production and theenvironment.

For more information, see:

Action Aid’s agrofuel page :http://www.actionaid.org/eu/index.aspx?PageID=3971

Friends of the Earth International:“Africa: up for grabs”, August 2010http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2010/africa-up-for-grabs

AGROFUELS: EAT OR DRIVE—MUST WE CHOOSE?

The volatility of world prices for agricultural products has negative consequences for both farmers and consumersin developing countries because it causes agricultural product prices to spike and collapse. As the largest exporterand importer of agricultural products in the world,12 the European Union can play a major role in fighting pricevolatility for these products. Unlike what it has done for years, the CAP should strengthen tools to regulateproduction so as to limit the risks of over-production and shortage in relation to European consumers’ needs,establish buffer stocks, etc. The EU should also take action to promote these types of measures in other regionsof the world and internationally.

THE CAP, A WAY TO FIGHT THE VOLATILITY OF WORLD AGRICULTURAL PRICES?

Article 12 of the Cotonou Agreement provides for theconsultation of ACP countries “where the Communityintends […] to take a measure which might affect[their] interests.” As encouraged by the EuropeanParliament,13 we propose that the JPA nominate twostanding rapporteurs on policy coherence fordevelopment (one from an ACP country and one fromthe EU). They will ensure the coherence of EU and ACPpolicy with development, foster the JPA’s discussionsand positions on these subjects, publish a biennialreport notably focusing on implementation of Article12, and examine possible complaints from victims ofincoherencies.

ACP-EU JOINT PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY:STRENGTHEN ITS ROLE IN FAVOR OFEUROPEAN POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

12- http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/june/tradoc_129093.pdf andhttp://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/economic-sectors/agriculture/

13- Report on EU Policy Coherence for Development, adopted in May 2010 §83 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2010-0140+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

© IRD

© Mécanos productions


14- These proposals are very similar to CONCORD’s proposals, which can be consulted at:http://www.concordeurope.org/Files/media/0_internetdocumentsENG/4_Publications/3_CONCORDs_positions_and_studies/

Positions2011/CONCORD-EFSG-answer-CAP-cosultation-25-jan-2011-FINAL.PDF

15- www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/60_20/pdf/final_resolutions_en.pdf (pgs. 25-32)10

We saw above that other policies can intensify or mitigate the effects of the CAP. For this reason, some of our proposals deal with these policies.

We invite the European Parliament and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) to takeinto account the following points:

1 In compliance with Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty, the CAP must be coherent with the developmentof developing countries (see page 3 for more details).

2 In particular, it must contribute to the attainment of the right to food, and the implementation of thepaper “An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges” (pg. 3)and the resolution on food security adopted during the December 2010 ACP-EU JPA session in Kinshasa.15

3 The EU must continue its efforts and increase its support for the development of smallholder farmingin developing countries. We ask that the share of European ODA devoted to this sector be raised to 15% by2014. Farmers’ organizations in developing countries must be closely involved in elaborating andimplementing these programs (pg. 4).

4 The CAP must foster agricultural market regulation in Europe, in other regions of the world and onthe international level in order to fight price volatility, which affects the food security of developing countries(pg. 9).

5 The trade and financial policies of the EU and its member-States (EPA negotiations, WTO, IMFstructural adjustment plans, etc.) help lessen the food sovereignty of developing countries. Accordingly, weask that the EU respect developing countries’ right to protect their markets when cheap imports threaten theiragricultural production (pg. 4).

6 When this right is not acknowledged and when the means of protection available to developingcountries are inadequate to the task, the CAP must renounce all subsidized exports that could harmagriculture in developing countries regardless of whether they are subsidized directly (refunds) or indirectly(decoupled direct aid, etc.) (pg. 5).

7 When the EU imports massive quantities of agricultural products, it must ensure that these importseffectively contribute to development and poverty alleviation, in compliance with Article 208 of the LisbonTreaty. Notably, the social and above all environmental harm caused by the production of Latin American soyexported to the EU must cause the CAP to promote alternatives that allow the EU to lower its dependencyon this soy. It must also support smallholder farmers producing soy in Latin America so as to developsustainable value chains that do not use GMOs (pgs. 7-9).

8 The CAP must ensure that the various forms of quality and sanitary standards are justified on thebasis of transparent scientific criteria. The consequences of such standards on agricultural systems and aboveall on smallholder farming in developing countries must be evaluated. Measures must be taken to allow themto comply with these standards and continue to have access to the European market (pg. 8).

9 Prior to any decision with a potential impact on the advancement of developing countries and duringhealth checks and mid-term reviews, all parties concerned must effectively be consulted and involved inassessments of the impact on agriculture in developing countries (pg. 5).

10 Civil society organizations in developing countries and the EU, including farmers’ organizations inACP countries, must be involved in the establishment of a CAP that is fairer to developing countries.

OUR TEN PROPOSALS FORA CAP THAT IS FAIRTO DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES14


11

Nominated in July 2010, German Eurodeputy BirgitSchnieber-Jastram is the first EU standing rapporteurfor policy coherence for development (PCD). She is amember of the European People’s Party (EPP) and sitson the European Parliament’s development commission.

What is your role as PCD standing rapporteur?Adenauer, former German chancellor, when askedto comment on the impact of the new ministry fordevelopment, called it a “rose without thorns”.Judging by the powers of the ministry, that was afair analysis.

What changed? Of course, we learned through themistakes made and the successes had. But politiciansin this field still face the same problem: developmentpolicy is used as a repair service far too often. Onlylook at illicit outflows from developing countries dueto tax evasion by multinational companies. Theyamount to an estimated 160 billion euros per year inAfrica alone. Compare that with the roughly 8 billionthe EU is spending on development policy and youclearly see the incoherence. Not only do the developingcountries loose a big share of their revenues; theEuropean taxpayer has to spend money that couldhave been generated otherwise. This incoherence iseven more striking when resource extraction companiesdirectly harm the environment or the livelihoods ofpeople. In short, coherent policies might be morepotent than more money.

The Standing Rapporteur was created precisely be-cause of those incoherencies. He or she has tomonitor the activities of other bodies to ensurethat the goals of development policy are not infringedupon. In short, the Rapporteur is meant to be thethorn of the rose (the latter being the obligationstoward policy coherence stated in the Lisbon Treaty).Looking at the complexity of policy coherence, his orher success will depend largely on the resourcesavailable to him or her.

What will your priorities for 2011 be, in thecontext of the CAP’s reform?The main task will be to establish the institutionalstructures for future work. For example, he or shehas to establish and maintain links outside the Par-liament with selected stakeholders and to respondeffectively to information which comes before him orher, and to propose to a possible strategy for enhan-cing PCD in European and national institutions.

The priorities will be the following: I spoke about thequestion of transparency in resource extraction.Another field will be the reform of the CommonFisheries Policy. Other issues include trade in arms,migration of health and educational workers, coherencebetween climate and development policies and, ofcourse, the reform of the Common AgriculturalPolicy. In the case of the latter, an acknowledgementof the principle “do no harm” would be essential. Wehave asked for that!

How are you planning to work on PCD with de-veloping countries and European Civil societyorganizations? If one of them contacts youabout EU policy incoherence, what would yourrole be?The Rapporteur will also function as a contact pointfor non-Europeans or civil society organizations.They will be consulted when a biennial report is beingdrafted. I already started to set up a network ofinterested stakeholders. The European Ombudsmancan also be contacted, although he is only responsiblefor cases where European institutions act againstagreed European standards or laws. The scope of theRapporteur is much wider in comparison.

How are you planning to work with MPs fromdeveloping countries, for example, the membersof the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly?I am not sure whether a new body within the struc-ture of the ACP-EU parliamentary assembly is themost convenient way forward for better coordination.It would simply be a question of resources. Are theyinstitutionally capable of dealing with this extensivechallenge? But the topic should be brought to a muchwider notice. This is not only because of complaintsabout EU policies. Awareness among stakeholdersfrom developing countries is also necessary, becausesome of their domestic policies infringe upon the aimof policy coherence, for instance the rules concerningland ownership or the structure of the agriculturalsector.

INTERVIEW WITH BIRGITSCHNIEBER-JASTRAM

Original: English


C A M P A G N E

ALIMENTERREThe ‘ALIMENTERRE’ program aims to raiseawareness among political leaders and theEuropean public on the causes of world hungerand the means to fight it. For 2010-2012, itseeks primarily to promote policies andindividual behaviors coherent with developingcountry populations’ right to food. TheALIMENTERRE program is coordinated by CFSI(France) in partnership with PKE and PZS(Poland). It brings together the Europeannetwork EUROSTEP as well as Evert VermeerStichting (Netherlands), COSPE and Terra Nuova(Italy), Germanwatch (Germany), SOS Hunger(Belgium and Luxembourg), and PAH (Poland).

This document has been produced with thefinancial assistance of the Agence Françaisede Développement and of the EuropeanUnion. The contents of this document arethe sole responsibility of CFSI, PKE and PZSand can under no circumstances beregarded as reflecting the position of theAFD or of the European Union.

Coordination Nationale desOrganisations Paysannes du Mali

Coordination Nationale de laPlate-Forme Paysanne du Niger

Contacts

In partnership withPKE - Polski Klub Ekologicznywww.pkegliwice.pl

PZS - Polska Zielona Siećwww.zielonasiec.pl

In association with

Print in May 2011. Design: CFSI. Writing:Pascal Erard. Translation: Lara Andahazy-Colo. Copyrights: Lieurac Productions,GRET-MGE, CIEPAC, IRD.

Confédération Nationale desOrganisations Paysannes de Guinée

VredeseilandenGert Engelen+32 (0)16 316580www.vredeseilanden.be

Confédération Paysanne du Faso

Réseau des OrganisationsPaysannes et de Producteursde l’Afrique de l’Ouest - Benin

Conseil National de Concertation etde Coopération des Ruraux - Senegal

Coordination Togolaise desOrganisations Paysannes et deProducteurs Agricoles

Comité Français pourla Solidarité InternationalePascal Erard: [email protected]+33 (0)1 44 83 63 41www.cfsi.asso.fr

EUROPEAN COORDINATION

Glopolis-Prague Global PolicyInstituteAurèle Destrée:[email protected]+420 272 66 11 32www.glopolis.org

CZECH REPUBLIC

Evert Vermeer FoundationFair PoliticsSuzan Cornelissen:[email protected]+ 32 2743 8787www.fairpolitics.eu

NETHERLANDS

BELGIUM

Documents

THE RIGHT TO FOOD FOR A CAP FAIR TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES › sites › › files › 29-pac-solid… · Small-scale farming is dominant: about 85% of ... world’s food. Therefore,