We urge Government of India to safeguard food sovereignty and food security for all Indians while negotiating at the WTO Bali Ministerial – Protect farmer’s livelihoods and expanded PDS
The Right to Food campaign will also take this issue up with Indian Parliamentarians asking them to raise this in the Parliament as this affects the livelihoods of our farmers and our ability
to fight against hunger
Production, procurement, storage and distribution are all important
components of ensuring food security. Unfortunately, in the National Food
Security Act (NFSA) the Government took a minimalistic view by focussing only
on distribution despite the demands by many for a comprehensive law. Even the
minimal entitlements for food given under the NFSA are now under threat because
it is claimed that the public procurement to the extent of the foodgrain
requirements of the NFSA violate the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) that
India is a part of. Although the NFSA is being blamed, the allocation under the
NFSA is only about 3 million tonnes higher than the
current amount. This WTO Agreement can be used as an excuse to dismantle or
weaken the PDS and replace it with cash transfers.
Support the G33 proposal, Reject the Peace
Clause
G33 countries are
concerned with this Agreement, especially in the current context of high
inflation. The AoA is being renegotiated and is expected to be finalised in the
Bali Ministerial coming up in the first week of December. The Indian delegation
led by Commerce Minister Anand Sharma must lead the developing countries in the
negotiations and ensure that the interests of our farmers or of the millions of
hungry poor in the country are not compromised with. In this scenario, we believe that the G-33 group of
countries, led by India, has tabled a food security proposal which asks that
such subsidies be included under the Green Box and be allowed without any
restrictions. However, it is now learnt
that this proposal is being put in the backburner and a new peace clause being
proposed.
The developed countries rejected most of the
elements of the G33 proposal and the Peace Clause which is currently under
discussion only gives India a temporary reprieve from legal actions by other
countries in case the subsidy limit is breached. However, this does not in any
way guarantee that the permanent solution, i.e. of allowing such subsidies
under the Green Box, will actually be reached. In fact the stringent
conditionalities imposed on this Peace Clause will make India very much exposed
to disputes. Importantly, it will cover very few staples and may limit the
scope for expansion of coverage under the Food Security Bill.
Protecting Farmers’ Interests is Integral to
Food Security
The current Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) at
the WTO see the subsidy on price support as unfair as it apparently
discriminates against other producers. Most production related subsidies are
seen by the WTO as unfair, including price support, and are limited by the WTO
to a total of 10% of value of production. Breaching of this limit is subject to
action by other member states. However this idea needs to be challenged in the
strongest terms.
Historically, India’s small farmers have
contributed significantly to meeting its food needs and form an essential
bulwark of the domestic food supply chain.
Price support is essential for ensuring adequate foodgrain production
and also livelihood security for the more than 600 million people in India who
are dependent on agriculture. At present agriculture is also in the middle of a
severe crisis, with reports of farmers suicides and increased distress
migration. Any adverse measure which reduces support to small farmers at such a
time would be nothing short of disastrous. Weakening small farmer production
will further leave us exposed to ransom by large agri-business. Even more
worrisome, India will be dependent on the global market which is again
controlled by big multinationals. Indian procurement for PDS will then have to
deal with volatile global prices aggravated by rampant speculation in food.
Ensuring adequate support for production is the only way to ensure that India
remains self-sufficient in food and any shift away from domestic small-holder
production will jeopardise the access to food of millions. Many MPs from across
parties during the debate on the NFSA in Parliament talked about the importance
of decentralised procurement and the need to protect small and marginal
farmers. It is now time that they show country if they really meant what they
said.
The WTO is discriminatory
As far as the WTO is concerned, it is well known that all the agreements
have until now been pushed by the advanced countries in their favour.
Progressive groups and pro-people Governments across the world have therefore
been opposing it, especially the Agreement on Agriculture, right from the
Uruguay Round of 1999. While developing countries such as India are barred from
giving essential development subsidy for ensuring food security under WTO
rules, countries such as the USA, EU have always been allowed to give huge
subsidies on both production and consumption under various schemes.According to the World Bank, more than half
of EU support goes to 1% of producers while in the US 70% of subsidies
go to 10% of producers, mainly agri-businesses. The US has moved nine
tenths of their production subsidies to the so called “Green Box”. In the case
of EU, this is about half. These subsidies are seen as fair (not trade
distorting) though in reality, it is now established that they are more unfair
than subsidies (such as the Indian MSP) given by developing countries to meet
key food needs. Interestingly, while the Green Box includes public food
stockholding programme such as our PDS, it specifically leaves out price
support to farmers, even if they are small, poor and are catering to the
domestic market.
A final question needs to be raised is on the
non-transparency of the trade negotiations in general. Issues such as these
which ultimately impact a huge section of our population are being decided on
with little public debate.
Our Demands
We,
from the RTF Campaign, believe that such WTO rules cannot be allowed to come in
the way of Indian people’s right to basic food entitlements. We believe that
such subsidies must necessarily be included under the Green Box and that the
government must hold up to its commitments to provide food to its people,
especially its poor and hungry. Guaranteeing such food security needs the
direct access to food, and nothing in exchange, including cash, will suffice.
We,
as the RTF Campaign, call upon the government of India:
· to defend the G-33 proposal, to ensure that
such key development subsidies are included in
the Green Box and settle for nothing less;
the Green Box and settle for nothing less;
· to reject the current peace clause as it will
do more harm than good by binding India to
onerous commitments;
onerous commitments;
· to defend its policy space arduously and
ensure that the citizens’ constitutional rights are not
violated;
violated;
· to ensure that such frivolous and unfair WTO
rules are later not used to weaken the
implementation of the Food Security Bill, which must include a strong PDS that supports both
producers and consumers in need.
implementation of the Food Security Bill, which must include a strong PDS that supports both
producers and consumers in need.
AnuradhaTalwar
of the Right to Food campaign and BirajPatnaik, Principal Adviser to the
Supreme Court Commissioners (in the Right to Food case) will be going to the
Bali Ministerial to raise their voice both inside and outside the Conference
along with the NGO forums
