“We need a Global Agricultural Policy”
Photo of Matthieu Calame.
Courtesy of Matthieu Calame
Meeting with Matthieu Calame, agricultural engineer, specialist at the Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation and author of ’La tourmente alimentaire - Pour une politique agricole mondiale’ (‘The food torment – Advocating a global agricultural policy’) (Ed. CLM) - April 2008).*
What are the reasons for the food crisis in ACP countries over recent months?
One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that these countries are not historically nation states at all. They originate in the colonies. The problem is structural. Those which are not developed did not go through the essential stage of creating an internal market. Take Japan: its first concern was to put in place customs duties to enable it to produce. But developing countries, especially in Africa, have primarily remained raw material suppliers.
We have seen 30 years of falling agricultural prices, due mainly to subsidies granted by Europe and the United States to their farmers. It is this “infernal duo” that are chiefly responsible for the present crisis. As an African proverb says:“When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” By selling off their food products at low prices, they stifled countries that lacked the means to subsidise their agriculture. The small-scale peasant farmers have stopped producing and we have seen the creation of a mass urban underclass with very low productivity. A vicious circle has been created. The governments of these countries find themselves torn between two diametrically opposed alternatives: either increase prices to save production or reduce prices for the consumers.
Today there is the added problem of raw material speculation, something I would describe as a disease of opportunism as it is only possible when the market is very strained. Another disease of opportunism is biofuels, introduced to absorb the excesses of countries that subsidise their agriculture, which is typically the case of the United States and Europe, where biofuels emerged when the system of fallow land was introduced, a necessary condition for pursuing subsidies.
But there is a second cause of the present situation, one that is often overlooked: these countries have not developed a proper tax system. The state apparatus is essentially financed by taxes levied on imports and exports. So in a country like Burkina Faso it is agriculture, essentially cotton, which funds the state, making it very vulnerable to price fluctuations in this raw material. But what is important is the wealth that is created internally. The EU could play a role by helping these countries to put in place good tax plans, at the same time helping them to think of their development in different terms.
This is action that the EU could take in the medium term. What about the short-term?
We cannot do without short-term aid, even if it is bad for the long-term. It remains to be seen how such aid can be distributed and by whom. Another important rule to respect is to buy as much as possible locally and involve the agricultural unions, if they exist. This short-term aid is not without its negative effects. There are famines in urban areas as well as rural ones – a cotton producer can also be in a situation of famine. But often, for reasons of political stability, it is the towns that are the first to be helped, with a resultant mass movement of farmers from rural areas to towns.
I do not have a miracle solution. Globally, I could well imagine a system – which existed in Europe in fact in the 19th century with the famous “state workshops” – in which everybody is associated with a Commune (municipality). In the event of crisis, the population turns to the Commune (municipality). It is a process of decentralisation and I do not believe we can escape it. Europe is engaged in this process so why not support this decentralisation in these countries?
In the long-term, what sort of model do you advocate for relations between the EU and ACP states in the agricultural field?
First of all, we must remember that these countries are still subject to the economic model that makes them part of the parent country, while the links of solidarity with it are weakening. On the European side, we have no integrated diplomacy. So a form of clientelism or patronage often remains, France favouring Africa for example and the United Kingdom its former colonies. Such ‘clientelism’ is central to the link between the ACP states and the EU. It results in a lack of desire to develop competitive production. These countries have not gone through the stages of protectionism, followed by development and finally diversification of their production.
But to come back to your question. The need to reinvest in agriculture is clear. Do not forget that states have always been built around agriculture. The question is: What can the EU do in the light of its history, in particular the history of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)? A CAP that is relatively successful – but which has its weaknesses, especially social and environmental – because it is based on the principle of a single and regulated market. The hypothesis I make in the long term is that we would benefit from putting in place a global agricultural policy.
You advocate a global agricultural policy, but how could it take into account the interests of all parties?
Remember the negotiations between Germany and France when putting the CAP into place: Germany wanted to retain high prices to protect its agriculture, whereas Paris wanted low prices to favour its exports. The Germans prevailed, but to get what they wanted they agreed to pay the price by becoming the largest net contributor to the European Community. While making the necessary allowances, there must be the same reasoning at world level. We could imagine, for example, the rich countries paying for having a free market – by dipping into their resources on the non-agricultural market.
I am not denying that things are difficult, but is there an alternative? Otherwise there is no organisation and everybody closes their borders. We saw the rigid reactions of Thailand and Vietnam when they refused to export their rice. These reactions bear the seeds of major conflicts. We must beware of scenarios in which countries or regions turn in on themselves. So the sole alternative is to put into place international agreements.
So much for the long-term, but what could the EU already do on the international stage?
Perhaps the EU could submit proposals to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to help the ACP countries. It would be a question of relaunching negotiations to enable these countries not only to benefit from exemptions on tariffs for products such as bananas and sugar – 'comfort’ products for our Western countries – but of proposing to extend negotiations to all agricultural products. I accept that this threatens to pose a problem for Thailand in particular as it exports broken rice to Senegal, but why not involve it in the discussions?
* The Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for Human Progress (formerly Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme, hence the acronym FPH) is an independent foundation. Its statutory purpose is very broad: to finance, through donations or loans, research and initiatives that contribute in a significant and innovative way to the progress of humankind through science and social development.
