Skip to main content

Sitharaman's plea: Why WHO's 'unjust' system fails to address small farmers' concern

By Bharat Dogra* 
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has reportedly asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) to allow India to export food grains from its public stockholding to nations which are facing food crisis. She said that India could help in reducing hunger or food insecurity but there was hesitation on the part of the WTO.
What should be our response to such a situation? Some may hasten to say due to their concern for reducing hunger immediately that the WTO should immediately give such permission. This would be correct, but the issue also goes much beyond that.
The more basic question is -- why should India or any other country need permission from anyone to send food to any country which needs it urgently to reduce hunger and food shortage?
If there is any system which imposes such an unreasonable and unjust condition which increases hunger that system should go away, if there is an organization which creates such conditions, then it should go away.
Such situations have arisen in the past also when the WTO system has been found to be so unjust and unreasonable that questions have arisen as to whether the WTO is a part of serious problems or of solutions.
In several discussions on food and farming systems in India a concern that comes up time and again is that pressures and particular interpretations of the rules of the WTO can increase problems of India’s farmers and the public distribution system (PDS) for food. Similar has been the experience of several other parts of the Global South.
A large number of India’s mostly small farmers face a number of serious problems due to a complex of factors. Now if particular interpretations of rules of WTO or its Agreement on Agriculture are used to increase hurdles for the support the government provides to the farmers in the form of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and in other ways, then this will greatly accentuate the problems of farmers.
Similarly, if the PDS or the food security legislation are disturbed due to the pressures created by certain countries from the WTO platform, then this will worsen the problem of hunger in India.
This kind of concern exists not just for India but for several other developing countries as well. The overwhelming majority of farmers are small farmers. Small farmers have a very low resource base and their risk bearing capacity is very limited. If they face a situation of sudden price crash due to cheap imports it can be very difficult to recover from these losses.
If this is repeated for some time, their precarious but proud existence as small farmers may be threatened as they are forced to sell their land to recover from debts, or feel that they cannot no longer bear further high risk of a possible cash in prices.
The Human Development Report (HDR) prepared a special issue on international trade which focused attention to some aspects of the threat posed by unfair trade to small peasants in developing countries. The HDR questions the globalisation hype by drawing attention to those who have suffered. This report says:
"Participation in trade can exacerbate inequality as poor people absorb the adjustment costs of increased competition from imports, while people with assets and market power take advantage of opportunities provided by exports."
For example, increased exports of high value added fruit and vegetables from countries like Kenya and Zambia have been concentrated in large capital-intensive farms with weak links to the rest of the economy. Similarly, in Brazil, just four or fewer firms account for more than 40% of exports of soy, orange juice, poultry and beef while ten million small and landless peasants live below the poverty line in villages.
In 1997 almost three-quarters (about 75%) of Kenya's high value-added horticulture exports were supplied by small farmers. By year 2000 this share had fallen to 18%. According to HDR, "The biggest change to the industry has been the increased importance of farms owned or leased by major export companies."
What the HDR report does not say is that even if small landholders are integrated into this export trade, this can still lead to longer-term loss if the concentration on export crops is damaging for soil, water and other aspects of environment. When the export demand is curtailed and the cash dries up, these small farmers may not be able to go back to their staple food crops.
HDR indicts particularly those unfair trade practices which undermine the livelihoods of small and landless peasants (who constitute two thirds of all people living in extreme poverty). These practices are linked particularly to the subsidies given by developed country governments.
The HDR says:
"The problem at the heart of the Doha Round negotiations can be summarised in three words -- rich country subsidies. .... Rich countries spend just over $ 1 billion a year as aid to developing country agriculture and just under $ 1 billion a day supporting their own agricultural systems."
These heavy subsidies hurt rural communities in developing countries:
"Subsidized exports undercut them in global and local markets, driving down the proceeds received by farmers and the wages received by agricultural labourers. Meanwhile producers seeking access to industrial country markets have to scale some of the highest tariff peaks in world trade."
Within the rich countries most benefits of farm subsidies go to those who deserve these the least, "The winners in the annual cycle of billion dollar subsidies are large-scale farmers, corporate agribusiness interests and landowners." 
An example of extremely unequal income-distribution generally given is that of Brazil. Research carried out for HDR revealed that subsidies distribution in rich countries is more unequal than income distribution in Brazil.
So HDR insists: 
"It would be hard to design a more regressive -- or less efficient -- system of financial transfers than currently provided through agricultural subsidies... Industrial countries are locked into a system that wastes money at home and destroys livelihoods."
This has contributed significantly to highly unfair trade. HDR adds:
"When it comes to world agricultural trade, market success is determined not by comparative advantage but by comparative access to subsidies - an area in which producers in poor countries are unable to compete."
In the European Union farmers and processors are paid four times the world market price for sugar, generating a 4 million tonnes surplus, which is marketed with the help of more than $1 billion in export subsidies (paid to a small group of sugar processors). Subsidised EU sugar exports lower world prices by about one-third, inflicting heavy losses on sugar exporters among developing countries as well as on sugar crop farmers based in developing countries.
At the time the HDR report on the special theme of trade was prepared 20,000 cotton farmers in the USA were likely to receive government payments of $4.7 billion in a year -- an amount equivalent to the market value of the crop. These subsidies lowered world prices by 9% to 13% and enabled US producers to dominate world markets.
In Benin the fall in cotton prices in one year was linked to an increase in poverty from 37% to 59%. Around the same time rice grown in the USA at a cost of $415 a tonne was exported at $274 a tonne. 
This was made possible by US government payments of $1.3 billion, almost three quarters of the value of output. In countries like Ghana and Haiti rice farmers were pushed out of national markets by US imports.
According to a widely quoted study by Oxfam International:
"The practice of exporting agricultural surpluses on the world market at less than the cost of production -- or 'dumping' -- is one of the most pernicious aspects of industrialised country trade policies, which the WTO has failed adequately to address. Unfair competition from dumped agricultural produce creates problems for developing countries by depriving them of foreign-exchange earnings and market share, and undermining local production, rural livelihoods, and food security."
This study titled 'Rigged Rules and Double Standards - Trade, Globalisation and the Fight Against Poverty' adds:
"Oxfam has developed a new measure of the scale of export dumping by the EU and the United States. It suggests that both these agricultural superpowers are exporting at prices more than one-third lower than the costs of production. These subsidized exports from rich countries are driving down prices for exports from developing countries, and devastating the prospects for smallholder agriculture. In countries such as Haiti, Mexico, and Jamaica, heavily subsidised imports of cheap food are destroying local markets. Some of the world's poorest farmers are competing against its richest treasures."
Concerns of poor countries and poor people have been ignored to an alarming extent at the WTO. According to HDR:
"The agreement on agriculture left most EU and US farm subsidy programmes intact for the simple reason that it was in all but name a bilateral agreement between the two parties that was forced onto the multilateral rules system. In effect, the world's economic superpowers were able to tailor the rules to suit their national policies."
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the emerging international trade regime is that the USA and some other developed countries have arranged the classification of subsidies in such a way that very massive subsidies given to their biggest agribusiness companies -- which include some of the most powerful and resourceful multinational companies -- can be defended as being acceptable under WTO rules while the much more modest subsidies given by developing countries to their small farmers are criticized as being violation of WTO rules.
This allows these rich countries to strengthen big agribusiness companies domestically by allowing them to gobble the business and sometimes even the land of smaller farmers, on the other hand their big companies get even more space and power to unleash havoc in developing countries through their highly subsidized products and in other ways.
In addition several free trade agreements, multilateral and bilateral agreements have also increased greatly the problems of small farmers in several developing countries. These trends are so blatantly unjust that international efforts as well as growing unity of developing countries are urgently needed to check them and create an alternative system of fair and just international trade.
---
*Journalist and author, his recent books include ‘A Day in 2071’, ‘Planet in Peril' and ‘Man Over Machine'

Comments

TRENDING

Savarkar 'criminally betrayed' Netaji and his INA by siding with the British rulers

By Shamsul Islam* RSS-BJP rulers of India have been trying to show off as great fans of Netaji. But Indians must know what role ideological parents of today's RSS/BJP played against Netaji and Indian National Army (INA). The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS which always had prominent lawyers on their rolls made no attempt to defend the INA accused at Red Fort trials.

Kailash Satyarthi NGO makes slum kids laud RSS founder Hedgewar as freedom fighter

By Rajiv Shah  In a move which may raise many an eyebrow, a Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi-supported child rights NGO has celebrated Prime Minister Narendra Modi-intitiated Har Ghar Tiranga by commemorating 75 freedom fighters by "narrating their famous deeds and chanting slogans of each leader", including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai and a person who had little or nothing common with the freedom movement -- RSS founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. A communique from the Kailash Satyarthi Childrens Foundation (KSCF), which organised the event, said among the freedom fighters celebrated by 75 children on the occasion of 75 years of India's independence placing photographs of each freedom fighter included that of Hedgewar, who is alleged to have maintained a distance from Indian Independence movement led by Gandhiji. According to Hedgewar's biography, when Gandhiji launched the Salt Satyagraha in 1930, Hedgewar sent information ev

Savarkar in Ahmedabad 'declared' two-nation theory in 1937, Jinnah followed 3 years later

By Our Representative One of the top freedom fighters whom BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi revere the most, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was also a great supporter of the two nation theory for India, one for Hindus another for Muslims, claims a new expose on the man who is also known to be the original proponent of the concept of Hindutva.

Unlike other revolutionaries, Hindutva icon wrote 5 mercy petitions to British masters

By Shamsul Islam*  The Hindutva icon VD Savarkar of the RSS-BJP rulers of India submitted not one, two,or three but five mercy petitions to the British masters! Savarkarites argue: “There are no evidences to prove that Savarkar collaborated with the British for his release from jail. In fact, his appeal for release was a ruse. He was well aware of the political developments outside and wanted to be part of it. So he kept requesting for his release. But the British authorities did not trust him a bit” (YD Phadke, ‘A complex Hero’, "The Indian Expres"s, August 31, 2004)

Golwalkar's views on tricolour, martyrs, minorities, caste as per RSS archives

By Shamsul Islam*  First time in the history of independent India, the in-charge minister of the Cultural Ministry in the current Modi government, Prahlad Singh Patel, has glorified MS Golwalkar, second supremo of the RSS and the most prominent ideologue of the RSS till date, on his birth anniversary, February 19. In a tweet he wrote : “Remembering a great thinker, scholar, and remarkable leader #MSGolwalkar on his birth anniversary. His thoughts will remain a source of inspiration & continue to guide generations.”

Gujarat's 'low-key' communalism: right-wing groups compete for anti-Muslim space

By Rajiv Shah  Noticing the emergence of a novel trend, a just-released report based on a fact-finding team's observations following its interaction in particular with Hindu and Muslim political activists, administrators and police officials, has claimed that a major reason why chasm between the two communities in Gujarat has lately reached new heights is, a veritable competition between Hindu right-wing groups and leaders to capture the existing communal space. Titled "Hindu Right, Communal Riots and Demolitions: Emerging Pattern of Communal Riots in India", the report has been prepared against the backdrop of what it calls "low intensity" communalism which has characterised rioting in Gujarat in the recent past, especially after the 2002 communal carnage, one of the worst in Independent India. Especially focusing on riots in two Gujarat towns, Himmatnagar and Khambhat, which took place on April 10, the day clashes broke also out in different parts of India on

Gujarat govt 'contradicts' MHA memo while freeing Bilkis Bano gangrape convicts

By Our Representative  The All-India Progressive Women's Association (AIPWA) has said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah "must answer for the decision to free Bilkis Bano's gang rapists." In a statement, AIPWA has wondered, "What was the basis of the Gujarat Government’s decision to free those men on August 15, 2022, to celebrate what the PM Modi calls India’s Amrit Kaal? Was remission and freedom a reward for rape and murder of Muslims?" The statement comes amidst an Ahmedabad-based legal rights non-pofit, which took up the cause of Bilkis Bano and fought her case right up to the Supreme Court, Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), suggesting that the Gujarat government move to allow remission to the convicts contradicts the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Guidelines for Granting Special Remission to Prisoners on August 15, 2022 (75th anniversary of Independence), January 26, 2023, and again on August 15, 2023. Citing the MHA notificat

Need to ask at today's 'critical juncture' of India's history: Whose Freedom@75?

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  The official propaganda states that: “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav is an initiative of the Government of India to celebrate and commemorate 75 years of independence and the glorious history of it's people, culture and achievements. This Mahotsav is dedicated to the people of India who have not only been instrumental in bringing India thus far in its evolutionary journey but also hold within them the power and potential to enable Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of activating India 2.0, fuelled by the spirit of Aatmanirbhar Bharat. The official journey of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav commenced on 12th March 2021 which started a 75-week countdown to our 75th anniversary of independence and will end post a year on 15th August 2023.” So as India completes a landmark seventy-five years of freedom – a platinum jubilee – the only question one needs to ask at this critical juncture of the country’s history is “whose freedom@75?” Since March 2020, it has been a di

Har ghar tiranga: will the hungry bellies raise their hand to unfurl the national flag?

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  Indians are going to unfurl the tricolour to celebrate the 75th anniversary of India's Independence on 15th of August 2022. Indian freedom struggle has not only shaped India as a modern constitutional democracy but also shaped the nature of state, society and citizenship. The anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle were the four pillars of Indian freedom struggle that laid the foundation of a sovereign nation state promised to pursue a society based on socialist, scientific and secular values to ensure egalitarian citizenship rights without any form of discrimination. These inalienable values are central to the unity, integrity, peace, prosperity and progress of India as a multicultural society and secular state. It is time to celebrate these values and promises of Indian independence, a product of struggles and sacrifice of millions of working-class people across the country. India at 75 is still a young nation but old e

RSS, Sangh Parivar consider tricolour as "state flag" and not "national flag"

By Teesta Setalvad* Today, when the nation has been independent for 67 years, the Sangh Parivar is set to launch ‘Tiranga yatras’ and Satyagrahas to defend the honour of the flag and the nation. Yet when the Indian people were involved in the decades-long struggle for freedom against British imperialism, the RSS was conspicuous by its absence in the struggle. When thousands of people faced lathis, bullets and jail sentences for hoisting the tiranga and participated all over the country in satyagraha during the Civil Disobedience and Quit India movements against the British Raj, the Sangh publicly took the stand that it would not take part in the movement and seldom missed the opportunity of assuring the British rulers that they would keep to the right side of colonial law and avoid any clash with the authorities. Of course the reason given for this was that the Sangh was secretly strengthening itself and would take on British imperialism only when it was strong enough to do so! A simil