Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction · Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction at the Sixth WTO...

Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

at the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong

A CIDSE-Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

June 2005

Table of contents

Executive summary 4

1. Support a pro-poor approach to trade 8

2. Give a clear priority to progress on agriculture 9A priority for poverty eradication 9

A priority for securing livelihoods and fighting hunger 10

A priority for gender equity 11

The need for political will 12

3. Stop trade distortion that generates poverty 13Stop trade liberalisation denying the liberties of the poor 13

Stop making the poor pay the cost of trade liberalisation 14

Stop dumping on developing countries’ markets 15

Stop trade-distorting supports 16

4. Promote agriculture and rural development working for poor people 19Mainstream differential treatment to protect people in poverty 19

Protect rural development with Special Products 21

Protect food security with Special Safeguard Mechanisms 21

Open policy space for sustainable agriculture development 22

5. Summary of policy recommendations 26Give a clear priority to progress on agriculture 26

Stop trade distortion that generates poverty 26

Promote agriculture and rural development working for poor people 26

CIDSE Members 28

Caritas Internationalis Members 30

3

Executive summary

4

1. Support a pro-poor approachto trade

The daily work of organisations andpartners supporting women and men inpoverty in all the developing countries andCatholic Social Teaching legitimate apolitical perspective that makes humandignity the priority for guiding internationaltrade rules. The following policy proposalsfor poverty reduction and social justice aimto contribute to shaping better trade rulestaking full consideration of their effects onpeople in poverty, at the Sixth WTOMinisterial Conference in Hong-Kong.

2. Give a clear priority toprogress on agriculture

A PRIORITY FOR POVERTY ERADICATION

Sustainable agricultural growth favours thesector where the majority of people inpoverty work and the rural areas where theylive. Agriculture is not only crucial for small-scale family producers but is also a key tobroader economic growth and sustainabledevelopment in developing countries.Therefore agriculture can have a powerfulimpact on poverty reduction and inachieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. The skewed balance of powerbetween the 1.3 billion farms andagricultural workers and the very fewinternational traders and large distributorsthreatens livelihoods of farmers all over theworld.

A PRIORITY FOR DELIVERING LIVELIHOODS

Food security is one of the most prominentfeatures of agriculture. Most of the peoplein poverty derive their food from outsidethe commercial system. Therefore,availability of food through imports aspromoted by the current Agreement onAgriculture (AoA) of the World TradeOrganisation (WTO) is not sufficient to

address the food security concerns ofdeveloping countries.

A PRIORITY FOR GENDER EQUITY

The contribution of women to agriculturalproduction, rural development and foodsecurity in developing countries is notproperly valued or understood. Womenoften suffer from severe gender biasesresulting from the current policy rules,leaving them few opportunities forsustainable development.

THE NEED FOR POLITICAL WILL

A more equitable, regulated system of traderules and negotiations should allow for amodel of agriculture that empowers thepoor to achieve food security in developingcountries. This implies a completereorientation of the WTO rules that arecurrently seriously undermining humandignity and human rights, disregarding thecommitments entered into underinternational conventions by the MemberStates. As a first step, the WTO shouldendorse the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs). Since the negotiations haveprogressed rather slowly since the DohaMinisterial Conference (2001), there isindeed a need for a much stronger politicalwill to achieve real progress on agriculturethat makes trade work for development inthe world.

3. Stop trade distortion thatgenerates poverty

STOP TRADE LIBERALISATION DENYING THE

LIBERTIES OF THE POOR

International trade policies increasinglyhave a direct and often deleterious effect onthe lives of the people in poverty, mainlysmall-scale family farmers and ruralcommunities. The current AoA continues topush developing countries to liberalise,

whilst taking no account of the largereductions already made by them in thepast. Coherence between agriculture policy,trade policy and development policy is alsolacking. Developing countries have beenpushed away from more sustainable policiesbased on their local needs and capacitiestowards an industrialised model ofagriculture that has jeopardised foodsecurity in developing countries.

Furthermore, contrary to the fundamentaltenets of one country, one vote andconsensus, the negotiating and decision-making practices within the WTO havemarginalised developing countries througha non-inclusive and non-transparentworking process.

STOP MAKING THE POOR PAY THE COST OF TRADE

LIBERALISATION

Firstly, the request of the United States andthe European Union for substantialprogressive offers from developingcountries on industrial tariffs and servicesdoes not take into account the high pricepaid over the last thirty years by developingcountry farmers suffering from the dumpingof agricultural goods produced by heavily-subsidised agribusinesses in the developedworld for thirty years. Secondly, thecontinued reduction of trade andinvestment barriers is leading to the loss ofsignificant sources of revenue in developingcountries, at a time when developingcountries face rising debt burdens andincreasing social spending. Finally, non-reciprocal trade preferences that werebenefiting developing countries are beingeroded by both regional and multilateralliberalisation because of the overallreductions in tariffs.

STOP DUMPING ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’MARKETS

Dumping of Northern exports is preventingdeveloping country farmers from marketingtheir production on their local or regionalmarkets at a fair, remunerative price. As it iscomplicated for poorer countries todemonstrate harm, importing countriesshould have the ability to immediatelyimpose countervailing and anti-dumpingduties where goods are sold abroad for lessthan the cost of production. Governmentsshould develop a more thorough and

transparent methodology to measure theextent of dumping. In addition, Northerncountries should substantially reform theiragricultural subsidy regimes to ensure anend to the dumping of products on globalmarkets.

STOP TRADE-DISTORTING SUPPORTS

Subsidies depress the price of agriculturalproducts on world markets. The WTO JulyPackage (2004) takes a very gradual approachtowards reforming subsidies on productionand exports which is unlikely to have asignificant impact. A clear frontloadedschedule should be set up for eliminating allexport subsidies and support. The tradedistorting subsidies (Amber Box) should bereduced according to a tiered formula.Product-specific caps and reductioncommitments should be introduced byestablishing criteria to disaggregate directpayments to farmers, partially de-coupled andlinked to production-limiting programmes(Blue Box). A thorough review of the GreenBox (de-coupled and “minimally trade-distorting” subsidies) is needed to ensure thatany remaining domestic support has minimaltrade-distorting effects and contributes topublic goods. Discipline is needed regardingthe Blue Box and Green Box, in order tothwart “box shifting”. Developed countriesshould commit to develop standardharmonisation and to significantly reduce allnon-tariff trade barriers.

4. Promote agriculture andrural development workingfor poor people

MAINSTREAM DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO

PROTECT PEOPLE IN POVERTY

Given the gap between the agriculturesystems in the North and in the majority ofdeveloping countries, the same rules for all,the rich and the poor, the powerful and theweak, create new injustices. In order to allowdeveloping countries to set their own coursefor growth, diversification and development,Special and Differential Treatment mustconstitute an integral part of all elements ofthe trade agreements with a view topreserving the food security, ruraldevelopment and livelihood concerns of

A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

5

millions of people who depend on theagriculture sector in developing countries. Fordeveloping countries whose tariffs are alreadylow, the tariff reduction must contain:progressivity, proportionality and flexibility.Given that de minimis support (support notexceeding 10 per cent of the total value ofproduction) is the only form of supportavailable to farmers in most developingcountries, any attempt to reduce it should beavoided. Moreover, the WTO Agreement onagriculture should be rebalanced byguaranteeing developing countries the rightto protect their borders by maintaining orraising their agricultural tariffs and viaquantitative restrictions as long as Northernsubsidies remain. Finally, as there is nopossibility of a net positive outcome from thecurrent negotiation in the near future, LeastDeveloped Countries should be exemptedfrom any reduction commitments and shouldreceive not only duty-free and quota-freeaccess to richer countries’ markets, but alsosupport to strengthen their supply capacities.

PROTECT RURAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIAL

PRODUCTS

Putting a brake on trade liberalisation byexempting sensitive crops (Special Products)from further tariff reductions can play a vitalrole in increasing production andproductivity by small farmers, maintainingand creating employment in the rural areasand providing food security to people inpoverty. In accordance with its owndevelopment needs, each developingcountry should be allowed to select anappropriate number of agricultural productsrelevant for food and livelihood security andsustainable rural development withattention to specific gender needs. Thesespecial products should be exempt fromfurther tariff reductions.

PROTECT FOOD SECURITY WITH SPECIAL

SAFEGUARD MECHANISMS

Special safeguard mechanisms should provideflexibility to developing countries to protectsmall farmers, including women, with suchmechanisms as removing food security cropsfrom tariff reduction commitments, or raisingtariffs, or imposing non tariff measures suchas quantitative restrictions. The existingSpecial Safeguard Mechanism should bereplaced by another that is easier to use,

applicable for all products and available for alldeveloping countries to address import surgesand price volatility.

OPEN POLICY SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

The current AoA embodies one of severaldifferent models of agriculture. It favourslarge-scale, industrial farming, and – for theSouth in particular – significantly narrowsthe choices that each country can makeabout its own economic development. Thismodel of export-oriented economic growthoften tends to increase poverty and foodinsecurity. Indeed, most poor rural producersare simply unable to compete against richerproducers with much greater capacity and ahighly capitalised agriculture. Poor andsmall-scale farmers depend mainly on thefunctioning of local markets. Poverty ofpeasants in developing countries is also theresult of the existence of an agriculturalprice formation system which leads to adecrease in these prices. Therefore, in orderto pursue policies that assure all residents abasic standard of living, developingcountries need policy space, rather thanrigid and constricting trade rules whichconstrain and shape the formulation ofdomestic policy. Poor countries need theright and the capacity to regulate trade andinvestment in the interests of nationaldevelopment, with the necessary protectionand gradual openness when the rightconditions are put in place. Pricestabilisation policies, and in some casessupply management, may be useful tools fordeveloping countries to improve farmincomes and food security. The challenge isto develop models for sustainableagriculture that strengthen public goods(including food security) and create resilientecosystems and vibrant economies.

5. Summary of policyrecommendations

CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis call on theSixth WTO Ministerial Conference to givereal priority to a pro-poor perspective.

STOP DISTORTING TRADE THAT GENERATES

POVERTY

The WTO should endorse the UN MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) as its primarycommitment. The WTO negotiating process


6

must be more transparent and moreinclusive. Loss of revenue by developingcountries due to tariff cuts and preferenceerosion in agriculture should becompensated.

Northern countries should substantiallyreform their agricultural subsidy regimes toensure an end to the dumping of productson global markets. The importingdeveloping countries should have theflexibility to impose additional duties onsubsidised imports. Members States have tocommit on short deadlines and processes toeliminate all trade-distorting subsidies(Amber Box) and all export subsidies.Product-specific caps and reductioncommitments should be introduced for theBlue Box payments. A thorough review ofthe Green Box (de-coupled and “minimallytrade-distorting” subsidies) is needed toreduce trade-distorting effects. The GreenBox should secure the livelihoods of smallfarmers. Developed countries should committo significantly reducing all non-tariff tradebarriers.

PROMOTE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT WORKING FOR POOR PEOPLE

Special and Differential Treatment fordeveloping countries must constitute anintegral part of all elements of theAgreement on Agriculture. The tariffreduction for developing countries must beprogressive, proportional and flexible toavoid negative impacts for small-scalefarmers. The AoA should also be rebalancedby guaranteeing developing countries theright to protect their borders by maintainingtariffs or quantitative restrictions as long as

Northern subsidies remain. LeastDeveloped Countries need specialtreatment (including duty-free andquota-free access).

In accordance with its own needs forfood security and sustainable ruraldevelopment, with attention to specificgender differences, each developingcountry should be allowed to self-designate an appropriate number ofSpecial Products to be exempted fromfurther tariff reductions. In the event ofa drop in prices or a significant increasein the volume of imports, a SpecialSafeguard Mechanism should provide

flexibility to developing countries to protectsmall farmers. Open policy space should begiven to the developing countries todevelop national policies (price stabilisation,supply management…) that protect andpromote sustainable agricultural practices.


7

8

The daily struggles of women and men inpoverty around the world are calling for ahumanising transformation of the globaleconomy. There is an urgent need to strivefor the creation of international rules toensure the ability of a globalising world totruly work for the global common good.Catholic Social Teaching does acknowledgethe potentially positive role of the marketin the international economy1 but has alsoalways pointed out that today’s worldmarkets, including labour, trade andfinancial markets, are dominated by therealities of power. Agreements presentedas free contracts, and so as bearing the fullconsequent obligations between tradingnations, are in reality shaped by unequalpower relations and therefore lacklegitimacy.2 Whatever claims are made infavour of the markets, there are manyhuman needs which find no place on themarket.3 Political and international affairsand the multiplicity of arrangementswhich constitute the internationaleconomic, social and political order needto be ruled by moral values recognisable byall people.4

The vulnerable and oppressed are agents ofchange leading the struggle to eradicatedehumanizing poverty, unacceptable livingand working conditions, and unjust social,political, economic and cultural structures.The daily work of organisations andpartners supporting people in poverty in allthe developing countries5 legitimates apolitical perspective to fight poverty thatmakes human dignity and social justice thepriority to guide international trade rules.These positions are in accordance with twoprinciples of Catholic Social Teaching. Theprinciple of subsidiarity – where thedecisions that most affect peoples andwhole communities must be most influencedby those peoples and communities. Theprinciple of the preferential option for thepoor – where the economic decisions muststart with a full consideration of their effects

on people in poverty.

The following policy proposals for povertyreduction at the Sixth WTO MinisterialConference in Hong-Kong aim to contributeto building a better world for people inpoverty and oppressed men, women andchildren, providing a beacon of hope andglobal solidarity and contributing tochanges and development of social justice.

1. Support a pro-poor approach to trade

1 The goods of the earth are given by God to ‘thewhole human race for the sustenance of all itsmembers, without excluding or favouring anyone’(Centesimus annus 31, 1991).

2 ‘When two parties are in very unequal positions,their mutual consent does not guarantee a faircontract. The rule of free consent remainssubservient to the demands of natural law.’(Encyclic Populorum progressio, Nr. 59, 1967)

3 “The market [has to] be appropriately controlledby the forces of society and by the state to ensurethat the basic needs of the whole society aresatisfied” (Centesimus Annus 1991, #35).

4 ‘With respect to States themselves, Ourpredecessors have constantly taught, and We wishto lend the weight of Our own authority to theirteaching, that nations are the subjects of reciprocalrights and duties. Their relationships, therefore,must likewise be harmonized in accordance withthe dictates of truth, justice, willing cooperation,and freedom. The same law of nature that governsthe life and conduct of individuals must alsoregulate the relations of political communities withone another.’ (Encyclic Pacem in Terris, Nr. 80, 1963)

5 CIDSE (International Cooperation for Developmentand Solidarity) is a coalition of 15 Catholicdevelopment organisations in Europe and NorthAmerica working with two thousand partnerorganisations in developing countries. CaritasInternationalis is a confederation of 162 Catholicrelief, development and social service organis-ations working to build a better world, especiallyfor the poor and oppressed, in over 200 countriesand territories.

9

A priority for povertyeradicationThere is an intimate relationship betweenpoverty and agriculture. Of the 1.2 billionpeople worldwide living on less than adollar a day, 900 million live in rural areaswhere agriculture remains the major meansof securing a livelihood.6 Agriculturalsustainable growth has a more powerfulimpact on poverty reduction than any othereconomic sector.7 Agriculture can and doesreduce poverty and inequality, makingspecific contributions as measured byprogress towards achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

Agricultural development favours the sectorwhere the majority of poor people work,use the land and labour that they possess,produce crops that they consume andfavours the rural areas where they live. Itgenerates employment, creates income, andincreases the ability of poor people to secureand create further assets. In contrast toindustrialised economies, the majority ofagricultural products in developingcountries are grown, produced andmarketed by small-scale family producers.Agriculture is the most important source ofemployment in most of the poor countries.8

A 1 per cent increase in agriculturalproductivity has been found to reduce theproportion of people living on less than $1 aday by 0.6-1.2 per cent.9

Not only can agriculture reduce povertydirectly, but it can also stimulate growth inthe wider economy, provided it is basedmainly on family producers. Family-basedagriculture is not only a key to both ruraland urban food security and to householdlivelihoods but also to agriculture’s broadercontributions to economic growth and itsindirect linkages to poverty reduction andsustainable development are oftenoverlooked in development policyformulation. Agriculture contributes toviable rural communities, enhances food

security, reduces rural and urban poverty,promotes equitable and sustainabledevelopment, and helps ensure socialstability, cultural continuity and ruralheritage. Studies have shown that a $1increase in agricultural value added leads toa $1.50-$2.00 increase in value added in thenon-farm economy. Similarly, a 1 per centincrease in agricultural gross output hasbeen shown to raise rural non-farmemployment by 1 per cent.10

2. Give a clear priority to progress on agriculture

6 IFAD, Achieving the MDGs by Enabling the RuralPoor to Overcome their Poverty, (IFAD, Rome,2003).

7 Hanmer, Lucia and David Booth Pro poor growth:why do we need it, what does it mean and whatdoes it imply for policy?, (ODI, London, second draftAugust 2001). See also Lipton, M. and M. Ravallion,“Poverty and Policy” in Behrman and Srinivasan(eds.) Handbook of Development Economics, Vol 3b(North Holland, Amsterdam, 1995) Ravallion, M. andG. Datt, When is Growth Pro-Poor? (Mimeograph,World Bank, 2000); Timmer, C.P How well do thepoor connect to the growth process? (HarvardInstitute for International Development,Cambridge, Mass, 1997).

8 In Africa, agriculture employs about two thirds ofthe labour forces and accounts for 37% of the GNPand one half of exports. World DevelopmentReport 2000, World Bank.

9 Eastwood, Robert and Michael Lipton “Pro poorgrowth and pro growth poverty reduction: what dothey mean? What does the evidence mean? Whatcan policymakers do?”, paper delivered at the Asiaand Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policiesand Institutions for Poverty Reduction, held at theAsian Development Bank, Manila, 5-9 February2001. The World Bank found that a 1 per centincrease in agricultural GDP per capita led to a 1.6percent gain in the income of the poorest fifth ofthe countries analysed. See Timmer, C.P. (1997) Howwell do the poor connect to the growth process?(Harvard Institute for International Development,Cambridge, Mass, 1997).

10 Hazell, P. and S. Haggblade “Farm-Nonfarm GrowthLinkages and the Welfare of the Poor” in van derGaag, J. and M. Lipton, (eds.), Including the Poor:Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the WorldBank and the International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1993).


10

Not everyone benefits from theopportunities of increased trade – in manycases the livelihoods of small-scale farmersand agricultural labourers have worsened.11

Few people can benefit from internationalagricultural trade because a handful ofcompanies dominate world markets. In 1986it was estimated that 85-90% of globalagricultural trade was controlled by fivecompanies. Around 75% of the globalcereals trade is controlled by twomultinational companies. Approximately50% of the world coffee supply comes fromsmall-scale farmers, 40% of the globalcoffee trade is controlled by fourcompanies.12 Companies gain an increasedshare of the market by consolidating andacquiring production resources and byextending their activities beyond simplyproducing.

Transnational commodity traders andprocessors, predominantly from developedcountries, have the means to invest in theproduction, processing, transporting andtrading processes, giving them a massiveadvantage over small-scale producers. Thebalance of power is extremely skewedbetween the 1.3 billion farms andagricultural workers and the very fewinternational traders and large distributors.Huge firms control the sale of chemicals andseeds to farmers, grain purchasing andprocessing, livestock production, and thesale of food and other products toconsumers. Their market power enablesthem to set prices at the expense of farmersand consumers alike.13 For example, firmssell US cotton on world markets at pricesclose to 50 percent below what it costs toproduce. That cotton drives down the worldprice for cotton, at the expense of growersin some of the world’s poorest countries,

including Burkina Faso and Mali.Transnational companies are moreinterested in high sales volumes and inkeeping inputs cheap for their moreprofitable livestock and grain processingoperations. This threatens livelihoods offarmers all over the world, leaving themeither impoverished or dependent onsubsidies to earn a living.

A priority for securinglivelihoods and fighting hungerFood security is one of the most prominentfeatures of agriculture’s multi-functionality.Agriculture has ensured that global foodproduction has more than kept pace withhuman population growth. Ninety percentof the food produced in the world isconsumed within the country or regionproducing it, and most of that usage liesoutside of the commercial system. Onaverage worldwide, poor people in ruralareas derive half of their household incomefrom farming.14 Agriculture supplies foodand primary commodities, lowers foodprices, provides surplus labour and capital,and consumes non-farm production.

Availability of food through imports is notsufficient to address the food securityconcerns of developing countries as tradeliberalisers claim. According to the UN’sFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO),food security is significantly strengthened ifincreased per capita food availability is dueto increased domestic production ratherthan imports. It has been well documentedthat as a result of the implementation of theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO)Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) developingcountries’ agricultural imports haveincreased faster than their exports. Sixteencountry case studies carried out by the FAO,looking at the impact of the AoA, found

11 Smaller, Carin, Planting the right seed: a humanrights perspective on agriculture trade and theWTO, 3D, Geneva, March 2005

12 Vorley, Bill, Food Inc. – Corporate concentrationfrom farmer to consumer, UK Food group, 2003.

13 Murphy, Sophia, Will the Doha Round play a role inending poverty ?, Au courant, p. 7-9, CCIC, 2005.

14 Better livelihoods for poor people, the role ofagriculture, DFID, 2002.

that food imports surged afterliberalisation.15

A priority for gender equity“There will be no food security without ruralwomen” Jacques Diouf, FAO DirectorGeneral.16 It is difficult to overstate theimportance of women in developing countryagriculture. Women account for 70-80 percent of food grown in sub-Saharan Africa,while in South and Southeast Asia, womencarry out 60 per cent of the work inagriculture and food production. There isalso an increasing trend towards the“feminisation of agriculture”, owing toconflict, HIV/AIDS and rural-urbanmigration. However, women also sufferfrom severe gender biases. They haveunequal access to capital (notably credit),legal and social ownership rights (land inparticular) and inequalities in access toproductive resources and services (includingagricultural extension services, training,technology and market information).Women’s higher rates of illiteracy lead toexclusion from new market opportunities,while women farmers are often neglectedby policy makers and their contribution to

agriculture is not properly valued orunderstood.

These gender biases constrain women’sability to succeed in some sectors ofdeveloping country agriculture. What hasbeen termed “gender exploitativeintegration”17 limits women’s participationin export-oriented agriculture, and also in


11

According to the FAO, rural women areresponsible for half of the world’s foodproduction and have a prominent role inagriculture at all levels, in home farmproduction critical to householdmaintenance as well as in commercialagriculture mainly oriented to exportcrops. They produce between 60 and 80percent of the food in most developingcountries and are also the main producersof the world’s staple crops – rice, wheat,maize – which provide up to 90 percent ofthe rural poor’s food intake. Womencontribute significantly to secondary cropproduction, such as legumes andvegetables, which provide essentialnutrients for their families and are oftenthe only food available during the leanseasons or in case the main crops fails.

In India, agriculture and allied industrialsectors employ as much as 89.5% of thetotal female labor force. Women play a

crucial role in ensuring supplies of foodnot only for household purposes, but alsoas food vendors and post-harvestprocessors of livestock and fisheryproducts. In Tanzania, ILO estimates thatwomen comprise 54% of thoseeconomically active in agriculture. InHonduras, rural women play an importantrole in agriculture, especially in thepeasant and small farmers sectors, workingan average of four hours a day in crop andlivestock activities.18

“A common feature of women’s work inthe majority of rural areas of thedeveloping world is the underestimationand lack of economic remuneration fortheir work and contribution to householdand community maintenance, as well as tothe macroeconomic level. Women haveextensive work loads with dualresponsibility for farm and householdprotection”.19

Women’s role in agriculture

15 See, FAO, Developing country experience with theimplementation of the Uruguay Round Agreementon Agriculture: Synthesis of the findings of 23country case studies. Paper presented in aSymposium in Geneva on 2 October 2002.

16 FAO High-level Consultation on Rural Women andInformation

17 Hewitt de Alcántara, C., Real Markets: Social andPolitical Issues of Food Policy Reform, (Frank Cass,in association with EADI and UNRISD, London,1993).

18 Hernández, María Pía, Incorporating GenderConsiderations for the Designation of SpecialProducts in WTO Agriculture negotiations, IGTN,Geneva, March 2005.

19 Williams, Mariama, Gender mainstreaming inmultilateral trading system, A handbook for policy-makers and other stakeholders, Commonwealthsecretariat, 2003.

larger-scale – and more profitable – activities(trading, marketing) in domestic agriculture.Gender biases in turn often trap women inlow-productivity, low-growth economicactivities, leaving them few opportunitiesother than home-based employment in low-technology sectors.

The need for political willCurrent global trade rules are biased againstpoorer countries and poorer people.Millions of people want to be able to tradetheir way out of poverty. All they are lackingis a fair chance to do so. Therefore, the rulesneed to be changed to empower thesemarginalised countries and communities todevelop their economies and tradingsystems. A new system of trade rules shouldplace trade at the service of internationalhuman rights, poverty eradication andsustainable development. A more equitableregulated system of trade rules andnegotiations would allow for a model ofagriculture that empowers the poor toguarantee food security in developingcountries. This implies a completereorientation of the WTO towards astronger focus on development

The trade liberalisation agenda promotedby the WTO is seriously undermining peopleand their human rights.20 Accordingly,Member States have to ensure that theirWTO commitments are not in conflict withtheir human rights obligations. MemberStates of the WTO should also respect andabide by the international treaties that theyhave ratified (including the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights, the UN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child and the UN Convention on theElimination of all Forms of Discriminationagainst Women) as guiding principles whenmaking trade policy. The FAO’s Right toFood Guidelines provides practical guidancefor countries in implementing theirobligations related to the right to adequatefood.

In this context, the WTO itself should alsofully embrace the concept underwritten inthe Monterrey Consensus of trade as a stepforward for development. The WTO shouldendorse the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) as its primary concreteoverarching objective, as the IMF and World

Bank have already done. It would provide aframework in which to discuss trade impacton people in poverty and which trade ruleswould really benefit them.

Since the Doha Ministerial Conference(November 2001), the focus of thenegotiations has been on devising a set of‘modalities’21 that will determine the depth,scope and speed of further tradeliberalisation in agricultural trade indeveloped and developing countries. Fromthe start of the negotiations, developingcountries have stressed the importance ofthe agricultural sector for their economicdevelopment and for their economic, socialand political stability. The Frameworkagreement approved on 1 August 2004 inGeneva marked rather limited progress inthe negotiations. Even if it does not addressall the necessary issues, the Hong KongMinisterial should narrow its work toreaching outcomes on the core issuesalready under negotiation. The upcomingseries of discussions should not bebroadened to any “issue of interest but notagreed”. There is a need for a much strongerpolitical will to go beyond the rhetoric andto make real progress on agriculture thatmakes trade work for development in theworld and provides policy space for concernsother than trade.


12

20 3D, Planting the Rights Seed: A Human RightsPerspective on Agriculture Trade and the WTO,March 2005.

21 The term modalities refers to the numerical targetsfor further commitments in the different areas ofdisciplines established in the AoA during theUruguay Round and new trade rules under whichthe new commitments will take place. The DohaMinisterial Conference established a mandate forthe negotiations identifying specific objectives oneach of the pillars or areas of the negotiations –market access, domestic support, and exportcompetition – and tight timelines for concludingthe negotiations.

Stop trade liberalisation denyingthe liberties of the poorTrade policies adopted at the internationallevel increasingly have a direct and oftendeleterious effect on the lives of the poorestof the poor. The globalisation of the marketeconomy takes shape regardless of itsinfluence on people’s lives. Due to tradeliberalisation, developing countries havebecome more vulnerable to short-termimport surges, which can have devastatingand permanent impacts on small farmersand rural communities. This sets off whatthe FAO describes as “a progressivepauperisation of small-scale farmers, whocannot possibly compete with moderncapitalised farms in an increasingly openworld economy.”22

Many developing countries have alreadyundergone substantial trade liberalisation aspart of IMF and World Bank conditionality.Liberalisation often occurred at abreathtaking pace and depth, seeminglypromoted more by economic dogma than aconsidered analysis of its probable impacton poor people. Both Mozambique andZambia now have more open economiesthan the UK and Germany, for example.23

The current WTO Agreement on Agriculture(AoA) continues to push developingcountries to liberalise, whilst taking noaccount of the large reductions alreadymade by them in the past.24 The AoA, ascurrently constituted, pushes countries awayfrom more sustainable options towards anindustrialised model of agriculture that hasjeopardised food security in developingcountries by pursuing a capital and chemicalintensive form of production, geared toexports from large farms rather than theinterests of small producers.

Coherence between agriculture policy, tradepolicy and development policy is lacking:one cannot pretend to support developingcountries’ agricultural development needswhile at the same time demanding thesecountries open up their markets to

subsidised products from developedcountries as part of the EU EconomicPartnership Agreements (EPAs), US FreeTrade Agreements, through conditionalityimposed by the World Bank and the IMF orthrough the WTO. This view of coherenceneeds to be broadened to ensure thatcountries do not enter into trade or financialagreements that undermine their socialpolicies or their ability to meet their humanrights obligations including food security.However, much greater emphasis is alsoneeded on developing countries’ domesticpolicy needs – to increase productivecapacity, prioritise local and regionalmarkets, add value, tackle the commoditycrisis and diversify.

On paper, the WTO is the most democraticof all the international institutions with aglobal mandate. Each country has one voiceand all decisions are taken by consensus.However the negotiating and decision-making practices have marginaliseddeveloping countries through non-inclusiveworking methods, lack of transparency inthe negotiations, a proliferating number ofinformal consultations… The use ofexclusive meetings (mini-Ministerial, greenroom meetings…) the five interested partiesto build consensus among the few, which isthen presented to the majority, contradictsthe fundamental tenets of one country, onevote and consensus. Reform of thenegotiating process is a pre-requisite for agood development outcome of the DohaRound as well as a vital factor forlegitimisation of the WTO.25

13

3. Stop trade distortionthat generates poverty

22 FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2000 (FAO,Rome, 2000)

23 Based on the IMF’s Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI)from the IMF’s International Financial Statistics CDRom (1999).

24 See Sophia Murphy, Food Security and the WTO,CIDSE, September 2001

25 See the policy proposals developed in “A hearingin the WTO for all Members. Guidelines forimproving the WTO negotiating process”, CIDSE-Caritas Internationalis, April 2005.

Stop making the poor pay thecost of trade liberalisation The United States and the European Unionhave taken the position to subject anyprogress on the pace and the content ofagricultural negotiations in which poorpeople and countries have a major interest,to a condition of substantial progressiveoffers from developing countries onindustrial tariffs and services. This does nottake into account the fact that developingcountries have already paid a high pricesuffering the dumping of agricultural goodsfrom the European Union and the UnitedStates for thirty years.

While the AoA forces developing countries tocut tariffs,26 which are in many cases their onlymeans of protecting their farmers, there arenumerous loopholes that allow rich countriesto continue to subsidise their own farmers,enabling them to dump products on theworld market at less than the cost ofproduction. This fundamental imbalancebetween North and South has meant thatdeveloping country farmers (who constitute97% of the world’s farm population) havefaced devastation as a result of liberalisation-induced surges of imports, many of themproduced by heavily-subsidised agribusinessesin the developed world.

With the public finances of many developingand emerging market countries heavilydependent on trade tax revenues, the

continued reduction of trade and investmentbarriers championed by many developmentexperts and institutions is leading to the loss ofsignificant sources of revenue in developingcountries. This revenue loss as a consequenceof trade liberalisation comes at a time whendeveloping countries face rising debt burdens,at best stagnant ODA, and the pressure toincrease social spending in order to achievethe Millennium Development Goals.

Non-reciprocal trade preferences27 are ofimportance to many developing countries.They are being eroded by both regional andmultilateral liberalisation because of theoverall reductions in tariffs. Preferenceerosion should be addressed in the


14

26 According to the Chairman’s text the depth of cutswill depend on the level of the final bound rateestablished during the Uruguay Round. Small andpoor countries such as Cuba, Honduras, and SriLanka with tariffs at or below 50 per cent would berequired to reduce tariffs by 30 per cent onaverage. Many African countries, whose tariffswere bound at higher levels using tariff ceilings(e.g. 100 per cent), will be required to reduce theirtariffs by 40 per cent on average

27 Almost all sub-Saharan African countries aremembers of the African, Caribbean and Pacificgroup of countries which, as former colonies of EUmember states, have enjoyed privileged access toEuropean markets. As the EU has extended tradingbenefits to other developing countries, the valueof this privileged access has been eroded. This isknown as preference erosion.

Maize is Mexico’s principal crop and majorsource of sustenance. Mexico is thebirthplace of maize and the country’shistory and culture revolve around thecrop. Since NAFTA, maize imports havenearly tripled, and the price has dropped64% since 1985.31 Genetically modifiedmaize imports have contaminated localvarieties, leading to fears of loss ofbiodiversity and increasing dependency ontransnational seed and chemicalcompanies. Under NAFTA, the Mexicancountryside has lost 1.7 million jobs, withlittle employment generation in othersectors. Thousands of Mexicans migratedto the US, many to work in agriculture as

undocumented workers without labourguarantees or benefits. The potentialdevelopment outcomes of tradeliberalisation were destroyed by its otherconsequences: increase of rural poverty,malnutrition and migration; increasedworkloads, particularly for women;increased profits and market control bytransnational traders and processors at thecost of small-holder farms; increased fooddependency and lost national revenues;and severe risks to the environment andbiodiversity. De-agriculturalisation has ledto a loss of culture and the destruction ofthe traditional fabric of society.

Mexico and agriculture

negotiations, in accordance with theprovisions of the ‘July Framework’, andrequires mainstreaming the developmentdimension in the multilateral trading systemthrough (i) expanded market access forproducts which are of vital exportimportance to the preference beneficiaries;(ii) effective utilisation of existingpreferences and (iii) additional financialassistance and capacity building to addresssupply constraints, promote diversificationand assist in adjustment and restructuring.28

Stop dumping on developingcountries’ marketsAgricultural products are considereddumped when they are sold below their costof production. Dumping denies fair accessfor developing country farmers to their ownmarkets.

Dumping of Northern exports is preventingdeveloping country farmers from marketingtheir production on their local or regionalmarkets at a fair remunerative price.

The current WTO anti-dumping rules (mainlyart. 6 of the GATT) make it technicallycomplicated for poorer countries to establishgrounds for anti-dumping duties because ofthe requirements to demonstrate harm to thesector involved. It is also politically difficultfor a poor country to impose prohibitivetariffs against a powerful country on whichmost of its exports depend.29

Importing countries should have the abilityto immediately impose countervailing andanti-dumping duties where goods are soldabroad for less than the cost of production.The linkage of the level of subsidies indeveloped countries and the tariffreductions should be undertaken bydeveloping countries. Through a so-calledbalancing measure, the proposal wouldprovide the flexibility to importingdeveloping countries to impose additionalduties on subsidised imports by calculating asubsidy-equivalent tariff.30

Annual full-cost-of-production estimates forOECD countries should be published.Governments should develop a morethorough and transparent methodology tomeasure the extent of dumping, and makethe relevant data publicly available in atimely way.


15

28 G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005,http://www.agtradepolicy.org/output/resource/G20_delhi_declaration.pdf

29 Sophia Murphy, Ben Lilliston, Mary Beth Lake, WTOAgreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping– United States Dumping on Agricultural Markets,Geneva, 2005.

30 See, for example, submission by the Philippines inSeptember 2002, WTO document JOB(02)/111

31 See Laura Carlsen, The Mexican Experience andLessons for WTO Negotiations on the Agreementon Agriculture. Presentation at the EuropeanParliament, Brussels 11 June 2003

In addition, Northern countries shouldsubstantially reform their agriculturalsubsidy regimes to ensure an end to thedumping of products on global markets. TheEuropean Union and the United Statesshould focus agricultural reforms onreducing overproduction and redressing thedisparity between millions of small-scaleproducers and the few biggest agribusinesscompanies that dominate agriculturalproduction and trade.

Stop trade-distorting supportsTo redress the imbalances in the currentagreement, based on the unsatisfactoryresults of the implementation of the AoAand the negative impact to date of tradeliberalisation on food security, developingcountry organisations have stressed theneed to significantly reduce or eliminatetrade distorting domestic support andexport subsidies in OECD countries beforefurther trade liberalisation is required fromthem.

Subsidies depress the price of agriculturalproducts on world markets. The recent WTOframework agreement reached in Geneva inJuly 2004 is unlikely to lead either the US orthe European Union to undertake anysignificant reform of their subsidy regimes.32

The July Package takes a very gradualapproach towards reforming subsidies onproduction and exports. Moreover, whilethe July Package set an initial 20 percent cutin trade-distorting support during the firstyear of implementation, the effect of thiscut is not significant due to the gapsbetween countries’ allowed support boundsand their actual support levels. In addition,the proposed disciplines on export credits,credit guarantees and insuranceprogrammes, as well as food aid, includeloopholes that undermine theireffectiveness, potentially allowing membersto elude their export subsidy reductioncommitments.

In order to reach the end objective ofeliminating dumping, the following stepsshould be taken:

l All forms of export support should beeliminated. A clear frontloadedschedule should be set up foreliminating export subsidies andsupport.

l The trade distorting subsidies (AmberBox) should be eliminated andreductions should be made according toa tiered formula, with higher levels ofsupport being cut more steeply

l Direct subsidies to farmers, partially de-coupled and linked to production-limiting programmes (Blue Box) shouldsee a substantial reduction. Product-specific caps and reductioncommitments should be introduced byestablishing criteria to disaggregateBlue Box payments at a product-specificlevel. This would prevent shifts insupport among products or theconcentration of large amounts ofsupport in a few products. Pricelinkages should be disciplined to ensurethat there is no incentive to increaseproduction. Although Blue Boxpayments are granted underproduction-limiting programmes, thereare no requirements for details as tohow these payments in fact limitproduction. The need and importanceof improved monitoring andsurveillance provisions is clear.33

l The de-coupled or “minimally trade-distorting” subsidies (Green Box) arepermitted subsidies including payments


16

32 See CAFOD “Analysis of the WTO FrameworkAgreement” (CAFOD, London, 2004) and SouthCentre “Detailed Analysis of Annex A to theGeneral Council Decision July 2004 ‘Framework forEstablishing Modalities in Agriculture’” (SouthCentre, 2004)

33 G20 statement on the Blue Box, 15 March 2005: Asregards Blue Box payments which are not aimed atlimiting production, the G20 proposed thefollowing:

* No updating of base areas and yields: Thiswould reduce the incentive to farmers toincrease planted areas on the expectation that apossible future updating would increase theirrevenue received from the Government. As aconsequence, farmers would focus more onmarket signals;

* Payments should be independent from what isbeing produced: This proposed change isintended to allow for a larger degree offlexibility for the farmers to move away fromtheir original crops and even to withdraw landfrom production;

* Accumulation of payments: If the Blue Box is ahalf-way to reform, commodities benefiting


17

“Cotton is everything for us – ourpharmacy, our hospital, our schools, ourchildren,” farmer Joseph Kabore tellsCIDSE visitors in his village, Limseyga, inBurkina Faso. He has been growing cottonsince 1986. “In the beginning, cotton gaveus hope; but with the low market priceand the high cost of inputs, we can’t makeenough money to take care of ourfamilies.” Declining world cotton priceshave dealt a severe blow to the livelihoodsof more than 2 million people in BurkinaFaso who depend on cotton. Despiteproducing high quality cotton at low cost,Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countrieson earth, is finding itself undercut by thestrategy of the agrobusiness industry thatlowers prices to producers, and facingheavily subsidised producers from therichest countries in the world, that manageto stand these low prices thanks to theirsubsidies. The US is the world’s largestexporter of cotton, accounting for 41 percent of world cotton exports in 2003. UScotton farmers are relativelyuncompetitive, and are able to take such alarge share of the market only because oflavish subsidies. In 2001/2002 the US spentaround $3.9 billion on cotton subsidies,more than the entire gross domesticproduct of Burkina Faso, and three timesthe entire US bilateral aid budget forAfrica.34

While the elimination of cotton subsidieswould benefit all low-cost cottonproducers, West and Central Africancountries – where more than 90 percent of

cotton is grown for export – are amongthose that suffer most from the high levelof subsidisation in the sector. Over tenmillion people in the region dependdirectly on cotton production. Cottonexports represent around 30 percent oftotal export earnings and more than 60percent of earnings from agriculturalexports. The International Cotton AdvisoryCommittee (ICAC) estimates at US$6 billionthe combined support granted to thecotton sector by the US, the EU and Chinain 2001/2002, which corresponds to totalworld exports in that year. US cottonsubsidies alone exceed by 60 percent thetotal GDP of Burkina Faso, where nearlytwo million people depend on cottonproduction. Nearly half of US support goesto a few thousand growers with farms ofmore than 1,000 acres, penalising Westand Central African farmers whose plotsaverage five acres and who live on lessthan a dollar a day.35

But while defending poor cottonproducers of developing countries is veryimportant, this should not prevent allcountries’ efforts to get out of commodityspecialisation and crop monoculture, andto enhance local and regional trade fordiversified family based food productionthat would both address poverty reductionand food needs, reduce the vulnerabilityof developing countries on the worldmarket, and contribute to moresustainable agricultural development.

The impact of Northern subsidies on cotton

from it should not be allowed to receive Ambersupport;

* Setting criteria to determine target prices:Target prices are currently fixed arbitrarily, whichcreates an effectively permanent incentive forfarmers to continue to produce a specific crop,insulating the farmer from market signals. Agood alternative could be loan rates fixed inrelation to a 5-year Olympic average, followingmarket price fluctuations;

* Limits to price-gaps differentials: Current WTOagreement on agriculture (AoA) rules in terms ofdirect payments limit the compensation forfarmers’ income loss due to natural disasters to

70%. It is proposed that a factor or reduction beintroduced to bring down the level of income-loss compensation due to normal market risks;

* Product specific caps: This would be a means ofpreventing the shift of support among productsor the concentration of large amounts of supportin a few products.

34 CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, Unfair Trade andCotton: Global Challenges, Local Challenges (CIDSEand Caritas Internationalis, 2004)

35 This section is taken from Bridges, May 2003

linked to environmental programmes,pest and disease control, infrastructuredevelopment, and domestic food aid(paid for at current market prices). TheGreen Box also includes payments toproducers that are not linked tochanging levels of production (so-calleddecoupled payments) and governmentpayments to income insuranceprogrammes. A thorough review of theGreen Box is needed to ensure that anyremaining domestic support hasminimal trade-distorting effects andcontributes to public goods such asenvironmental protection and securingthe livelihoods of small farmers. Inaddition, the Green Box shouldaccommodate developmentprogrammes in developing countries.Disciplines are needed on the Blue Boxand Green Box, in order to thwart “boxshifting.”

Subsidies to agriculture should be focusedon addressing development concerns forfamily-based production and povertyreduction.

Developed countries should address non-tariff trade barriers. For instance, TheCommission for Africa, established in 2004by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in itsreport issued on 11 March 2005, calls ondeveloped countries to ensure thatstandards are not unnecessarily stringentand to help Africa in meeting thesestandards. It also urges rich countries toexplore standard harmonisation so thatAfrican exporters are better able to identifyand meet such requirements.


18


19

Mainstream differentialtreatment to protect people inpovertyThe same international trade rules may nothave the same impact in different countriesdepending on their level of economicdevelopment (competitiveness on globalmarkets, supply side capacity, constrainingfactors in the ability to access markets…)and on their sectoral composition (e.g.proportion of national production andemployment in agriculture). The gapbetween the productivity of agriculture inthe North and of a limited number ofdeveloping countries on the one hand andthe majority of developing countries on theother hand was at 1 to 10 at the beginningof the 20th century and now stands at 1 to1000, if not more.36 Same rules for all, therich and the poor, the powerful and theweak, create new injustices.

Therefore, special and differentialtreatment (SDT) needs to be given todeveloping countries in order to establishglobal trade rules that aim to achieve nottrade growth but trade justice, developmentand poverty reduction. However, most ofthe provisions providing temporaryexceptions to general rules are in factmeaningless for the large majority ofdeveloping countries, which do not have theright to provide export subsidies37 or themeans to do so, or administer TRQs38 (TariffReduction Quotas), or provide tradedistorting domestic support to theiragricultural sectors as most developedcountries do.

Governments of developing countriesshould be allowed to set their own coursefor growth, diversification and developmentand this principle should prevail over tradeliberalisation, deregulation and privat-isation.

4. Promote agriculture and rural development working for poor people

The G20 emphasised that the tariffreduction formula must contain fordeveloping countries: (i) progressivity –deeper cuts to higher bound tariffs, (ii)proportionality – developing countriesmaking lower reduction commitments thandeveloped countries and neutrality inrespect of tariff structures; and (iii) flexibility– to take account of the sensitive nature ofsome products without undermining theoverall objective of the reduction formulaand ensuring substantial improvement inmarket access for all products.39 The G33developing countries warned thatdeveloping countries with already lowtariffs have little capacity to undertakefurther significant cuts without disruptingtheir rural economies.40 There should bedifferentiated coefficients for rich and poor

36 Seminar « How to achieve food security: a majorchallenge for policy coherence », Luxembourg EUpresidency, 21-23 March 2005, Luxembourg.

37 Only those countries that provided export subsidiesat the time of the Uruguay Round and inscribedexport subsidy commitments in their schedules ofcommitments have the right to provide thosesubsidies. The following developing countries havethe right to provide export subsidies: Brazil,Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama, SouthAfrica, Turkey, Uruguay and Venezuela. WTOdocument TN/AG/S/8.

38 During the Uruguay Round it was agreed that onlythose countries that undertook tariffication weregiven the option to establish commitments onTRQs. Most developing countries did not tariffy butrather established tariff ceilings. The followingdeveloping countries inscribed TRQ commitmentsin their schedules: Barbados, Brazil, Colombia,Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico,Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, SouthAfrica, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, andVenezuela. WTO document TN/AG/S/6.

39 G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005

40 G33 statement on market access, 13 December2004.

countries in the final tariff reductionformula to allow for this. The FAO notedthat “tariffs were often the primary, if notthe only, trade instrument open to thesecountries for stabilising domestic marketsand safeguarding farmers’ interests”.41 TheWTO Agreement on agriculture should berebalanced by guaranteeing developingcountries the right to protect their bordersvia quotas and/or quantitative restrictions aslong as Northern subsidies remain.

Given the lack of substantial progress by richcountries in negotiations and the remainingunbalanced nature of the AoA, developingcountries should have the right todetermine the nature and extent of theirtariff commitments in this round ofnegotiations. If this includes choosing not tocut their agricultural tariffs, and indeedraising them, to secure developmentobjectives, they should be able to do so.

Developing countries’ farmers face highcosts in accessing markets due to lack ofinfrastructure and other constraints. Indeedmost of the time, access to world marketsdoes not benefit farmers, but ratherindustries and companies specialised ininternational trade, whether national orinternational. De minimis42 programmes areone of the very limited options available todeveloping countries to offset some of thesecosts and other disadvantages faced by

farmers. Given that de minimis support isthe only form of support available tofarmers in most developing countries, anyattempt to reduce de minimis support indeveloping countries should be avoided, asthis would negatively affect theprogrammes benefiting subsistence andresource poor farmers.43 The amounts ofsupport in developing countries areinsignificant when compared to those indeveloped countries (over 95% of totaldomestic support in agriculture goes tofarmers and the agri-industrial sector in


20

41 FAO, Agriculture, Trade and Food Security Issuesand Options in the WTO Negotiations from thePerspective of Developing Countries - Vol. IICountry Case Studies (FAO, Rome 2000).

42 A de minimis threshold, expressed as a percentage,is the amount of domestic support a country mayexempt from its calculation of total domesticsupports and therefore further reductions. Fordeveloped countries, the de minimis threshold islimited to 5 percent, while for developingcountries the de minimis threshold is 10 percent”

43 “Developed members with high domestic supportwill reduce their support levels on an average basisonly, whereas developing members which hardlygive support would reduce it on a product-specificbasis. In other words, a discipline which has notbeen accepted by developed countries since thebeginning is being imposed on developingcountries”, G33 statement on de minimis domesticsupport, 14 March 2005

developed countries) and therefore shouldnot be subject to reductions.44

There are also some developing countriesfor which there is no possibility of a netpositive outcome from negotiated changesin trade policy until the very long term. LDCsare particularly badly affected by someaspects of current trade.45 These include notjust trade measures: tariffs, agriculturalsubsidies, and the end of the MFA, butenvironmental trade barriers and twoeconomic trends, the decline in extractiveindustries and the fall in commodity prices.Least Developed Countries need specialtreatment, including duty-free, quota-freeaccess to richer countries’ markets. Theyshould be exempted from any reductioncommitments. Specific support should beprovided to promote their export capacities,including the need to address the supplyconstraints of LDCs. While promoting theseexport capacities, special attention has to begiven to enhancing family-based farmers’and national industries’ capacities fororganising themselves and benefiting fromthis trade. Multinational companiesinvesting in developing countries derivebenefits from increased market access to theNorth.

Special and Differential Treatment fordeveloping countries must constitute anintegral part of all elements with a view topreserving the food security, ruraldevelopment and livelihood concerns ofmillions of people who depend on theagriculture sector

Protect rural development withSpecial ProductsUnder the AoA, tariff reductions indeveloping countries, in conjunction withNorthern agricultural subsidies, dumpingand concentration of global agribusiness,have led to numerous instances of importsurges of food and other crops and a long-term deterioration in agricultural tradebalances. These have particularly hurt smallfarmers. Putting a pause to tradeliberalisation by exempting sensitive cropsfrom further tariff reductions can play a vitalrole in national development programmesdirected at increasing small farmerproduction and productivity, andmaintaining and creating employment

opportunities in the rural areas. Agriculturalproducts on whose production low-incomeand resource poor farmers, includingwomen, depend for their basic food needsand income should be exempted fromfurther tariff reductions.

In accordance with its own developmentneeds, each developing country should beallowed to self-designate the SPs based onan appropriate number of domestically-produced agricultural products. Theselection of SPs should be made on the basisof an appropriate number of products andnot tariff lines. The criteria for specialproducts should be their relevance for foodand livelihood security and ruraldevelopment. The design andimplementation of gender analysis andgender sensitive policies should beintegrated when defining trade policies,especially special products provisions, toensure that the needs of women asproducers and as those responsible forhousehold nutrition are protected.46 Thetreatment of SPs must be more flexiblecompared with the treatment of otherproducts, including sensitive products. Giventhat many developing countries bound theirtariffs at low levels during the UruguayRound, especially in relation to theconditonalities of IMF and World Bankloans, special products should be exemptfrom further tariff reductions, tariffincreases should even be allowed ifnecessary and must not be excluded fromthe coverage of the Special SafeguardMeasure.

Protect food security withSpecial Safeguard MechanismsDeveloping countries should not beexpected to undertake fast, deep and acrossthe board agricultural trade liberalisation as


21

44 G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005, G33statement on de minimis domestic support, 14March 2005.

45 UNCTAD Secretariat (2004) The Least DevelopedCountry Report, New York and Geneva, UnitedNations.

46 Hernández, María Pía, Incorporating GenderConsiderations for the Designation of SpecialProducts in WTO Agriculture negotiations, IGTN,Geneva, March 2005.

a result of the current negotiations, giventhe negative impact of such liberalisation ontheir food security situation to date. Specialsafeguard mechanisms should provideflexibility to developing countries to protectsmall farmers, including removing foodsecurity crops from tariff reductioncommitments or raising tariffs. If a crop is ofcrucial importance to food security in a poorcountry, governments should have theflexibility to set tariffs at whatever levelrequired to protect the livelihoods of thepoor against fluctuations in prices, even ifthat involves raising them.47 This is a short-term mechanism for dealing with pricevolatility, not a long-term solution to thestructural imbalances of world trade.

Moreover, the value of the safeguardmechanism will depend on the detail of themechanism still to be negotiated. The WTO’sexisting Special Safeguard Mechanism –used primarily by rich countries - wasconceived as a transitional instrument andshould be eliminated. Constraints regardingthe trigger mechanisms for using the currentSSG as well as restrictions related to theremedy measures that can be applied haveled developing countries to propose theestablishment of a new special safeguardmechanism available to all developingcountries to help them address importsurges and price volatility.48 Overall,developing countries made use of the SSMin just 5 per cent of the cases for which theycould have used it, in large part because thecriteria needed to trigger its use are toostrict and cumbersome.49

The safeguard mechanism should be easy touse and applicable for all products.Safeguards could be invoked both on thebasis of a drop in prices or a significantincrease in the volume of imports. The newSSM should cover all agricultural products, inparticular SPs. Import surges and steep dropsin prices for any crop can have deleteriouseffects on their rural economy, employmentand farmers’ income levels, and there is noreason to exclude a priori some agriculturalproducts from protection against importsurges.

As the SSM intends to smooth outtemporary fluctuations in imports or a dropin price that can disrupt local production, itshould allow developing countries to take

measures beyond tariffs, including non-tariffmeasures such as quantitative restrictions.

Developing countries attempted to addressthe concerns regarding the effects of theSSM on South-South trade50 by proposingthat where imports from other developingcountries are not significant (i.e. no morethan 3 per cent of total imports of theproduct concerned and no more than 9 percent of imports of the product concernedfrom countries below the 3 per centthreshold taken together) such imports shallbe exempted from the application of theSSM.

Open policy space forsustainable agriculturedevelopmentHeadline figures from projections conductedby econometric studies have beguiled policymakers into assuming that developingcountries will automatically benefit fromglobal agricultural liberalisation. But theseprojections ignore issues with importantimplications for most of the poor developingcountries: in particular, the supply-siderigidities or lack of capacity to takeadvantage of market opportunities andlosses caused by erosion of tradepreferences. The EU, the US and otherpowerful trading blocs must also take stockof the failure of the dominant paradigm ofliberal trade policies as part of export-oriented economic growth, promoted as themodel for developing countries by the WTOand the international financial institutions.This model does not, and has never, providedan automatic path to poverty eradication,


22

47 Matthews, Alan (2003) Special and DifferentialTreatment Proposals in the WTO AgriculturalNegotiations, International Conference onAgricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: where arewe heading?, Capari, Italy, June 23-26, 2003.

48 WTO document JOB(02)/177/Rev.1. Proposalpresented by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada,Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lankaand Venezuela.

49 FAO, Consultation on the Special SafeguardMechanism, Rome, December 2004.

50 WTO document JOB(02)/177/Rev.1. Proposalpresented by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada,Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lankaand Venezuela.

the key objective of any development policy.In practice, trade liberalisation often tends toincrease poverty and food insecurity, andwiden the gap between rich and poor menand - particularly - women.51 Poor countriesneed the right and the capacity to regulatetrade and investment in the interests ofnational development, with the necessaryprotection when building up industries andgradual openness when the right conditionsare put in place.52

Some economic models predict that poordeveloping countries will face net losses, inthe politically likely scenario of small ormedium levels of global agriculturalliberalisation.53 The elimination of Northernagricultural subsidies impacting oninternational trade is only one element inthe trade policy reform needed to makeagriculture work for poverty reduction. Thedogged pursuit of the rapid and unhinderedopening of Southern agricultural marketswill negate any benefit derived from reformof Northern agricultural and trade policies.Indeed, most poor rural producers aresimply unable to compete againstinternational agribusiness and richerproducers with much greater capacity and ahighly capitalised agriculture, even withoutsubsidies.54 Poor and small-scale farmersdepend on the functioning of local marketsand effective national policies that promoterural development. These policies will fail, or

their impact will be severely limited, ifagricultural markets are opened too rapidlywithout allowing developing countries tomaintain the conditions in which pro-pooragricultural policies can be implemented.

Poverty of peasants in developing countriesis the result of the existence of anagricultural price formation system which


23

51 See: The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on FoodSecurity in the South. A Literature Review by JohnMadeley and Solagral, CIDSE, May 2001.

52 See: Joseph Stiglitz, Globalisation and itsDiscontents (2002), Ha-Joon Chang, Kicking Awaythe Ladder (2002), Ha-Joon Chang, Duncan Green,The Northern Agenda on Investment: Do as we say,not as we did, South Centre/CAFOD, June 2003

53 Achterbosch, T.J. et al. “Trade liberalisation underthe Doha Development Agenda; Options andconsequences for Africa”, (Agricultural EconomicsResearch Institute (LEI), United Nations EconomicCommission for Africa, The Hague, 2004).Stephens, Christopher, “Food Trade and FoodPolicy in sub Saharan Africa: Old Myths and NewChallenges” Development Policy Review, 2003 21(5). Jean-Christophe Bureau, Sébastien Jean andAlan Matthews, “The consequences of agriculturaltrade liberalization for developing countries:distinguishing between genuine benefits and falsehopes”, Institute for international integrationstudies, 2005, Discussion Paper No.73

54 This process is well described in Stephens,Christopher ‘‘Food Trade and Food Policy in subSaharan Africa: Old Myths and New Challenges’,Development Policy Review, 2003 21 (5).

leads to a decrease in these prices and, as aconsequence, a collapse in the revenue andthe purchasing power of this population.The global prices of the main products ofagricultural trade – corn, wheat, soy, cottonand rice – have fallen by over 40% since1996. A similar phenomenon can beobserved regarding other important exportproducts, especially within certain LeastDeveloped Countries. Thus, within the last20 years, prices of coffee, cocoa, sugar andpalm oil have decreased by over 60%.Between 1985 and 2002, the average worldmarket price of rice fluctuated between310$ and 185$.55 This situation is made evenmore alarming by the fact that thegovernments of these countries are not ableto grant subsidies to their farmers, especiallywhen tariff cuts deprive them of one of theirfinancial resources.

Over the last 20 years, many of theinstruments for public intervention inagricultural commodities such as statemarketing boards have disappeared asstructural adjustment programmes cutgovernment spending and reduced thepossibilities of states to regulate. Instead ofseeking to redress the imbalance, WTO ruleshave locked all countries into the existingunfair system, which is characterised bymany developing countries having few tradebarriers, leaving them little space to re-introduce trade policies to support theiragriculture sector.56

Fair prices and price stability are crucialissues as they directly affect farm incomesand agricultural workers’ wages and, hence,food security and poverty reduction. It islikely that the elimination of subsidies underthe current WTO Agreement on Agriculturewill not result in a price increase and noteven their stabilisation. Fair prices allowproducers to renew their very modestworking capital, to modernise this capitaland increase productivity, to provide for thebasic needs of their families and those ofagricultural workers and to be lessdependent on development aid. Pricestabilisation policies, and in some casessupply management, may be useful tools fordeveloping country states to use to achievethese goals. The WTO and otherinternational institutions should not imposeconstraints on them doing so. According tothe FAO, bound tariffs would need to be set

at around 40-60 per cent in order to copewith world market fluctuations in theirprices, with an additional 10-15 per cent toensure protection for basic foods.57 Policyspace will allow each government orregional grouping to put in place pricesupport mechanisms, accompanied wherenecessary by supply management, in orderto prevent and address the collapse ofagricultural prices.

In order to pursue policies that assure allresidents a basic standard of living,developing countries need policy space,rather than rigid and constricting trade ruleswhich constrain and shape the formulationof domestic policy. The Consensus ofUNCTAD XI, agreed in June 2004 stated: “Itis for each Government to evaluate thetrade-off between the benefits of acceptinginternational rules and commitments andthe constraints posed by the loss of policyspace. It is particularly important fordeveloping countries, bearing in minddevelopment goals and objectives, that allcountries take into account the need forappropriate balance between nationalpolicy space and international disciplinesand commitments”.58 Trade rules are notflexible enough in many areas to allow poorcountries to develop and implement tradepolicy consistent with both short and longterm development objectives.59


24

55 OXFAM, Kicking down the door, April 2005, p.45.

56 South Bulletin 100, 30 March 2005.

57 Sharma, R, “Quantifying appropriate levels of theWTO Bound tariffs on basic food products in thecontext of the development Box proposals”, FAO,Rome, 2004.

58 UNCTAD XI, Sao Paulo Consensus, para. 8, page 3

59 In Trade and Solidarity: A statement of the Catholicbishop’s conference of England and Wales and theCatholic Bishop’s Conference of Scotland 2003(http://www.cafod.org.uk/policy/trade_solidarity2003.shtml) it was stated that: . “Despite all theefforts made to transform the situation, theeconomic and trade relationships between thewealthy and the poor countries of the worldremain deeply unjust. If trade rules are to takeaccount of the needs of the poorest and mostvulnerable sectors of society, the process ofliberalisation must not override such primarydevelopment goals as poverty reduction, healthand education”

The challenge is to develop models foragriculture that strengthen public goods(including food security), resilientecosystems, vibrant economies and geneticdiversity. To some extent, this is alreadyhappening. Researchers at the University ofEssex found that 9 million farmers aroundthe developing world now use sustainableagricultural practices and technologies, upfrom 0.5 million in 1990. The newapproaches, which account for about 3 percent of all agricultural land, havesystematically improved yields:

- when 45,000 families in Guatemala,Nicaragua and Honduras introduced thenitrogen-fixing velvet bean into theirmaize fields, the natural fertiliserproduced by ploughing the bean backinto the soil led to a rise in yields from400-600kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha.

- Kenyan farmers who used double-dugbeds with composting, green andanimal manures found that after four tosix seasons, their land had better waterholding capacity and was able to sustainvegetable growth into the dry season.The number of households free fromhunger rose from 43 per cent to 75 percent, the number of households buyingvegetables during the year fell from 85per cent to 11 per cent and the numberof maize self-sufficient households morethan doubled from 22 per cent to 48 percent.

The current WTO Agreement on Agricultureembodies one of several different models ofagriculture. It favours large-scale, industrialfarming, and – for the South in particular –significantly narrows the choices that eachcountry can make about its own economicdevelopment. Local communities and thedomestic private sector should be allowed toprotect and promote some of thesepractices, while recognising the role ofaccountable national governments andinternational institutions in moving towardsbetter models.


25

26

CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis call on theSixth WTO Ministerial Conference to reach apro-poor perspective in integrating in itsconclusions the following proposals:

Give a clear priority to progresson agricultureGiven the development objectives of theDoha Round, a clear political priority mustbe given to reaching conclusions on pro-development rules in internationalagricultural trade.

Progress on agriculture must not be linkedto any condition of reaching sufficientoutcomes in the others pillars of thenegotiations. The Ministerial should narrowits work to reaching outcomes on the coreissues already under negotiation inagriculture and should avoid any new “issueof interest but not agreed”.

Stop trade distortion thatgenerates povertyStop trade liberalisation denying theliberties of the poor - The WTO should fullyembrace the concept underwritten in theMonterrey Consensus of trade as an enginefor development. The WTO should endorsethe UN Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) as its overarching objective. Thenegotiating process must be moretransparent and more inclusive.

Stop making the poor pay the cost of tradeliberalisation – Loss of revenue bydeveloping countries due to tariff cuts andpreferences erosion in agriculture should becompensated by trade concessions ordevelopment support from the developedcountries.

Stop dumping on developing countries’markets - Northern countries shouldsubstantially reform their agriculturalsubsidy regimes to ensure an end to thedumping of products on global markets.Through a balancing measure, the

importing developing countries should havethe flexibility to impose additional duties onsubsidised imports by calculating a subsidy-equivalent tariff.

Stop trade-distorting supports – MemberStates have to commit on a short deadline toeliminate, through a tiered formula, allAmber Box supports (trade-distortingsubsidies). A clear frontloaded scheduleshould be set up for eliminating exportsubsidies and support. Product-specific capsand reduction commitments should beintroduced by establishing criteria todisaggregate Blue Box payments at aproduct-specific level. A thorough review ofthe Green Box (de-coupled and “minimallytrade-distorting” subsidies) is needed toensure that any remaining domestic supporthas minimal trade-distorting effects andcontributes to public goods such asenvironmental protection and securing thelivelihoods of small farmers. The Green Boxshould accommodate developmentprogrammes in developing countries.Disciplines are needed on the Blue Box andGreen Box, in order to thwart “boxshifting”. Developed countries shouldcommit to develop standard harmonisationand to significantly reduce all non-tarifftrade barriers.

Promote agriculture and ruraldevelopment working for poorpeopleMainstream differential treatment toprotect people in poverty – Special andDifferential Treatment for developingcountries must constitute an integral part ofall elements of the Agreement onAgriculture. The tariff reduction formula fordeveloping countries must containprogressivity, proportionality and flexibility.The coefficients for rich and poor countriesshould be differentiated in the final tariffreduction formula. The WTO Agreement onagriculture should be rebalanced by

5. Summary of policyrecommendations

guaranteeing developing countries the rightto protect their borders via quotas and/orquantitative restrictions as long as Northernsubsidies remain. Given the remainingunbalanced nature of the AoA, developingcountries should have the right todetermine the nature and extent of theirtariff commitments in this round ofnegotiations (including not cutting theiragricultural tariffs, or raising them to securedevelopment objectives). Any attempt toreduce de minimis support in developingcountries should be avoided, as this wouldnegatively affect the programmesbenefiting subsistence and resource poorfarmers. Least Developed Countries needspecial treatment, including duty-free,quota-free access to richer countries’markets and exemption from any reductioncommitments.

Protect rural development with SpecialProducts - In accordance with its own needsfor food and livelihood security and ruraldevelopment, each developing countryshould be allowed to self-designate SpecialProducts based on an appropriate numberof domestically-produced agriculturalproducts. Special products provision shouldespecially protect women as producers andas those responsible for household nutrition.Special products should be exempt fromfurther tariff reductions and must not beexcluded from the coverage of the SpecialSafeguard Measure.

Protect food security with Special SafeguardMechanisms - In case of a drop in prices or asignificant increase in the volume ofimports, a Special Safeguard Mechanism

should provide flexibility todeveloping countries to protect smallfarmers, including removing anyfood security crops from tariffreduction commitments, raisingtariffs or non tariff measures such asquantitative restrictions.

Open policy space for sustainableagricultural development - Flexibilityshould be given to the developingcountries to develop national policies(price stabilisation, supplymanagement…) that address thechallenges of poor countries’agriculture. Local communities andthe domestic private sector should be

allowed to protect and promote some of thesustainable agriculture practices, whilerecognising the role of accountable nationalgovernments and international institutionsin moving towards better models.


27

CIDSE Secretariat GeneralContact: Guillaume Légaut16 Rue Stévin, B-1000 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 230 7722Fax: +32 2 230 7082E-mail: [email protected]: www.cidse.org

Broederlijk DelenContact: Mr. Bart Bode165 Huidevettersstraat, B - 1000 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 502 5700 Fax: +32 2 502 8101E-mail: [email protected]: www.broederlijkdelen.be

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development(CAFOD)Contact: Mr. Matthew Griffith2 Romero Close,Stockwell Road, London SW9 9TY, EnglandTel: +44 20 7733 7900 Fax: +44 20 7274 9630E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.cafod.org.uk

Comité Catholique contre la Faim et pour leDéveloppement (CCFD)Contact: Ms. Catherine Gaudard4 rue Jean Lantier, F - 75001 Paris, FranceTel: +33 1 4482 8000, Fax: +33 1 4482 8143E-mail: [email protected]: www.ccfd.asso.fr

CordaidContact: Mr. Bob van DillenLutherse Burgwal 10, Postbus 16440NL - 2500 BK Den Haag, The NetherlandsTel: +31 70 313 6300Fax: +31 70 313 6301E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.cordaid.nl

Development and Peace5633 Est, rue Sherbrooke, Montreal - Quebec H1N 1A3, CanadaTel: +1 514 257 8711, Fax: +1 514 257 8497E-mail: [email protected]: www.devp.org

Entraide et Fraternité32 rue du Gouvernement Provisoire,B-1000 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 227 6680Fax: +32 2 217 3259E-mail: [email protected]: www.entraide.be

Fastenopfer/ Action de Carême/ SwissLenten FundContact: Ms. Anette Homlicher44 Habsburgerstrasse, Postfach 2856,CH-6002 Luzern, SwitzerlandTel: +41 41 227 5959 Fax: +41 41 227 5910E-mail: [email protected]: www.fastenopfer.ch

KoordinierungsstelleContact: Ms. Judith Zimmermann-Hößl3 Türkenstrasse, A - 1090 Vienna, AustriaTel: +43 1 317 0321, Fax: +43 1 317 0321 85E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.koo.at

Manos UnidasContact: Ms. Maria Teresa ValdiviesoBarquillo 38 - 3°, 28004 Madrid, SpainTel: +34 91 308 2020, Fax: +34 91 308 4208E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.manosunidas.org

28

CIDSE Members

Misereor Contact: Ms. Alicia KolmansPostfach 1450, 9 Mozartstrasse,D - 52064 Aachen, GermanyTel: +49 241 4420, Fax: +49 241 4421 88E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.misereor.org

Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund(SCIAF)Contact: Mr. Patrick Bell19 Park Circus, Glasgow G3 6BE,ScotlandTel: +44 141 354 5555,Fax: +44 141 354 5533E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.sciaf.org.uk

Trócaire Contact: Mr. Michael O’BrienMaynooth, Co. Kildare, IrelandTel: +353 1 629 3333Fax: +353 1 629 0658/ 629 0661E-mail: [email protected]: www.trocaire.org

Volontari nel mondo - FOCSIV Contact: Dr. Alberta Guerra18 Via S. Francesco di Sales,I - 00165 Rome, ItalyTel:+39 06 687 7796Fax: +39 06 687 2373E-mail: [email protected]: www.focsiv.it

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Bridderlech Deelen 27, Rue Michel Welter, L - 2730 LuxembourgTel: +352 26 842650Fax: +352 26 842659E-mail: [email protected]

Center of Concern Contact: Mrs. Maria Riley1225 Otis St NE,Washington, DC 20017, USATel: +1 202 635 2757,Fax: +1 202 832 9494E-mail: [email protected] Web www.coc.org

STRATEGIC PARTNER

Catholic Relief ServiceContact: Ms. Kathleen Selvaggio209 West Fayette StreetBaltimore, MD 21201, USATel: +1 410 951 7449Fax: +1 410 685 1635E-mail: [email protected]: www.catholicrelief.org

MIJARCContact: Mr. George DixonTel: +32 2 7349211Fax: +32 2 7349225Rue Joseph Coosemans 531030 BrusselsBelgiumE-mail: [email protected]: www.mijarc.org


29

30

Caritas internationalis – Secretariat General Contact: Jacques Bertrand, Jean-ClaudeMichellod and Yuri MunsayacPalazzo San Calisto - 00120 Vatican City Tel: (+39) 06 698 797 99 E-mail: [email protected]://www.caritas.org

AFRICAANGOLA - Caritas de Angola

BENIN - Caritas Benin

BOTSWANA - Tirisanyo Catholic Commission- Caritas Botswana

BURKINA FASO - OCADES - Caritas BurkinaFaso

BURUNDI - CED - Caritas Burundi

CAMEROON - BASC - Bureau des ActivitésSocio-Caritatives - Caritas Cameroun

CAPE VERDE - Caritas Caboverdeana

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC - CaritasCentrafrique

CHAD - UNAD - Union Nationale desAssociations Diocésaines de Secours et deDéveloppement - Caritas Tchad

COMOROS - Caritas Comores

CONGO REPUBLIC - Caritas République duCongo

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO -Commission Episcopale Caritas /Développement - Caritas RépubliqueDémocratique du Congo

EQUATORIAL GUINEA - Caritas GuineaEcuatorial

ERITREA - Eritrean Catholic Secretariat

ETHIOPIA - Ethiopian Catholic Secretariat

GABON - Caritas Gabon

GAMBIA - Catholic Development Office

GHANA - SED - Department of Socio-Economic Development - Caritas Ghana

GUINEA - OCPH - Organisation Catholiquepour la Promotion Humaine - CaritasRép. de Guinée

GUINEA-BISSAU - Caritas Guinée-Bissau

IVORY COAST - Caritas Côte d’Ivoire

KENYA - Caritas Kenya

LESOTHO - Department of Development -Caritas Lesotho

LIBERIA - Caritas Liberia

MADAGASCAR - Caritas Madagascar

MALAWI - CADECOM - CatholicDevelopment Commission in Malawi -Caritas Malawi

MALI - Commission Nationale de PastoraleSociale - Caritas Mali

MAURITIUS - Caritas Ile Maurice

MOZAMBIQUE - Caritas Moçambicana

NAMIBIA - NACADEC - Namibian CatholicDevelopment Commission

NIGER - Caritas Niger

NIGERIA - Caritas Nigeria

RWANDA - Caritas Rwanda

SAO TOME & PRINCIPE - Caritas Sao Tome &Principe

SENEGAL - Caritas Senegal

SEYCHELLES - Caritas Seychelles

SIERRA LEONE - NCDCO - National CatholicDevelopment and Caritas Office

SOUTH AFRICA - Caritas South Africa

SUDAN - SUDANAID - Caritas Sudan

SWAZILAND - Caritas Swaziland

TANZANIA - Caritas Tanzania

TOGO - OCDI - Organisation de la Charitépour un Développement Intégral -Caritas Togo

UGANDA - Uganda Catholic Secretariat -Caritas Uganda

ZAMBIA - Catholic Commission forDevelopment (CCD)

ZIMBABWE - Catholic DevelopmentCommission - Caritas Zimbabwe

AMERICA LATINA & CARIBBEANANTILLES - Antilles Episcopal Conference -

Caritas Antilles

ARGENTINA - Caritas Argentina

Caritas Internationalis Members

BOLIVIA - Pastoral Social - Caritas Boliviana

BRAZIL - Caritas Brasileira

CHILE - Caritas Chile

COLOMBIA - SNPS - Secretariado Nacionalde Pastoral Social - Caritas Colombia

COSTA RICA - Pastoral Social Caritas CostaRica

CUBA - Caritas Cuba

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - Caritas Dominicana

ECUADOR - SENAPS - Secretariado Nacionalde Pastoral Social - Caritas Ecuador

EL SALVADOR - Caritas El Salvador

GUATEMALA - Caritas de Guatemala

HAITÍ - Caritas Haiti

HONDURAS - Caritas de Honduras

MÉXICO - CEPS - Caritas Mexicana

NICARAGUA - Caritas Nicaragua

PANAMA - Pastoral Social - Caritas Panamá

PARAGUAY - Pastoral Social Nacional -Caritas Paraguay

PERU - Caritas del Peru

PUERTO RICO - Servicios Sociales Catolicos -Caritas Puerto Rico

URUGUAY - Caritas Uruguaya

VENEZUELA - Caritas de Venezuela

ASIABANGLADESH - Caritas Bangladesh

CAMBODIA - Caritas Cambodia

EAST TIMOR - Caritas East Timor

HONG KONG - Caritas Hong Kong

INDIA - Caritas India

INDONESIA - Caritas Indonesia

JAPAN - Caritas Japan

KAZAKHSTAN - Caritas Kazakhstan

KOREA - Caritas Coreana

MACAU - Caritas Macau

MALAYSIA - NOHD - National Office forHuman Development

MONGOLIA - Caritas Mongolia

MYANMAR - Karuna Myanmar SocialServices - Caritas Myanmar

NEPAL - Caritas Nepal

PAKISTAN - Caritas Pakistan

PHILIPPINES - NASSA - National Secretariatof Social Action - Caritas Philippines

SINGAPORE - Catholic Welfare Services -Caritas Singapore

SRI LANKA - SEDEC - Social EconomicDevelopment Centre - Caritas Sri Lanka

TAIWAN-R.O.C. - Commission for SocialDevelopment - Caritas Taiwan

TAJIKISTAN - Caritas Tajikistan

THAILAND - CCHD - Catholic Commissionfor Human Development - CaritasThailand

UZBEKISTAN - Caritas Uzbekistan

EUROPEALBANIA - Caritas Shqiptar - Albania

ANDORRA - Caritas Andorrana

ARMENIA - Caritas Armenia

AUSTRIA - Oesterreichische Caritaszentrale

AZERBAIJAN - Caritas Azerbaijan

BELARUS - Caritas Belarus

BELGIUM - Caritas Secours InternationalBelgique

BELGIUM - Caritas Catholica Belgica

BELGIUM - Caritas en CommunautéFrançaise et Germanophone

BELGIUM - Caritas Vlaanderen - Belgium

BOSNIA – HERZEGOVINA - Caritas Bosnia-Herzegovina

BULGARIA - Caritas Bulgaria

CROATIA - Caritas Croatia

CZECH REPUBLIC - Ceska Katolicka Charita -Caritas Ceska

DENMARK - Caritas Danmark

ENGLAND – WALES - CAFOD - Catholic Fundfor Overseas Development - CaritasEngland and Wales

ENGLAND – WALES - Caritas - Social Action

ESTONIA - Eesti Caritas - Caritas Estonia

FINLAND - Caritas Finland

FRANCE - Secours Catholique - CaritasFrance

GEORGIA - Caritas Georgia

GERMANY - Deutscher Caritasverband

GREECE - Caritas Hellas

HUNGARY - Caritas Hungarica

ICELAND - Caritas Island

IRELAND - TROCAIRE - Caritas Ireland

ITALY - Caritas Italiana

LATVIA - Caritas Latvia

LITHUANIA - Caritas Lithuania

LUXEMBOURG - Caritas Luxembourg


31

MACEDONIA - Caritas Macedonia

MALTA - Caritas Malta

MOLDOVA - Caritas Moldova

MONACO - Caritas Monaco

NETHERLANDS - CORDAID

NORWAY - Caritas Norge

POLAND - Caritas Polska

PORTUGAL - Caritas Portuguesa

ROMANIA - Confederatia Caritas Romania

RUSSIA - Federal Caritas of Russia

RUSSIA - Caritas of the Asian Part of Russia

RUSSIA - Caritas of the European Part ofRussia

SCOTLAND - SCIAF - Scottish CatholicInternational Aid Fund - Caritas Scotland

SERBIA – MONTENEGRO - Caritas Serbia -Montenegro

SLOVAKIA - Slovenská Katolícka Charita /Caritas Slovakia

SLOVENIA - Slovenska Karitas

SPAIN - Caritas Española

SWEDEN - Caritas Sverige

SWITZERLAND - Caritas Schweiz

TURKEY - Caritas Turquie

UKRAINE - Caritas Spes - Caritas of RomanCatholic Church in Ukraine

UKRAINE - Caritas Ukraine - Caritas ofGreek Catholic Church in Ukraine

MIDDLE EAST / NORTH AFRICAALGERIA - Services Caritas des Diocèses

d’Algérie - Caritas Algérie

CYPRUS - Koinonia Caritas

DJIBOUTI - Caritas Djibouti

EGYPT - Caritas Egypte

IRAN - Caritas Iran

IRAQ - Caritas Iraq

JORDAN - Caritas Jordan

LEBANON - Caritas Liban

LIBYA - Caritas Libie

MAURITANIA - Caritas Mauritanie

MOROCCO - Caritas Maroc

SOMALIA - Caritas Somalia

SYRIA - Caritas Syrie - CommissionCommune de Bienfaisance - C.C.B. Syrie

TUNISIA - Services Caritas de la Prélature -Caritas Tunisie

LEBANON - Caritas Internationalis

NORTH AMERICACanada - Développement et Paix /

Development and Peace - Caritas CanadaUNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Catholic

Charities USA - Caritas USAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Catholic

Relief Services - Caritas USAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Catholic

Campaign for Human Development(USCC-CCHD)

OCEANIAAUSTRALIA - Caritas AustraliaNEW ZEALAND - Caritas Aotearoa - New

ZealandPACIFIC ISLANDS - CEPAC - Comm. for

Justice and Development - Caritas PacificIslands

PAPUA NEW GUINEA - Caritas Papua NewGuinea

SOLOMON ISLANDS - Caritas SolomonIslands

TONGA - Caritas Tonga (CCJD)


32

Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction · Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction at the Sixth WTO...

Documents

Transcript of Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction · Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction at the Sixth WTO...