Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

Trade liberalisation and globalisation of agriculture is supposed to increase production of food, enhance efficiency of food production, ameliorate the economic situation of farmers and improve patterns of consumption. In country after country, trade liberalisation is leading to a decline in food production, food productivity, conditions for farmers in the North and in the South, not to mention reduced food security for consumers of the North and South.

Food production in India has declined by 7 million tonnes. 2 million peasants have been uprooted in Mexico in two years of NAFTA. Imports of rice have gone up from half million tonnes to 7 million tonnes. Total food imports have increased from 20% to 43%. Consumption of food has declined by 29%. In Russia, food production has declined by 30% in five years of economic reform. In the Philippines and Zimbabwe, food prices have skyrocketed as a result of trade liberalisation linked to Structural Adjustment.

The consequence of globalisation of agriculture is the marginalisation of the small farmer. Agriculture is now being declared as industry and the policy aims of globalisation of agriculture through exports, focus on selected crops where the country has comparative advantage, improvement of yield through biotechnology and linkage of farms with agro-processing units. Export of cash crops such as rice, fruit, flowers, vegetables, wheat, sugar, tea, coffee and marine products has increased manifold.

Large companies and multi-nationals are being welcomed into agri-business and existing laws are being bent to accommodate them. The small farmer cannot compete. The globalisation of agriculture is in fact merely the corporatisation of agriculture. Kristin Dawkins - Director of Research Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) of the United States, asserts that the US government has led the world in promoting globalised monopolies through international trade agreements, assisted by such bullying tactics as the use of Section 301s' unilateral leveraging of its vast markets.

She states that under encouragement from the US government, food corporations controlled US agriculture and were now attempting to control world agriculture. To exemplify the corporatisation of agriculture, Dawkins said, that in 1994-95, ten cents out of every food dollar spent in the US went to Philip Morris, and another six cents went to ConAgra.

Four companies - IBP, ConAgra, Cargill and Beef America, sold 87 percent of all slaughtered beef. Two companies - Kellogs and General Mills, sold two thirds of all ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Campbells sold 73 percent of all canned soups. Correspondingly, increasing numbers of small farmers in the third world are unable to produce enough to support their livelihoods, and are increasingly finding themselves abandoning farming in search of urban employment.

It is an empirical reality of a growing food insecurity that is leading to the call of citizens worldwide to have agriculture excluded from WTO, when the Agreement of Agriculture comes up for review in 2000. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) has planned a three year campaign on "right to food" planned, till the Agreement on Agriculture comes up for review in year 2000, for among other things building pressure on the world community for declaring food as the fundamental human right. Food Security As A Fundamental Human Right Food security has many dimensions...

Globalisation of agriculture is violating all components of food related human rights. Everywhere across the world, less food is being produced and less diverse food is being grown, and less is reaching the poor and hungry. Fewer farmers are finding a place in agriculture and even privileged consumers have no food security in the sense of access to safe and nutritious food. The corporations are the only beneficiaries of free-trade and globalisation and they are not in the business of ensuring food for all. As Senator McGovern of the US Senate had stated "Food security in private hands is no food security at all", because corporations are in the business of making money, not feeding people.

The centralised and chemical intensive production and distribution system linked with the Green Revolution model proved itself to be undemocratic, wasteful and non-sustainable. The imperative now is to shift to a democratic food system based on sustainable production, conservation and equitable access to resources and food security for all. These ecological and democratic alternatives are already in place throughout the world. What the world needs now is 'globalisation' of these initiatives towards small farmer centered, agricultural systems guided by objectives of food self sufficiency and ecological sustainability.

The globalisation of corporate agriculture is aggravating all the problems linked with the centralised system of food production and distribution. It is increasing chemical use, through the conventional methods as well as genetic engineering. It is increasing transport and food miles, and fuelling food insecurity through climate change. It is promoting the mining of water and soil fertility by putting profitability above sustainability. It is giving primacy to trade and undermining domestic production. It is putting exports above the food entitlements of domestic consumers.

As S.M. Mohd. Idris stated in his address:

"Apart from creating food dependence, modern commercialised agricultural practices are mortgaging the world's scarce, non-renewable resources at the expense of future generations... The modern food industry has become a threat to health. Food security without food safety is pointless and meaningless.

"Democratising the food system implies localisation rather than globalisation. On the one hand localisation involves a shift from the external inputs to internal inputs. On the other hand, it involves rebuilding of local food security as the basis of national food security. Democratising the food system also involves a shift from monocultures to diversity. It involves a shift from an obsession with dollars per acre to a concern for nutrition per acre.