What Is the Role of FAO with Respect to National and International Market Regulation In

What is the role of FAO with respect to national and international market regulation in order to support family farming ? A question raised at the 66th Session of the FAO Committee on Commodity Problems by Alex Danau, Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires

Five regional networks and federations of Producers Organisations from Africa and the Caribbean, the five Canadian producers organisations involved in supply management and a number of NGOs attended the 66th Session of the FAO Committee on Commodity Problems in Rome from 23-25 April 2007. The CCP is composed of 111 Member States and is one of the eight Specialised Committees. The aim of the CCP is to inform the FAO governing bodies about matters relating to trade in agricultural produce. The agenda was extremely interesting given its relevance to family farming. The issues of developments on commodity markets, the implications of the rapid economic growth of India and China for international agricultural commodity markets, the effects and control of import surges in Developing Countries, the management of supply on international commodity markets and aid for trade for developing countries had all been covered in preparatory notes by the Secretariat and were « discussed » at the Session. The Civil Society Organisations estimated it was very important to explain the need of controlling imports and strengthening the market position of producers through supply management measures. They therefore organised a side event and drew up a declaration which was presented at the CCP session. At the side event and in the declaration, the FAO – the oldest and one of the most important United Nations organisations – was asked what role it could play in regulating national and international markets in order to support family farming. And the answer was delivered implicitly through the fact that none of the FAO « experts » were ready to participate in the discussion, preferring to reserve their contributions for the Committee session. It was perhaps understandable that the organisation’s « employees » should wish to offer the fruit of their labour to their employers first. But did they have to bury the issue of supply management, ignoring the aspirations of producer organisations? It is fortunate that the studies on the causes and effects of import surges and openings for the effective use of special safeguards provide a little breathing space for family farming. The adoption of the report of the 66th Session of the FAO Committee on Commodity Problems demonstrated the extent to which the organisation has been overpowered, excluded from the key political debate and reduced to « going through the motions. » The discussion focused almost exclusively on a single sentence in the draft report (our translation of the CCP draft report W/J9808/f). « Some members expressed their concern regarding the 2006 publication on the state of agricultural commodity markets, particularly certain statements which they felt implied that some developing countries would be negatively impacted by trade liberalisation » (§ 19). How many more precautions and circumlocutions could have been used to safely pronounce two words - negatively impacted - in connection with trade liberalisation? The terms « negatively impacted » were finally changed into « unable to benefit from liberalisation ». During the discussion of the same report, thanks to the intervention of a Canadian Farmers Organisation, the Committee accepted to change the first wording about the assessment of the supply management measures. Fortunately, the first very negative wording « The Committee concluded that the international agreements on supply management were neither convenient nor appropriate » (our translation of the CCP draft report W/J9808/f) could be changed into « The Committee concluded that the international agreements on supply management were facing important practical problems”, and the words « nor appropriate » were deleted. All the concerns expressed by the organisers of the side event are undiminished. The FAO has been sidelined from the fundamental policy issues concerning the situation of rural populations, and it is policies that family farming so desperately needs. Even so, provided they organise themselves effectively, producer organisations can still use instruments to remedy the weakness of their negotiating position on agricultural commodity markets. Supply management and collective marketing have already proved their worth.