Proposed EU farm reforms will go some way, but not far enough, towardsreducing the harm caused to the world's poor by unfair trading, writesConall O'Caoimh
It has been a major cause of poverty in developing countries that we have not played fair in agricultural trade. Blocked opportunities for trade deny developing countries 14 times what they receive in aid. If Africa were allowed to increase its share of world exports by just 1 per cent, it would earn for itself five times what it currently receives in aid.
Commissioner Franz Fischler's proposals for a radical reform of the way farmers are subsidised go some way towards reducing the harm caused to the world's poor by European subsidies. But they go only halfway towards a fair trading system in agriculture.
To clear our beef mountains and other surpluses, the EU sells food abroad below the cost of production. In the countries where these food mountains are dumped, local farmers - who may be over 70 per cent of the workforce - lose their markets and their livelihoods.
For competitive farmers in developing countries, this means a loss of livelihood. For their countries, it leads to further dependence upon imported food and results in greater susceptibility to food shortages. It denies poor countries their most viable route out of poverty.
Europe and the US put pressure on developing countries to open up their markets to manufactured products. That is a precondition to EU and US aid, and to any debt relief.
But we will not allow the developing countries to compete in the area in which they are strongest, agriculture. Entering Europe, their exports face tariffs, quota restrictions and unfair standard requirements. These are in place to sustain the Common Agriculture Policy.
Mr Fischler's proposals will alleviate the first cause of this gross unfairness, but not the second.
He proposes to "decouple" farm supports from production. Farmers will receive a single grant payment for being farmers. Beyond this, intervention safety nets will still apply.
If the proposals are not diluted, this should lessen the piling up of surplus food mountains. It should reduce dumping on poor countries' markets. African farmers should be able to compete within their region without being unfairly undercut by European produce.
But Mr Fischler's proposals will do nothing about market access. Farmers in developing countries will still be unable to sell their produce into Europe. Despite all the proclamations of the advantages of globalisation, developing countries will face competition at home but will not be allowed to compete internationally.
Any real CAP reform that pretends to act justly towards the poor would include opening access to European markets. Of course, just last year in the Everything But Arms initiative, Europe started opening its markets to the very poorest group of countries. But these account for a very small proportion of the market, and pose no threat to vested interests.
There is a wider context to all of this. The driving forces behind the proposed reforms are EU enlargement and the World Trade Organisation.
The EU wants to slim down the CAP as it cannot afford to sustain it after enlargement. Again unequally, it proposes to offer the accession countries only a quarter of the level of subsidies farmers in the EU at present enjoy.
At the World Trade Organisation negotiations Europe has its eye on new markets for our services industries. European banks, insurance companies, legal, accountancy, architectural and other firms see big new markets in the global South. To gain access to those markets, something has to give. Europe proposes that it be agriculture. Of course, both sides will gain, but Europe will gain far more.
Comhlámh and other development organisations, campaigning under the slogan "Trade Matters", are conscious that farming contributes more than just the grown produce. Farmers tend the countryside, provide a tourist amenity and sustain rural life with all its social and cultural vibrancy. It is in our own interests to pay farmers for these services.
Mr Fischler has found a way to do this which also reduces the harm to developing countries.There is much more the Commission can do to increase market access for developing countries. If Europe and other rich countries take such measures, we might see some sustained reductions in world poverty.
CAP undermines EU aid programmes. The EU spent €3.75 million as aid to develop Namibia's livestock sector. Yet in 1997 alone Namibia lost €62 million through the dumping in South Africa of subsidised beef.
Just last March in the Ireland Aid Review, the Government committed itself to "coherence" between aid and other policies, saying:
"Efforts should be made to ensure that the positions taken by Ireland in international negotiations on, say, agriculture, trade, the environment or fiscal matters are congruent with what the country is attempting to do with its development aid programme".
This commitment must shape Ireland's response to Mr Fischler's proposals.
Conall O'Caoimh is a policy officer at Comhlámh, the Irish Association of Development Workers. www.comhlamh.org