Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Trade and Food Security’ (exploratory opinion)
Date: 2009-12-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: development plan, fair trade, financial aid, food safety, human nutrition, human rights, poverty, public health








C_2010255EN.01000101.xml










22.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/1





458TH PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 16 AND 17 DECEMBER 2009
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Trade and Food Security’
(exploratory opinion)
(2010/C 255/01)
Rapporteur: Mr CAMPLI

Co-Rapporteur: Mr PEEL

By letter of 21 January 2009, Ms Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission, asked the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an exploratory opinion on:

Trade and Food Security.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 November 2009. The rapporteur was Mr Campli and the co-rapporteur was Mr Peel.
At its 458th plenary session, held on 16 and 17 December 2009 (meeting of 16 December), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 191 votes to 1 with 6 abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations
1.1   Conclusions
1.1.1   In the Committee's view, the right to food is a fundamental citizenship right, as is the right of civil society to intervene in all aspects of this issue; moreover, it considers global food security to be a fundamental human right.
1.1.2   In a world in which enough food is produced to feed everyone, over one billion people do not have access to enough food. The basic cause of this food insecurity is poverty, against the backdrop of disintegrating local market infrastructure, culinary traditions and economies resulting from the international strategies which have been adopted since the 1980s.
1.1.3   The Committee is aware that in the sphere of complementary development policies, aimed at reducing poverty and increasing income, regulated trade can help lift people and groups out of food insecurity, via, inter alia, the development of regional markets.
1.1.4   Widespread recourse to protectionist measures does nothing to further global food security, by removing essential flexibility and working against any form of effective regional integration, especially in Africa.
1.1.5   With regard to regulated trade, the Committee considers that the principles of the right to food must underpin the processes of decision-making and implementation and that States must refrain from entering into international obligations which conflict with those principles.
1.1.6   The Committee is aware that policies aimed at self-sufficiency in food are economically costly and inconsistent with a global governance approach. At the same time, it recognises food sovereignty as a people's legitimate right to decide for themselves on policies to achieve their own food security and to feed their community on an ongoing basis, while respecting others’ food sovereignty.
1.1.7   The Committee stresses the need to reform the instruments, bodies and policies pertaining to global governance of food security and trade, in line with the principles and practices of Policy coherence for development.
1.1.8   The Committee believes that all potential, useful strategies aimed at combating poverty and increasing food security are capable of yielding fruitful, stable results provided that they go hand in hand with progress in democratic processes and greater rule of law in the countries subject to food insecurity.
1.2   Recommendations
1.2.1   As part of a global political approach, the Committee puts forward the following general recommendations:
1.2.1.1   for the EU to implement the European Consensus on Development, with the aim of advancing a clear-cut political strategy that can be recognised by our world partners, and to play a leading role in a thorough overhaul of the FAO-WFP-IFAD system;
1.2.1.2   for the EU to incorporate the principles of the right to food in its trade policies, and to begin working with the other WTO members to ensure that these principles are mainstreamed into the multilateral negotiations;
1.2.1.3   for the EU to sound out ways in which, in the light of Corporate Social Responsibility policies, the economic and commercial activities of European companies or companies based in Europe can be monitored insofar as they impact on global food security; here, the Committee undertakes to draw up an own-initiative opinion, on the topic of European agribusiness in the world: strategies, challenges and best practices.
1.2.1.4   for the EU to include an institutional role for civil society in future economic partnership agreements and other free-trade agreements, as already provided for in the CARIFORUM-EC agreement;
1.2.1.5   for the international financial bodies to establish appropriate regulation of financial markets so as to prevent speculation on agricultural commodities;
1.2.1.6   for international human health and environmental organisations to discourage diets that make excessive use of animal protein;
1.2.1.7   for the international community to set up an international food reserve system, to work in close coordination with the FAO's early warning system;
1.2.1.8   for the international community to review the UN classification in order to make a clear distinction between middle-income developing countries and the poorer or least developed countries (LDCs);
1.2.1.9   for all WTO members and primarily the EU to incorporate impact and vulnerability analyses into the negotiating mandates, broken down by country and group of people;
1.2.1.10   for the WTO members to sanction temporary measures restricting exports which, by effectively allowing food prices in developing countries to be kept down, assist in managing the emergence of food crises affecting specific social groups;
1.2.1.11   for the governments of developing countries to involve farmers’ organisations in agricultural development programming on a permanent basis and to strengthen all forms of organised production established by farmers or promoted by workers and consumers;
1.2.2   With specific reference to the ongoing EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) negotiations, the Committee recommends that the EU:
1.2.2.1   work for enhanced regional integration in Africa in particular, as a powerful tool for promoting both development and food security, and as a defining element in the revision of the Cotonou Agreement due in 2010;
1.2.2.2   ensure synergy between overlapping regional integration initiatives and between interim EPA agreements and comprehensive EPA agreements;
1.2.2.3   ensure that the negotiations can adapt readily to the capabilities and capacities of the ACP countries, with ‘early harvests’ in areas such as simplified rules of origin;
1.2.2.4   encourage agriculture and rural development to become priority sectors chosen by as many ACP countries (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States) as possible;
1.2.2.5   increase further the EU targeted amount of over EUR 2 billion for Aid for Trade/trade related assistance given the added effects of the economic crisis;
1.2.2.6   encourage the development and growth of high-added-value transformation industries in Africa, particularly in the food sector, in part by enhancing infrastructure systems;
1.2.2.7   encourage significant local research and technological development, especially in agriculture-related fields.
1.2.3   With specific reference to the ongoing WTO Doha negotiations, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
1.2.3.1   for WTO members to ensure that the strategic review of trade policy serves to relaunch the debate on the form of future agriculture trade negotiations, giving food security specific status, and on future forms of technical assistance for developing countries;
1.2.3.2   for WTO members to conclude the Doha Development Round by 2010, as called for by the G20, in order to demonstrate the underlying commitment both to development and to the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals);
1.2.3.3   for the EU to lock in the concessions gained by developing countries instead of looking for further concessions for itself;
1.2.3.4   for the EU to extend its EBA initiative (everything but arms) to all countries identified by the FAO as being in ‘food crisis’ or ‘at high risk’, not limiting it to the LDCs or ACP countries;
1.2.3.5   for the EU to use trade mechanisms to promote greater food security, such as early implementation of the proposed ‘WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement’, assistance with sanitary and phyto-sanitary issues, and providing help for the small independent farmer not tied into controlled supply chains.
2.   Food security in the face of the twin crises
2.1   Definitions
2.1.1   The Committee subscribes to the following universally-accepted definition of food security established by the 1996 World Food Summit: ‘Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’.
2.1.2   That being so, the Committee points out that food security is a complex issue comprising four multifaceted aspects, which it is crucial to take into consideration:






a)


quantitative availability of food;










b)


physical, economic and social access;










c)


correct use










d)


stability over time of availability, access and utilisation.




2.2   The current situation and the twin crises (food and financial)
2.2.1   Analysis of food insecurity has revealed the following key characteristics (1): a) it is on the rise and now, in the wake of two crises, the number of people affected has passed the one billion mark; b) it is increasingly concentrated (89 % of cases are in Asia, Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa); and c) while it remains highly rural (70 % of people experiencing food insecurity live in rural areas), it is also making its mark in urban and peri-urban areas.
2.2.2   The combined effect of the agricultural prices crisis and the financial crisis is the main reason for the latest increase in the number of people experiencing food insecurity. Moreover, the rising incidence of disasters is affecting food insecurity; in terms of manmade disasters there is an increasing prevalence of those that are socio-economic in nature, in respect of war and conflict.
2.2.3   Agricultural commodity prices were marked by fluctuations over the last three decades, reflecting a medium-term trend that was nevertheless downward in real terms. The sharp increase in 2007-2008 had a particular impact on account of both its scale and its speed (the FAO food price index rose by nearly 60 % in little more than 12 months). It should however be remembered that even at their peak (March 2008), prices were below the historic highs of the early 1970s.
2.2.4   With regard to the more recent fluctuations, we would point out that since the financial speculation bubble burst, agricultural prices have steadily decreased, but remain, however, higher than before the 2007/2008 crisis.
2.2.5   The Committee points out that underlying these wide price fluctuations and the consistent and growing price volatility are structural, economic and even speculative causes.
2.2.6   The Committee highlights, in particular, a strong correlation between recent trends in agricultural prices and the price of oil, which has a bearing both on agricultural production costs and on the expediency of producing biofuels, particularly when backed by public aid.
2.2.7   Other contributory causes of the food crisis include: the gradual decline of agricultural investment and chronically low agricultural yields in poor countries; rapid urbanisation; rising income levels in certain emerging countries (China and India) leading to a dietary shift towards greater meat consumption; and the breakdown of food stocks systems.
2.2.8   The Committee points out that in this changed landscape we have seen an increased tendency as regards speculative capital and investment funds, including European ones, for investors to add securities linked to agricultural commodities to their portfolios, making the prices of these commodities more volatile and distorting the futures market.
2.2.9   The Committee therefore points out that if there is a failure to rapidly and vigorously reform the financial markets, speculation in agricultural commodity prices will again intensify in the coming months and into the future, with potentially serious consequences in terms of increasing food insecurity.
2.2.10   The financial crisis, coupled with the commodity price crisis, has spawned a series of interconnected developments in developing countries, including: a reduction in the flow of foreign investment capital, a reduction in remittances, governments unable to introduce public expenditure programmes, a tendency to turn to tied aid, a decrease in domestic investment, increased poverty, a fall off in sowing, with reduced harvests predicted and a renewed hike in food prices.
2.2.11   The hardest-hit social categories are those that exhibit the greatest factors for vulnerability: landless rural inhabitants, households headed by women, and the urban poor. The worst hit countries are those characterised by strategic dependence on imports, highlighting the essential need for local agricultural development.
2.2.12   Faced with these situations the Committee stresses the urgent need for an increase in international funds for development; the EESC therefore supports the idea of a tax on international financial transactions (2), the proceeds from which could be allocated to food security initiatives.
2.2.13   It is equally vital for ACP countries to change the way they use the ESF in order to increase food security; in fact, at present, despite the fact that 70 % of the people experiencing food insecurity live in rural areas, ACP governments have allocated only 7,5 % of the 9th European Development Fund (2000-2007) to rural development, and just 1,5 % to activities explicitly related to agriculture.
2.3   Emerging problems
2.3.1   Any long-term analysis of food insecurity requires a contextual awareness of other emerging and now structurally-linked phenomena:






—



water: the link between food security and water was affirmed by the UN Resolution of 20 April 2001; the concept of the right to access water must be recognised politically and legally since access to drinking water is a prerequisite for public health and is one element in nutrition of acceptable quality;










—



land going cheap: recently, in addition to the scarcity of useable farming land, a new phenomenon has arisen of economic and political importance: the acquisition of large swathes of land by States, private companies, and investment funds, which take control of production and even threaten the independence of other States (3). Consequently, there is an urgent need to devise a bilateral and multilateral legal framework that can determine fair distribution of the benefits, covering employment, environmental standards, technological development and food security in the countries concerned;










—



climate: the people who suffer most from the consequences of climate change are smallholder subsistence farmers with less capacity to adapt and people working in the fisheries sector in developing countries;










—



biofuels: the Committee has already highlighted in other opinions the impact of biofuel production on food price rises and their volatility;










—



demographics: the global population growth of recent years has not been matched by a corresponding increase in agricultural productivity thanks to the low levels of investment in the sector; specific demographic policies thus remain crucial, especially in the most at-risk countries.




3.   The right to food
3.1   The Committee stresses the need, alongside the instruments regulating market trends and the relevant institutions, for new international regulations to be drawn up. Combining a statement of people's full rights with a gradual increase in the effectiveness of market-economy instruments could provide the new strategic framework for regulating food security with its complex and globalised nature.
3.2   This strategy will be capable of yielding fruitful, stable results provided that it goes hand in hand with progress in democratic processes and greater rule of law in the countries subject to food insecurity.
3.3   The EESC subscribes to the definition of the right to food as ‘the right to have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear’ (4). The definition is closely related to the concept of food security described in the first paragraph of the World Food Summit Plan of Action and discussed in point 3.2 above.
3.4   In November 2004 the FAO member states adopted a set of Voluntary Guidelines (5) on how to interpret this social, economic and cultural right and to recommend practical steps that could be undertaken to make the right to food a reality.
3.5   There are now a number of countries in the world which have a Constitution that makes explicit reference to the right to food, but only a few of them have adopted domestic laws to actually protect this right; these include South Africa and Brazil, which have also adopted ordinary legislation recognising that the right to food and water can constitute grounds for legal action (going to court, etc.).
3.6   Pursuing this line, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, in his mission to the WTO identified four guidelines (6): the role of trade should be determined in conjunction with human rights and development objectives; the importance must be stressed of a multilateral framework for trade; there must be a shift in perspective in measuring the impact of liberalisation, away from abstract aggregates (such as GDP measurements) towards focusing on the needs of the food insecure; effects on health, nutrition and the environment should be fully integrated into trade discussions. Countries must therefore refrain from entering into international obligations that are contrary to these primary goals.
3.7   To this end, a number of Member States have started to launch specific strategies and recognise food security as having the status of a public good. Many developing countries have, in turn, called for tangible measures to protect their food security, including the category development/food security in the Agriculture Agreement In the course of negotiations, other countries have proposed drafting a food security clause recognising specific food security needs. Under this clause the agenda for negotiations can include potential exemptions which would give particular countries greater autonomy to protect their primary food production given that food security is an essential pillar of national security.
3.8   The Committee calls for a substantial political initiative from the EU aimed at explicit adherence to the principles of the right to food and inclusion in future negotiating mandates of the right-to-food ‘constraint’, as defined by the UN.
4.   Trade and food security
4.1   Inter-relationships and impacts
4.1.1   The Committee recognises the importance of open, regulated international markets for increasing global agricultural production efficiency.
4.1.2   However, the Committee is concerned at the growing vulnerability of countries which, by specialising, are becoming increasingly dependent on international markets. Food security can be jeopardised by over-reliance on the price performance of exports and the foodstuffs a country imports, which have been particularly volatile in recent years.
4.1.3   Moreover, it is apparent that opening up markets has non-neutral effects in terms of distribution and involves adjustment costs that are often unsustainable for certain sections of the population.
4.1.4   The Committee stresses that opening up markets can increase exports, providing major rural development opportunities, if action is taken to tackle imbalanced market forces across the production chain and infrastructural, technological or institutional deficiencies which can transform from positive to negative the effects of open markets on access to food.
4.1.5   The majority of people experiencing food insecurity are small landowners and rural labourers. These people in particular, having no access to credit, infrastructure or technological or market knowledge, are unable to alter their production practices to seize the opportunities offered by the opening-up of markets.
4.1.6   The Committee draws attention to the increasing concentration of world food trade in the hands of a few operators, especially in the cereals sector. The Committee notes with concern that this phenomenon is spreading across the whole agri-food industry, starting with the strategic seed sector.
4.1.7   The Committee notes that these oligopolistic trends may be accentuated by the progressive opening up of markets, if this process is not properly managed and regulated. The competitive nature of the market must therefore be safeguarded within existing competition rules.
4.1.8   Trade and food security are thus interlinked in many ways and the effects vary greatly. In general, econometric analysis reveals that economic growth derived from trade liberalisation would not be sufficient in itself to substantially reduce the number of people suffering from poverty and food insecurity if not accompanied by other policies and actions.
4.1.9   A global food security strategy combines the following actions and policies: reducing poverty and raising income; welfare and social protection policies; agricultural policies and rural development; research and development; trade and regional integrated development; food aid; demographic policies; and combating corruption.
4.2   Trade negotiations: current problems and challenges
4.2.1   Immediate steps must be taken with the WTO (Doha Development Round) negotiations, where the need to ‘restart’ the DDA is essential in order to demonstrate an underlying commitment and conclude these by 2010 as currently proposed by the G20.
4.2.2   The Commission states that whilst trade policy has an important role to play in tackling the food crisis, it is not the main factor. Climate Change, political instability and lack of security, failure of government and of the rule of law, corruption, population growth and the economic and energy crises all play a key role here, not least the increasing threats to water supply in many parts of the world and increases in the price of fuel. However, trade policy if properly used might alleviate the problem, but it might also worsen the situation if misused. It is also important to draw a clear distinction between urgent food aid and longer-term food security.
4.2.3   The EESC notes that faced with the rapid succession of food and financial crises, some countries have adopted protectionist-type measures (more than 60 were reported to the WTO in 2008), which in the long term do nothing to achieve food security, do not ensure the necessary flexibility, work against any form of effective regional integration, especially in Africa, and run counter to a global food security approach.
4.2.4   Nevertheless, as was stressed in the EESC Report (7) prepared for the 10th Regional ACP-EU Seminar, held in Gaborone in June 2009, international trade in agricultural and food products involves just 10-11 % (in tonnage terms) of available world food stocks.
4.2.5   Despite that, EU trade policy needs to be examined both in the short term and in the longer term. In the short term there are first the stalled multilateral WTO Doha Development Round negotiations, as well as the series of EU bilateral trade negotiations as foreseen in the Commission's ‘Global Europe’ Communication of October 2006, and the ongoing EPA (Economic Partnership Agreements) negotiations with ACP countries. With regard to the latter, the only EPA concluded so far is that with CARIFORUM – but in this case with significant implications for the future of civil society involvement. However, interim EPA agreements which have been reached in other parts of the ACP also have an important role to play.
4.2.6   As regards the longer term, a strategic review is essential. Food security needs to be given special status. The debate should again be launched to decide what balance (especially between developed and developing countries, and in light of climate change, expected water scarcity and other such problems) should ideally be determined for future WTO agriculture negotiations. Consideration needs, here too, to be given to the type of future technical assistance for developing countries and whether the ‘single undertaking’ agreement, often detrimental to developing countries, should continue. Technical assistance should be targeted at building the capacities of countries – or regions – to formulate and negotiate trade policy rather than simply enabling them to cope with implementation.
4.2.7   As regards the short term, it is important to examine which trade instruments in an open rules-based trading system are most valid in helping to meet the objectives of combating increased food ‘insecurity’ among poorer countries, helping to meet MDG 1 and thus decreasing the number of malnourished people, increasing global food production to meet anticipated demand.
4.2.8   The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) separately lists 17 ‘food insecure’ countries which it describes as being ‘in food crisis’ with 17 more ‘at high risk’. Of these 34 countries (8), 23 are WTO members, 25 are LDCs whilst a differing 25 are from the ACP. Some of the WTO members are longstanding, but play little part in the DDA negotiations, others – such as Kenya and Zimbabwe – have fallen on hard times. Kenya is the most active in the negotiations. Only Nicaragua is currently involved with bilateral negotiations under ‘Global Europe’, but most are involved with EPA negotiations.
4.2.9   With the inclusion of some developing countries in the G20, the UN classification must be revised to make a clear distinction between middle-income and the poorer developing countries, as well as LDCs.
4.2.10   Turning to the DDA agriculture negotiations:






—


for all the parties to the negotiations, to reopen the domestic support and export support pillars in the interests of greater food security would be inappropriate;










—


the third pillar, market access: there is no need for radical change in the EU approach here either. This pillar includes the levels of foreseen tariff cuts and the other main agriculture issues which have resulted in the current ‘impasse’ in the DDA, although significant progress was made in many areas in late 2008, including new flexibilities for ‘net food importing developing countries’ (NFIDCs), which the Committee particularly welcomes;










—


the Committee would strongly urge that the EU should lock in the concessions already made in key areas such as the Special Safeguards Mechanism (where developing countries can raise tariffs temporarily in the event of import surges and price depressions), Special Products (where developing countries can apply gentler tariff cuts, not least on grounds of food security) and Tariff Rate Quotas, rather than hold out for a stronger deal at the expense of developing countries. These measures must not, however, jeopardise the development of South-South trade;










—


the Committee would also urge the EU to extend its Everything But Arms Initiative (already a signal achievement) and the Duty Free, Quota Free (DFQF) DDA concessions to the 49 LDCs to the other nine (9) countries on the FAO lists, unless politically unacceptable, along the lines covered by interim EPA Agreements, with the flexibility to include others should they come to be added by the FAO. It is in this spirit that the EU can contribute best in trade instrument terms in the DDA towards greater global food security.




4.2.11   However the Committee believes that it is through the ongoing EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement) negotiations that the Commission can best contribute to global food security, especially with the Cotonou Agreement due to be revised in 2010.
4.2.12   The EU has rightly identified trade as one of the six priority areas for its development policy. Under these negotiations the EU and the ACP countries aim to reach seven new regionally-based and WTO-compatible trading agreements, designed to progressively remove barriers to trade and to enhance cooperation in all trade related areas. It is primarily conceived as an instrument for development. It is worth recalling that the original objectives include the promotion of sustainable development, poverty eradication, regional integration and the gradual inclusion of the ACP countries into the world economy. These objectives must remain at the forefront of all continuing negotiations.
4.2.13   Through these negotiations the EU should strive to obtain:






—


enhanced regional integration: an essential goal in Africa, in particular, as a powerful tool for promoting both development and food security, and as a defining element in the revision of the Cotonou Agreement;










—


synergy both between overlapping regional integration initiatives and between interim EPA agreements and comprehensive agreements;










—


negotiations that adapt readily to the capabilities and capacities of the ACP countries, but with ‘early harvests’ in areas such as simplified rules of origin (which should promote agriculture based industries) and legal certainty to secure DFQF access to EU markets – these negotiations should equally not be used to introduce or bring pressures to bear on other not EPA-related issues, notably procurement;










—


agriculture and rural development becoming priority sectors chosen by as many ACP countries as possible (only four out of 78 countries chose for agriculture and only a further 15 chose rural development for the 9th EDF – European Development Fund - under which the EU offered some EUR 522 million for regional integration and trade-related assistance), with extra resources in particular being committed for significantly greater local research and development in food and agriculture;










—


whilst the Committee welcomes the increased EU targeted amount of over EUR 2 billion for Aid for Trade/trade-related assistance by 2010, we look to the EU to increase this amount further given the added effects of the world economic crisis.




4.2.14   The Committee (10) has referred to the need for Africa's economic development ‘to depend first and foremost on deepening its internal market so that it is able to develop the type of endogenous growth that would stabilise and establish the continent in the world economy. Regional integration and internal market development are the pillars and springboards that will enable Africa to participate positively in world trade’. We reiterate this call, particularly to enhance food security.
4.2.15   It is processing industries that create added-value products, and these need to be encouraged to develop and grow. In agriculture, in particular, a local food processing industry will only develop provided that there is a sufficiently large local market, yet intra-Africa trade remains appallingly low, at less than 15 % of all trade originating within Africa.
4.2.16   EPAs are, however, essentially regional or bilateral agreements. It is important that these do not thwart multilateralism. They should therefore be seen to provide support for the multilateral approach and must be seen as compatible with, and indeed eventually strengthening multilateralism (11). Indeed, the Committee considers that eventual gains made regionally and bilaterally can stimulate the multilateral process as a result of the more in-depth discussions and the closer alignment of positions brought about by such approaches. It is important that the negotiating power of the poorer developing countries and LDCs is not weakened at any level of negotiation.
4.2.17   The EU also needs to seek to make a greater contribution to global food security through other trade-related mechanisms. These could include:






—


greater targeted capacity-building efforts in food-insecure countries, including an effective Aid for Trade system forming an integral part of multilateral negotiations, notably through increased local R&D, increased technology transfer, building better standards of production, and greater use of TRTA (Trade Related Technical Assistance), as already provided for in EPA negotiations as well;










—


trade facilitation – completion and implementation of any agreement in advance of any DDA Single Undertaking;










—


increased level of support over SPS related issues: public, animal and plant health issues, such as overuse of antibiotics, tackling Swine Flu or Foot & Mouth Disease;










—


initiatives such as the Generalised System of Preferences Plus, to benefit from which is it is necessary to comply with international standards of human rights, good governance and labour rights, environmental standards and fair trade (promoting the ‘fair and inclusive trade’ principles, which take into account the issue of traceability, extending this concept to cover auctions);










—


supporting development of increased processing capacity in developing countries, notably through secondment of key players from EU industry, similar to work already undertaken by the Commission together with UNCTAD;










—


investigating possible measures safeguarding against commodity speculation, elsewhere having detrimental effects amongst growers and production (cocoa, coffee etc.).




4.2.18   Although EPAs were partly launched with a view to tackling Preference Erosion, there still remain major issues that more directly affect south–south trade. Some Latin American countries seek faster and deeper liberalisation in tropical products, including bananas and sugar – the cause of long-running trade disputes – against the interests of other, mainly ACP countries. At stake here is the ability of some net food exporting countries to compete with other countries’ commodity prices, including sugar prices, making the production of these crops uneconomical where they may be most needed: this is another key problem that lies at the heart of food insecurity.
4.2.19   The impact of loss of revenue must also be considered for those developing countries which would have to reduce customs duties, with implications for their social policies.
4.2.20   Nevertheless the EU needs to encourage South-South trade in general, not least as major growth here is both achievable and would help tackle in depth the threat of increased food insecurity.
4.3   Reform of global governance
4.3.1   The Committee stresses first and foremost that a situation of food insecurity calls for a global socio-economic development strategy involving two kinds of convergence: between the various policies (social, economic and regional) and between the various national and international institutions. This specific governance measure calls for the involvement and cooperation of organised civil society.
4.3.2   As regards, in particular, the work of the institutions and entities currently responsible for global governance of food security, the Committee sees no need for new bodies; quite the opposite: there is a need for thorough reorganisation and reform of existing bodies according to the two-fold criterion of specialised roles for each body (i.e. avoiding overlaps or dispersion of human and financial resources) and unified global governance, with particular reference to the United Nations’ system (FAO, IFAD, WFP), which should act as leader in the area of food security. A duly reformed and overhauled Food Security Committee could serve as a tool for coordinating food security policies and the various levels at which they are implemented.
4.3.3   In addition, the Committee stresses the vital need to ensure that the WB and other relevant institutions resume a coordinated approach in their initiatives. It is essential for the EU to speak to these institutions with one voice.
4.3.4   Moreover, the Committee stresses that, as regards flows of direct food aid from the northern to the southern hemispheres, it must borne in mind that large-scale food aid can distort local markets, jeopardising food security for those farmers. The Committee therefore supports the WFP in its decision to change the approach of its initiatives.
5.   The perceptions and role of civil society
Perceptions of European civil society
5.1   With particular reference to the crucial issue of food, the Committee notes the following fundamental situations:






a)


a large proportion of people's practical daily concerns relate to food (food as nourishment);










b)


a substantial proportion of people's hopes for a good, pleasant life relate to food (food as culture and lifestyle);










c)


a very high proportion of people, even now at the start of the third millennium, do not have the certainty of obtaining food each day (food as life).




5.2   Therefore, as an expression of European organised civil society, the Committee firstly points out that the current food issue (food availability, quality and health) has become a permanent part of relations between individuals and social groups and in media information circuits; secondly, it sees civil society's power to act in all areas of food as a citizenship right, and also considers global food security to be a right: access to food must therefore be seen as a fundamental human right.
5.3   In addition, the Committee notes that in the context primarily of the food crisis but also of the financial crisis, there have been different, even opposing reactions at world and European level from the various components of civil society, which confirm its substantial involvement in food trends but also the fact that it is in a state of confusion: for example, hunger riots (at least 22 during 2008, with fatalities), the attention also of some European consumers’ to specific speculative financial products related to farm product prices, widespread concerns among farms in Europe and throughout the world, and, in general, growing concern on the part of all people regarding food security, public health and water management issues.
The role of civil society
5.4   In the context of striking the right balance between food security and regulated trade, the EESC stresses the need to give civil society a greater role and for more structured dialogue between civil society and the various decision-making levels; in particular, it stresses the consultative role of farmers’ organisations and the key role of the various forms of organised farm production.
5.5   The EESC therefore feels it is of strategic importance to involve farmers’ organisations in drafting national development policies and in decision-making processes and impact assessments relating to trade negotiations and implementation.
5.6   To this end, specific financial assistance needs to be earmarked for occupational training for farmers, particularly women, who play a key role in rural areas, so that both men and women farmers can take actively play a leading part in political processes and technological development.
5.7   The EESC also emphasises the importance of the social economy and its enterprises and organisations in ACP countries, not least in reacting to the varied effects of the food and financial crises, with particular regard to those who work in the informal economy and in rural areas (12).
5.8   Lastly, the Committee reaffirms its own active role. Its experience enables it to identify potential partners in third countries, in all sectors of civil society (producers, workers and consumers) with a view to strengthening the role of these partners at home, of vital importance in tackling problems at local level. At the same time, the EU will have in the Committee a barometer to monitor how effective its initiatives are in individual countries and improve the way they are run. The CARIFORUM-EC
Civil Society Consultative Committee
is a good example of this.

Brussels, 16 December 2009.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI




(1)  See FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2008 and 2009 reports.

(2)  See EESC opinion on the Report of the de Larosière Group, OJ C 318, 23.12.2009, p. 57.

(3)  See FAO, IIED and IFAD, Land grab or development opportunity?, 2009.

(4)  UN, The Right to Food: Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2001/25 and Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr Jean Ziegler, paragraph 14, 7 February 2001.

(5)  FAO Council, Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, November 2004.

(6)  Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr Oliver De Schutter, Mission to the World Trade Organization, 9 March 2009.

(7)  DI CESE 34/2009, ‘Ensuring sustainable food security in ACP countries’.

(8)  Cameroon, Central African Republic, the Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo., Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Palestine, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tajikistan, East Timor, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

(9)  Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palestine, Swaziland, Tajikistan and Zimbabwe.

(10)  OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, pp. 148-156.

(11)  OJ C 211, 19.8.2008, pp. 82-89.

(12)  ILO Declaration and Plan of Action for the promotion of social economy enterprises and organisations in Africa, Johannesburg, 19-21 October 2009.