Month: april 2012
Hva mener FN om landbruk?
I Norge vet nesten alle hva FN mener om klima, mens nesten ingen vet hva FN mener om landbruk.
70 % av verdens fattige er bønder eller har en jobb i tilknytning til landbruket. Her kommer en del sitater fra FN og andre aktører om hva som kan gjøres for å bekjempe fattigdom og sult:
«Africa can feed the world»
Sjefen for FN-organisasjonen Ifad (International Fund for Agricultural Development):
by focusing on farming, Africa has the potential to feed not only itself but the rest of the world:
The world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people.
Poverty and hunger prevail because of economics, not scarcity
FAO statistics confirm that the world produces enough food to feed the 7 billion people living today, and even the estimated 9-10 billion population in 2050.
If the international community is serious about eliminating hunger, a shift is needed from a development model based on charity and aid to one based on human rights, reinforced by accountability mechanisms.
The SDGs should encourage governments to work towards policy coherence: agricultural policies should be compatible with environmental sustainability and trade rules consistent with food security. This will not be easy to implement. It will require allowing national food markets in developing countries to compete successfully against cheap imported food. It means altering international trade rules to prevent interference with domestic policies in developing countries designed to eradicate hunger and poverty.
Hilal Elver is the UN special rapporteur on the right to food.
Mål 2. Utrydde sult, oppnå matsikkerhet og bedre ernæring, og fremme bærekraftig landbruk
2.a Øke investeringene, blant annet gjennom bedre internasjonalt samarbeid, i infrastruktur på landsbygda, forskning og veiledningstjenester innenfor landbruket, teknologiutvikling og opprettelse av genbanker for planter og husdyr, med sikte på å forbedre produksjonskapasiteten i landbruket i utviklingsland, særlig i de minst utviklede landene.
2.b Korrigere og hindre handelsbegrensninger og -vridninger på verdens landbruksmarkeder, blant annet gjennom en parallell avvikling av alle former for eksportsubsidier på landbruksvarer og alle eksporttiltak med tilsvarende virkning, i samsvar med mandatet for Doha-runden
17.10 Fremme et allment, regelbasert, åpent, ikke-diskriminerende og likeverdig multilateralt handelssystem underlagt Verdens handelsorganisasjon, blant annet ved å sluttføre forhandlingene under organisasjonens Doha-runde
17.11 Betydelig øke utviklingslandenes eksport, særlig med sikte på å doble de minst utviklede landenes andel av verdens eksport innen 2020
17.12 I praksis gi alle de minst utviklede landene betimelig og varig avgifts- og kvotefri markedsadgang, i samsvar med beslutninger i Verdens handelsorganisasjon, blant annet ved å sikre at det anvendes klare og enkle preferanseopprinnelsesregler på importvarer fra de minst utviklede landene, og bidra til å lette markedsadgangen
Africa does not need sympathy or aid, we need fair trade – Mahama tells UN
‘‘Africa does not need your sympathy or Overseas Development Assistance. Africa needs a fair chance to trade with the rest of the world and amongst ourselves,’‘ Mahama said when he took his turn to address the UNGA on Wednesday.
According to him, one of the underlying factors behind the migration crisis affecting the continent and troubling Europe was the lack of fairness in trade. This he said forces many youth in sub Saharan Africa to sell off their investments and try seeking greener pastures across the ocean.
‘‘Some of the young Africans who hazard the desert and Mediterranean Sea to cross to Europe from my country are young poultry farmers or other entrepreneurs who sell their shops and undertake the journey because they can no longer compete with the tons of frozen chicken dumped on African markets annually, or the adverse business environment they have to face,’‘ Mahama said.
In his view, Africa was up to the task of taking care of itself because ‘‘we have the resources in this world to guarantee each person a decent life.’‘
He recalled how the European Union in trying to curb unregulated migration had created an emergency fund of 1.8 billion euros in Valetta, he added that with land, natural resources and youthful labour to Africa’s advantage, there was a need to reset trade relations to allow Africa to compete with the west.
‘‘Removing subsidies to farmers of the advanced world, would create an even playing field for African farmers to compete. Removing revenue and non revenue barriers to African produce would give African agriculture a fighting chance.
Arizona State University professor G. Pascal Zachary lists 10 reasons why Africa has the resources to feed not only itself but the rest of the world:
Illustrert i kart:
Forskning utført av FNs landbruks- og matvareorganisasjon (FAO) viser at investering i landbruket er fem ganger mer effektivt i forhold til å redusere fattigdom og sult enn investeringer i noen andre sektorer.
«Greater participation in global trade is an inevitable part of most countries’ national trade strategies. However, the process of opening to trade, and its consequences, will need to be appropriately managed if trade is to work in favour of improved food security outcomes.»
Oktober 2014: Nye retningslinjer for ansvarlige investeringer i landbruk vedtatt:
FN-rapport: Why has Africa become a food importer?
David Luke, UNDP:
”Vi må legge forholdene til rette for etableringen av en solid og stabil landbruksnæring i ﬂest mulig land. I dag er dette tilnærmet umulig, fordi fattige land blir utkonkurrert av subsidiert mat fra rike land”. (Ny Tid 19. juni 2009)
Småbønder trenger markedsadgang
FN/FAO: The State of Food Insecurity 2015:
«Smallholder and family farming productivity and
access to markets are interlinked and contribute to both food
availability and access to food. Improving access to marketing
opportunities can also help boost productivity.» (…)
«In several developing countries, female small farmers who are
unable to compete with cheaper agricultural imports have
been forced to abandon or sell their farms, which in turn can
contribute to their food insecurity.41
While trade in itself is not intrinsically detrimental to food
security, for many countries, particularly those at earlier levels
of development, trade reforms can have negative effects on
food security in the short-to-medium term. Recent research
shows that countries supporting the primary sector tend to be
better off on most dimensions of food security (food
availability, access, and utilization), while taxation of this sector
is detrimental to food security.42 However, the evidence also
shows that excessive support can also lead to poor
performances on all dimensions of food security.
As countries become more open to international trade in
agricultural products, they become more exposed and potentially
more vulnerable to sudden changes in global agricultural
markets. For example, import surges – sudden increases in the
volume of imports from one year to the next – can hinder the
development of agriculture in developing countries.
Food sectors in developing countries that are characterized
by low productivity and lack of competitiveness are especially
vulnerable to import surges. A sudden disruption of domestic
production can have disastrous impacts on domestic farmers
and workers – loss of jobs and reduced incomes, with
potentially negative consequences for food security. During
the period 1984–2013, China, Ecuador, India, Kenya, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania and
Zimbabwe were prone to sudden increases in imports
(defined as imports exceeding the average of the previous
three years by more than 30 percent), registering more than a
The factors that lead to an import surge may originate in
the importing country itself as a result of domestic supply
shortfalls or rapid increases in demand. Other factors are
exogenous, for example when countries providing significant
support to the production and/or export of food products
channel production surpluses to the international markets.»
Klikk for å få tilgang til a-i4646e.pdf
Improve integration in global value chains:
FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva said: «High food prices are an incentive to increase production and we need to do our best to ensure that poor farmers benefit from them. Let’s not forget that 70 percent of the world’s food insecure population lives in rural areas of developing countries and that many of them are small-scale and subsistence farmers themselves.» (…) To capture a share of these economic benefits, governments will need to invest in their agricultural sectors to encourage innovation, increase productivity and improve integration in global value chains.» 6 June 2013.
UN: FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013
In several developing countries, on the other hand, average yields are estimated to be much lower than their potential, failing to reach 30 percent in some cases. Depending on the context, low productivity can be the outcome of poor physical and market infrastructure, and wrong incentives.
From the perspective of aggregate agriculture, the lack of access to enough food faced by part of the world’s population creates a gap with the potential food demand that would materialize if access was adequate and there was effective market demand. This gap is likely to remain a feature of global food and agriculture for the foreseeable future, but the more it is reduced, the greater the incentive for agriculture to respond by making use of untapped production potentials. This is the case of certain developing areas where resources such as land and water are available.
Growth in aggregate food demand is expected to slow, following lower population growth and increased saturation in high-income countries and emerging economies.
UN/FAO: «Norway could lead by example»
«Regardless the approach to negotiations, greater efforts are required to reduce distorting support in OECD and increase market access for goods from developing countries.
Agriculture in Norway remains among the most protected in OECD. Although it is a small player, Norway could send an important message to other OECD countries by decoupling its support.
Norway is highly committed to the development cause as witnessed by its ODA. Why not go one step further? Rather than trade vs aid, it should be trade and aid.
Although a small country, Norway is a notable participant in international development given its independent and progressive stance on many issues, solid economy, top ranking in human development and democracy and highest level of development aid. Norway could lead by example and push for further reduction in agricultural protection among OECD countries in WTO negotiations.»
Ekaterina Krivonos from UN/ FAO: Presentation Norway: FAO Norway
UNDP: Africa Human Development Report 2012:
«Agricultural GDP growth is 4 times more effective in reducing the extreme poverty rate than nonagricultural growth. (…)
«Developed countries maintain agricultural subsidies that benefit their rich producers while pushing sub-Saharan Africa’s impoverished smallholder farmers to the margins. (…)
Agricultural subsidies that benefit the rich in developed countries while hurting the poor in sub-Saharan Africa are one of the most egregious — and persistent — distortions in world trade.»
UNEP: Green Economy and Trade (2013)
«Reduce trade-distorting support
Economic strategies consistent with the green economy approach are fundamental to scaling up sustainable agriculture. These strategies include leveraging investment by rationalising and eliminating export subsidies and redirecting cash flows to encourage more diverse crop production with long-term soil health and improved environmental impacts. A major shift of subsidy priorities is needed in which governments would help reduce the initial costs and risks of farmers’ transition efforts to implement sustainable farming practices. At the same time, an enabling environment for greening agriculture could also allow developing countries to protect some domestic food crops (special products).»
«Focus on WTO opportunities
New WTO rules, if designed properly, could support the greening of the agricultural sector and stimulate new trade opportunities. Among the most prominent issues for environmental goods and services in the agricultural sector from developing countries are the reform of trade distorting and environmentally harmful subsidies, and better market access for agricultural products.»
UN Food and Agriculture Organization – FAO, 2012: An African Horn of Plenty
«Poor farmers can grow bumper crops, but unless there are roads on which to transport their produce, and a market where they can sell it, they will remain poor and vulnerable.»
“Greater policy coordination in international food trade can reduce volatility by helping maintain an assured flow of goods. FAO supports the multilateral negotiations under the World Trade Organization and the elimination of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies in rich countries”
Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food:
“more should be done to remove trade distorting mechanisms, in particular subsidies in industrialized countries and improve market access for developing countries”
http://reliefweb.int/node/290912 alternativ lenke: http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2008/12/trade-agreements-fail-to-solve-problem-of-hunger-un-expert/
Og: «In agriculture, in particular, trade-distorting measures – obstacles to market access for developing countries, domestic support schemes for OECD countries’ farmers, and export subsidies – have led many small-holder farmers to deeply unfavourable situations».
IFAD: Access to markets (strategi 2011 – 2015)
«Strong links to markets for poor rural producers are essential to increasing agricultural production, generating economic growth in rural areas and reducing hunger and poverty. Improving these links creates a virtuous circle by boosting productivity, increasing incomes and strengthening food security. Better access by small producers to domestic and international markets means that they can reliably sell more produce at higher prices. This in turn encourages farmers to invest in their own businesses and increase the quantity, quality and diversity of the goods they produce».
UN Millennium Development Goals Report 2010:
“For the developing countries in general, the main benefits expected from the Doha agreement with respect to access to the markets of developed countries (where most average tariffs are already low) would be the reduction of tariff peaks in agriculture, textile and clothing and the lowering of market-distorting subsidies in agriculture.”
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdfNB! Merk at FN ikke kritiserer alle former for landbruksstøtte. Det er «trade-distorting» (altså handelsvridende/ produksjonsdrivende) støtte som FN er kritisk til. Såkalt dekoblet støtte (som ikke er koblet direkte til produksjonsvolum) kan rike land bruke, bl.a. for å bidra til et mer bærekraftig og klimavennlig landbruk (forutsatt at vi ikke eksporterer subsidiert mat). I dag er det meste av landbruksstøtten, også i Norge, koblet direkte til produksjonsvolum. Jo mer du produserer, jo mer støtte får du. Det er to problemer med slik produksjonsstøtte. For det første stimulerer den til økt bruk av energi i form av kunstgjødsel, kraftfôr, sprøytemidler og diesel. Dette gir store klimautslipp. Landbruket er en av de største utslippskildene globalt, og står for mellom 20 og 30 prosent av de globale klimautslippene. Når vi ser på totalutslippene fra mat er produksjonsutslippene ofte langt høyere enn transportutslippene. Derfor har afrikansk mat som transporteres til Norge ofte lavere klimautslipp enn mat som er produsert i Norge. Det andre problemet med produksjonsstøtte er at den ofte fører til overproduksjon av landbruksvarer i rike land. Det er nemlig ikke for lite mat i verden, derimot er overproduksjon ofte et problem for verdens fattige. «Årsakene til at sult og underernæring finnes samtidig som det er nok mat på nasjonalt eller globalt nivå, er velkjente: manglende inntektsmuligheter for de fattige og fravær av effektive sosiale sikkerhetsnett», skriver FAO i rapporten «How to feed the world in 2050» – «Matmangel er ikke problemet». Befolkningsveksten er i ferd med å flate ut, og FN anslår at den vil stoppe på et sted mellom 9,5 og 10 mrd ca i 2050, før verdens befolkning vil begynne å synke noe. Også når vi kommer til befolkningstoppen rundt år 2050 kommer den største trusselen mot matsikkerhet å være «at sult og feilernæring kan vedvare eller til og med fortsette å øke, på tross av at det er nok mat på aggregert nivå», sier FAO/FN.
FN/ FAO: How to feed the world in 2050
«Policy reforms towards decoupled support to agriculture should be continued (…)
Payments based on area, historical entitlements, input constraints, and total historical farmincome are decoupled from current production decisions and hence have a lesser impact onproduction and trade. The decoupled payments can also be viewed as an exit strategy fromfarming for many developed country farmers. Decoupled policies could include not onlysupport for land set-asides, but also support for technology and farm human capital skills,incentives to maintain set-aside land in production ready and environmentally sustainablecondition and other similar policies, and could be a powerful alternative to physical and veryexpensive commodity reserves, which are not only hard to organize, but also veryquestionable in their effectiveness. Productive land set-aside can be brought into physicalproduction in high-income countries within 6 to 10 months (the recent supply response is evidence to that)»
Kofi Annan, 2011:
«Higher food prices – ironically – might actually provide the foundation to help us build a better and fairer food future. (…)
«For overall there has been no shortage of investment in farming and food. It is just that most of this money is spent by wealthier countries protecting their own agricultural sector – often at the expense of farmers in the developing world. The OECD calculated that in 2009 agricultural support from richer countries to their own farmers totalled over $385 billion dollars. This, according to Oxfam, was nearly 80 times the money spent in development aid to agriculture”
Kofi Annan, 2009:
«the removal of subsidies that penalise Africa, is essential»
Oxfam – Grow 2011:
«Rich countries must end their trade-distorting agricultural subsidies once and for all. (…) soaring food prices make it more important than ever. At the same time, poor countries need the freedom to determine the extent and pace of their own agricultural market opening».
Oxford-forskeren Benito Muller:
«In Sub-Saharan Africa (…) over one million livelihoods are supported in part by the fresh produce trade with the UK.»
Kampanjen ONE: (Bono, Geldof m.fl)
«Making matters worse, wealthy nations pay subsidies to their farmers, giving them an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. In 2008, the OECD estimated that farmers in developed countries received $219.4 billion in subsidies, almost eight times the amount that G7 countries spent in sub-Saharan Africa in 2009. Subsidies give farmers in developed countries an incentive to overproduce, pushing down world prices or flooding local markets with cheap imports. Local farmers can’t compete with these artificially underpriced goods in either local or global markets».
Agriculture at a Crossroads:
IAASTD: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. The following reports were agreed to at an Intergovernmental Plenary Session in Johannesburg, South Africa in April, 2008.
“OECD market access restrictions harm developing countries” (s. 266)
“In democratic political regimes, agricultural interest groups are often able to exercise political pressure to obtain subsidies and protection, which typically benefit larger-scale more than small-scale farmers, whereas it is more challenging to create political pressure for investments in public goods, such as agricultural research” (s. 268)
“Support policies and border protection of wealthy OECD countries, valued at hundreds of billions of dollars each year, cause harm to agriculture in developing countries” (s. 331).
FN-sambandet: Fattige land vil ha kutt i norske landbrukssubsidier
«Afrikanske land oppfordrer til kutt i vestlige lands landbrukssubsidier, inkludert Norge. Den sørafrikanske ambassadøren i Norge er også blant dem som mener at disse subsidiene må bort. Alle landene i Afrika skrev i sommer  under på en erklæring hvor de krever kutt i alle ”handelsvridende subsidier og hjemlig støtte, spesielt i landbrukssektoren”. Det er denne erklæringen den sørafrikanske ambassadøren i Norge, Ismail Coovadia, nå stiller seg bak:
– Erklæringen fra Den Afrikanske Union er klar. Sør-Afrikas standpunkt i dette spørsmålet er i tråd med posisjonen til Den Afrikanske Union. Denne erklæringens prinsipper og moral angår alle land, uten unntak. Også direktøren for landbruk i Den Afrikanske Union bekrefter at dette er de fattige landenes posisjon overfor blant annet Norge.
– Vi er helt imot landbrukssubsidier i Vesten, sier Babagana Ahmadu, direktør for landbruk i den Afrikanske Union.»
UNDP: The Millennium Development Goals and Africa
«The Millennium Development Goals have one goal about monitoring northern performance: making sure that there is increased development assistance; and that obstacles to Southern growth, such as agricultural subsidies in Europe, US and Japan, are tackled as a constrain against development of the South.
Every cow in Europe today is subsidised two dollars a day. That is twice as much as the per capita income of a half of Africa. It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $ 360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$ 50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports.
Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today’s level of development assistance. In short, there are huge distortions in the global political economy going way beyond the modest levels of development assistance, which have to be tackled. The Millennium Development Goals are the vehicle for doing that.»
Address by Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, Kampala, Uganda 2002
NCPA: Farm subsidies hurt developing countries, environment:
«the overproduction of agricultural products due to subsidies causes significant harm to the environment. Exposure to pesticides and fertilizers, destruction of wildlife habitats, and land degradation all stem from the intensification of agricultural production due to government subsidies»
National Center for Policy Analysis, sitert av Earth Friendly Gardening:
Mshomba: How Northern subsidies hurt Africa:
«But what do agricultural subsidies in Canada, Japan, the US or the European Union (EU) have to do with Africa? Everything.
Developed countries subsidize their farmers at a rate of about $250 bn a year, 25 times more than the annual amount the UN estimates is needed worldwide to combat HIV/AIDS. Subsidies influence world prices, since they encourage farmers in developed countries to export more agricultural products than they would otherwise. Therefore, agricultural policies in developed countries should be of great interest to Africa and the rest of the world.
Agriculture has been — and in the foreseeable future will continue to be — the backbone of sub-Saharan Africa’s economy. The sector employs about 70 per cent of the labour force. Agriculture is the main generator of export revenue in the region.
Agricultural subsidies in developed countries reduce world prices, and thus the incomes of African farmers. World Bank studies suggest that US subsidies alone reduce West Africa’s annual revenue from cotton exports by $250 mn a year».
Richard Mshomba, from Tanzania, is associate professor of economics at La Salle University, Pennsylvania, US.
Du må være logget inn for å legge inn en kommentar.