Return to the UKabc Home Page · Uploaded 28 September 1999
“Cultivating our Futures,” the FAO/Netherlands Conference on
the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land
12-17 September 1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Report by Patrick Mulvany, ITDG, for RAFI
Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) had asked Patrick Mulvany to represent them at this FAO conference. This is his report.
In the last moments of the final Plenary, the Cairns Group huddled around French delegation in a corner of the hall and confronted their attempt to promote recognition and further work on Multifunctionality in Agriculture, in the final text of the Chairman's report. References to this were deleted, as a result.
Instead of agreeing how to increase use of sustainable agricultural practices, recognising the multiple functions that agriculture provides for food security, income, social development and the environment, the conference was hijacked by the upcoming trade agenda of the WTO. It dissolved into a wrangle about possible trade advantages or distortions in trade from so-called protectionist measures. Poor countries and Civil Society Organisations could only watch, aghast.
Instead of agreeing how to increase use of sustainable agricultural practices, recognising the multiple functions that agriculture provides for food security, income, social development and the environment, the conference was hijacked by the upcoming trade agenda of the WTO. It dissolved into a wrangle about possible trade advantages or distortions in trade from so-called protectionist measures. Poor countries and Civil Society Organisations could only watch, aghast.
For 5 days governments locked horns in non-talks about environmental clausing in the next trade round. Discussion of the underlying technical issues that are causing the destruction of small family farms, food security, health, agricultural biodiversity, livelihoods and the vitality of rural communities in all countries were marginalised.
The public interest Civil Society Organisations participating in the Maastricht Conference were frustrated that there was no substantive progress in the discussions. The underlying economic, social and environmental issues that are causing the destruction of small family farms, food security, health, agricultural biodiversity, livelihoods and the vitality of rural communities in all countries were marginalised by issues that will be at the heart of the upcoming trade negotiations at the WTO. Little progress was made on assessing progress of implementation of Chapters 10 and 14 of Agenda 21, the main purpose of the conference, because some countries were suspicious of the term 'Multifunctional' in the title of the conference: it was feared by some countries, especially the Cairns Group, that the MFCAL concept could be used as a potential trade barrier.
This conference thus presages the upcoming WTO negotiations in Seattle and beyond to the new round of negotiations on Agriculture: the conference was hijacked by the November World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Seattle. It dissolved into a wrangle about possible trade advantages or distortions in trade. The conference may be a harbinger for the next round of trade negotiations. A vivid example of this were the actions of Cairns Group countries which during the penultimate Plenary clustered around the French delegation, weakly supported by Spain, The Netherlands and Norway (where was Japan?), to demand rejection of text that could be seen as supportive of multifunctionality as a concept.
The Conference Chairman's report, the formal output of the meeting, was weakened by aggressive trade liberalizers who watered down positive messages or clear calls for action to protect sustainable agriculture, the environment and rural livelihoods. The report should have recognised the sea of causes of the loss of diversity and hence the loss of the multiple functions of agriculture and proposed an accelerated action plan to address these. It repeats many of the commitments made in previous conferences but not all and there is a fear that there is a process for unwriting these agreements. To some, Rio was the pinnacle of agreements and it has been downhill all the way since then!
This was a missed opportunity to review progress of all relevant conferences and conventions and identify the barriers to implementation. UNED-UK has posted a useful Road Map of agreements that relate to the agriculture elements of CSD 8 <http://www.uned-uk.org/roadmap/agriculture.htm> which provides links to the text of the agreements. These include the UNCED process and the development and implementation of SARD; the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Decisions on Agricultural Biodiversity; and the FAO agreements of the World Food Summit and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture including, the Leipzig Global Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. In parallel, the GATT agreement and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) including the Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs) have also been concluded, ostensibly in harmony with the above, but in reality, because there are effective sanctions built in to the agreements, they are dominant.
The principal objectives of the Maastricht conference were:
Some clarifications on the multifunctional character of agriculture and land (from the Chairman’s report)
There are no internationally agreed definitions of the multifunctional character of agriculture but the reasons to consider the multifunctional character of agriculture and related land-use in the Conference were:
In preparation of the Conference the Food and Agricultural Organization produced a Stock-taking Paper, an Issues-Paper and a set of six background-papers on Agricultural Biodiversity; Bioenergy; Drylands; Environment and Trade; Research and technology and Water. These papers as well as the case-studies presented during the Conference were used as background material for the conference. All are available on the FAO website <http://www.fao.org/mfcal/main_doc.htm>.
In particular, the background paper on Sustaining the Multiple Functions of Agricultural Biodiversity <http://www.fao.org/mfcal/pdf/bp_1_agb.pdf> gives a useful example of how such functions can provide multiple benefits to society. It refers to the Technical Workshop on Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions. FAO/SCBD/Govt of the Netherlands, Dec 1998. <http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epre0063.htm>. which agreed that Agricultural Biodiversity provides for:
The paper covers all issues relating to the sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, including helpful definitions (See Box 1)
| BOX 1 Agricultural biodiversity refers to the variety and variability of animals, plants, and micro-organisms on earth that are important to food and agriculture which result from the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and the management systems and practices used by people. It takes into account not only genetic species and agro-ecosystem diversity and the different ways land and water resources are used for production, but also cultural diversity, which influences human interactions at all levels. It has spatial, temporal and scale dimensions. It comprises the diversity of genetic resources (varieties, breeds, etc.) and species used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture (including, in the FAO definition, crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries) for the production of food, fodder, fibre, fuel and pharmaceuticals, the diversity of species that support production (soil biota, pollinators, predators, etc.) and those in the wider environment that support agro-ecosystems (agricultural, pastoral, forest and aquatic), as well as the diversity of the agro-ecosystems themselves. Agricultural biodiversity has been further described as including:
Agricultural ecosystems (or agro-ecosystems) are those "ecosystems that are used for agriculture" in similar ways, with similar components, similar interactions and functions. Agro-ecosystems are determined by three sets of factors: the genetic resources, the physical environment and the human management practices, which exhibit genetic, spatial and temporal variation, as well as by their interactions. There are virtually no ecosystems in the world that are "natural" in the sense of having escaped human influence. Most ecosystems have been to some extent modified or cultivated by human activity for the production of food and income and for livelihood security. Agro-ecosystems may be identified at different levels or scales, for instance, a field/crop/ herd/pond, a farming system, a land-use system or a watershed. These can be aggregated to form a hierarchy of agro-ecosystems. Ecological processes can also be identified at different levels and scales. Valuable ecological processes that result from the interactions between species and between species and the environment include, inter alia, biochemical recycling, the maintenance of soil fertility and water quality and climate regulation (e.g. micro-climates caused by different types and density of vegetation). Moreover, the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and management practices determines the evolutionary process which may involve, for instance, introgression from wild relatives, hybridization between cultivars, mutations, and natural and human selections. These result in genetic material (landraces or animal breeds) that is well adapted to the local abiotic and biotic environmental variation Source: Technical Workshop on Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions. FAO/SCBD/Govt of the Netherlands, Dec 1998. <http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/epre0063.htm> |
The combination of the ENB service < http://www.iisd.ca/sd/agr/> with the Virtual Maastricht Forum <http://www.fao.org/mfcal/main_web.htm> is a landmark development in interactivity in global negotiations. It presages the style for opening up future conferences. It allowed colleagues and partners who could not travel to Maastricht to get some flavour of what was going on, even though the outcome was less than satisfactory - but maybe that is what Civil Society needs to know in the run-up to Seattle and beyond, and needs to react to... Between ENB and the FAO Web Forum team it has been shown that it is possible to provide the information for, and the means to, achieve this.
Peter Rossett of the Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy and the Global Forum for Sustainable Nutritional and Food Security used the Virtual Maastricht Forum facilities to inform those outside what was going on. (See Box 2)
| BOX 2 Contribution by Peter Rosset, Executive Director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, to the Virtual Maastricht Forum For a Press Release on his report "Small Farms More Productive than Large Farms but Threatened by Trade Agreements" Click Here NGO participation has thus far been frustrating for two reasons: 1. The rules of engagement are such that the floor is first given to each government who wishes to speak, then to each multi-lateral agency who wishes to speak, and finally, if there are a few minutes left over, the NGOs, unions and other civil society actors may get a word or two in edgewise (when everyone is already exhausted and ready to leave!). 2. There appears to be a coordinated and well orchestrated effort by the Cairns Group countries and followers to sabotage this meeting. For those not "in the know," the Cairns Group brings togteher the major grain exporting countries and 'friends.' These include the United States (the leader), Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and some others. A few countries who, based on objective criteria, should not be in this group, but due to political pressure are, seem to include the Philippines and some others. [ VK Delawie points out that The Cairns Group, formed in 1986, consists of 15 agricultural exporting nations: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Uruguay. Contrary to Rosset's assertion, the United States is neither a member nor "the leader" of this group.] The Cairns Group is locked in mortal combat with the EU on the agricultural negotiations leading up to the WTO ministerial in Seattle later this year. While the Europeans would like to preserve some protection for their farmers, the big grain exporters want complete free trade on a global scale (for obviously selfish reasons -- which is not to say that Europe does not have selfish motivations as well! After all, the North is the North!). The Cairns Group is very worried that Southern nations may rally around multi-functionality in opposition to further trade liberalization in the WTO, so they are trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the South ('divide and conquer'). Therefore each time a Cairns representative speaks, he or she says (always using the exact same language as though they were programmed robots) that multi-functionality is a European conspiracy to maintain export subsidies (not true -- if it is a selfish argument from Europe, it is to protect themselves from U.S. dumping), that it is a "meaningless and useless concept," and that it is a diguise for all kinds of "trade distorting" policies. They further argue that "trade distorting mechanisms" always damage the environment and increase poverty. With these arguments they hope this meeting will produce nothing, and that most Southern countries will join with the U.S. and the other big grain exporters in voting for full liberalization in Seattle. This is very unfortunate, for if most South countries join the U.S. in this, they will be committing rural suicide. If they are lured by anti-EU sentiments into dropping their own sovereignty and right to protect and guide their own agricultural development, they run the risk of having their economies inundated with cheap Cairns Group exports, which will undercut their own rural producers and intensify the collapse of rural livelihoods and the exodus to the cities. Because the Cairns Group members and their followers are numerous, and because their strategy is to monopolize the floor and endlessnessly repeat the same mantra, the meeting has become a very depressing exercise. We seem to wasting what would be an excellent opportunity to work together on policies that could create enabling macroeconomic environments and other policies to realize the full multi-functional potential of agriculture, particularly on how to maximize the potential and participation of poor, small farmers in their domestic economies. Contibution by Peter Rosset: Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy and the Global Forum for Sustainable Nutritional and Food Security, to the Virtual Maastricht Forum.< http://sanrem.dac.uga.edu/maastricht/feedback.3/25769.html> |
There was an emphasis on the need for a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading-system and the avoidance of unjustifiable trade barriers which together with other policies will facilitate the further integration of agricultural and environmental policies so as to make them mutually supportive.
The necessity to make every effort to ensure that policy measures do not unfairly limit market-access nor distort markets for food and agricultural exports was underlined. This is especially important for developing countries for their development and implementation of sustainable agricultural policies. Argentina’s paper, for example, covered these issues, emphasising the need to prevent market distortions.
Reference was made to Earth Summit + 5 (Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1997): "The special and differential treatment for developing countries, especially the least developed countries, and the other commitments of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations should be fully implemented to enable those countries to benefit from the international trading system, while conserving the environment. There is a need for continuing the elimination of discriminatory and protectionist practices in international trade relations, which will have the effect of improving access for the export of developing countries." (emphasis added)
Also, non-trade concerns as included in Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture were elegantly covered by various delegations including France (contained in a special report prepared for the conference), Norway (dealt with this in a recent conference 1), Korea (a very well researched paper on rice paddy cultivation), supported by others such as Japan and Spain. The Cairns Group opposed, but both Malaysia and Indonesia were silent.
Among some 16 paragraphs in the section of the Chariman’s report on “Identifying the issues for future action”, there are some particular points highlighted here where interventions by RAFI and others had some positive effect:
However, even though the conference recognised the importance of these and other issues, it could not clearly agree on the way to achieve change. For example, the following quote from the section of the report which reviewed progress, could have been translated into action points:
“…agriculture has multiple objectives and functions within the framework of sustainable agriculture and rural development which through appropriate policies can all foster sustainable agriculture and rural development and which should be targeted, cost-effective, transparent and do not distort production and trade. [A clear call for recognising the multiple functions of agriculture]
A coherent analytical framework needs to be developed for measuring the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of the interlinkages, taking into account the different circumstances in regions and countries and within countries. [A clear need expressed for measuring costs and benefits]
This analysis may contribute to a renewed awareness of and reflection on the interlinkages among different aspects of agriculture and could assist in the priority-setting of policies, processes and institutions, synergies and trade-offs involving all stakeholders.[A clear need for developing a new analytical framework]”
But the conclusions in the Chairman's report recommended only the development of new indicators for assessing SARD, and the development of frameworks to assist countries to undertake participatory land management planning and systems to improve security of land tenure – nothing about a new framework for the multiple functions of agriculture nor who will do this. References to this were deleted from the final text.
The Chairman’s report will go the FAO Council and then, with their agreement, to the FAO Conference. However, some opposition may be voiced, especially from countries like Brazil who excluded themselves from this process: they declined the invitation to participate. The Netherlands may separately table the Chairman’s report in the dialogue sessions prior to CSD 8.
The full internalization of all upstream and downstream costs and benefits in production, transport, marketing and consumption of food and other agricultural products would set prices that would allow organic and low-external input production systems to become competitive. Targeted policies to support poor people’s food security would still be required but no longer would they burden the collateral costs of high input low-labour production systems whose costs are borne by society in general, and the poor in particular.
Many thanks to ITDG and RAFI for enabling me to attend and to the NGO Sustainable Agriculture Caucus coordinator, Linda Elswick, for facilitating the CSO networking at the conference and in the subsequent UNED-UK meeting. Special thanks go to the FAO, SANREM and IISD for the electronic facilities provided. This report has liberally drawn from text (and pictures) provided through these fora. A particular word of thanks for Gustavo Best of FAO, who shouldered much of the detailed work in organising the meeting. Thanks also to the organisers for inviting RAFI . And finally, and especially, to the team from the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries for their logistical support.
The full list of participants is available at < http://www.fao.org/mfcal/pdf/part_tab.PDF>
FOOTNOTE
1. The Norwegian Conference: "Non-Trade Concerns in a Multifunctional Agriculture" 9-11 March 1999, Sanner Hotel, Gran, Norway. < http://www.landbruk.dep.no/landbruksdepartementet/multifunctionality/html/non-trade_concerns_and_multifu.html>
