Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction at the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong

A CIDSE- 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 9 A 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 13 Stop 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 19 Mainstream 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 26 Give 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

1. Support a pro-poor approach address the food security concerns of to trade developing countries. The daily work of organisations and A PRIORITY FOR GENDER EQUITY partners supporting women and men in The contribution of women to agricultural poverty in all the developing countries and production, rural development and food Social Teaching legitimate a security in developing countries is not political perspective that makes human properly valued or understood. Women dignity the priority for guiding international often suffer from severe gender biases trade rules. The following policy proposals resulting from the current policy rules, for poverty reduction and social justice aim leaving them few opportunities for to contribute to shaping better trade rules sustainable development. taking full consideration of their effects on people in poverty, at the Sixth WTO THE NEED FOR POLITICAL WILL Ministerial Conference in Hong-Kong. A more equitable, regulated system of trade rules and negotiations should allow for a model of agriculture that empowers the poor to achieve food security in developing 2. Give a clear priority to countries. This implies a complete progress on agriculture reorientation of the WTO rules that are currently seriously undermining human A PRIORITY FOR POVERTY ERADICATION dignity and human rights, disregarding the Sustainable agricultural growth favours the commitments entered into under sector where the majority of people in international conventions by the Member poverty work and the rural areas where they States. As a first step, the WTO should live. Agriculture is not only crucial for small- endorse the UN Millennium Development scale family producers but is also a key to Goals (MDGs). Since the negotiations have broader economic growth and sustainable progressed rather slowly since the Doha development in developing countries. Ministerial Conference (2001), there is Therefore agriculture can have a powerful indeed a need for a much stronger political impact on poverty reduction and in will to achieve real progress on agriculture achieving the Millennium Development that makes trade work for development in Goals. The skewed balance of power the world. between the 1.3 billion farms and agricultural workers and the very few international traders and large distributors threatens livelihoods of farmers all over the world. 3. Stop trade distortion that generates poverty A PRIORITY FOR DELIVERING LIVELIHOODS STOP TRADE LIBERALISATION DENYING THE Food security is one of the most prominent features of agriculture. Most of the people LIBERTIES OF THE POOR in poverty derive their food from outside International trade policies increasingly the commercial system. Therefore, have a direct and often deleterious effect on availability of food through imports as the lives of the people in poverty, mainly promoted by the current Agreement on small-scale family farmers and rural Agriculture (AoA) of the World Trade communities. The current AoA continues to Organisation (WTO) is not sufficient to push developing countries to liberalise,

4 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper whilst taking no account of the large transparent methodology to measure the reductions already made by them in the extent of dumping. In addition, Northern past. Coherence between agriculture policy, countries should substantially reform their trade policy and development policy is also agricultural subsidy regimes to ensure an lacking. Developing countries have been end to the dumping of products on global pushed away from more sustainable policies markets. based on their local needs and capacities towards an industrialised model of STOP TRADE-DISTORTING SUPPORTS agriculture that has jeopardised food Subsidies depress the price of agricultural security in developing countries. products on world markets. The WTO July Furthermore, contrary to the fundamental Package (2004) takes a very gradual approach tenets of one country, one vote and towards reforming subsidies on production consensus, the negotiating and decision- and exports which is unlikely to have a making practices within the WTO have significant impact. A clear frontloaded marginalised developing countries through schedule should be set up for eliminating all a non-inclusive and non-transparent export subsidies and support. The trade working process. distorting subsidies (Amber Box) should be reduced according to a tiered formula. STOP MAKING THE POOR PAY THE COST OF TRADE Product-specific caps and reduction LIBERALISATION commitments should be introduced by establishing criteria to disaggregate direct Firstly, the request of the United States and payments to farmers, partially de-coupled and the European Union for substantial linked to production-limiting programmes progressive offers from developing (Blue Box). A thorough review of the Green countries on industrial tariffs and services Box (de-coupled and “minimally trade- does not take into account the high price distorting” subsidies) is needed to ensure that paid over the last thirty years by developing any remaining domestic support has minimal country farmers suffering from the dumping trade-distorting effects and contributes to of agricultural goods produced by heavily- subsidised agribusinesses in the developed public goods. Discipline is needed regarding world for thirty years. Secondly, the the Blue Box and Green Box, in order to continued reduction of trade and thwart “box shifting”. Developed countries investment barriers is leading to the loss of should commit to develop standard significant sources of revenue in developing harmonisation and to significantly reduce all countries, at a time when developing non-tariff trade barriers. countries face rising debt burdens and increasing social spending. Finally, non- reciprocal trade preferences that were benefiting developing countries are being 4. Promote agriculture and eroded by both regional and multilateral rural development working liberalisation because of the overall for poor people reductions in tariffs. MAINSTREAM DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO STOP DUMPING ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ PROTECT PEOPLE IN POVERTY MARKETS Given the gap between the agriculture Dumping of Northern exports is preventing systems in the North and in the majority of developing country farmers from marketing developing countries, the same rules for all, their production on their local or regional the rich and the poor, the powerful and the markets at a fair, remunerative price. As it is weak, create new injustices. In order to allow complicated for poorer countries to developing countries to set their own course demonstrate harm, importing countries for growth, diversification and development, should have the ability to immediately Special and Differential Treatment must impose countervailing and anti-dumping constitute an integral part of all elements of duties where goods are sold abroad for less the trade agreements with a view to than the cost of production. Governments preserving the food security, rural should develop a more thorough and development and livelihood concerns of

5 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction millions of people who depend on the applicable for all products and available for all agriculture sector in developing countries. For developing countries to address import surges developing countries whose tariffs are already and price volatility. low, the tariff reduction must contain: progressivity, proportionality and flexibility. OPEN POLICY SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE Given that de minimis support (support not AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT exceeding 10 per cent of the total value of The current AoA embodies one of several production) is the only form of support different models of agriculture. It favours available to farmers in most developing large-scale, industrial farming, and – for the countries, any attempt to reduce it should be South in particular – significantly narrows avoided. Moreover, the WTO Agreement on the choices that each country can make agriculture should be rebalanced by about its own economic development. This guaranteeing developing countries the right model of export-oriented economic growth to protect their borders by maintaining or often tends to increase poverty and food raising their agricultural tariffs and via insecurity. Indeed, most poor rural producers quantitative restrictions as long as Northern are simply unable to compete against richer subsidies remain. Finally, as there is no producers with much greater capacity and a possibility of a net positive outcome from the highly capitalised agriculture. Poor and current negotiation in the near future, Least small-scale farmers depend mainly on the Developed Countries should be exempted functioning of local markets. Poverty of from any reduction commitments and should peasants in developing countries is also the receive not only duty-free and quota-free result of the existence of an agricultural access to richer countries’ markets, but also price formation system which leads to a support to strengthen their supply capacities. decrease in these prices. Therefore, in order to pursue policies that assure all residents a PROTECT RURAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIAL basic standard of living, developing PRODUCTS countries need policy space, rather than Putting a brake on trade liberalisation by rigid and constricting trade rules which exempting sensitive crops (Special Products) constrain and shape the formulation of from further tariff reductions can play a vital domestic policy. Poor countries need the role in increasing production and right and the capacity to regulate trade and productivity by small farmers, maintaining investment in the interests of national and creating employment in the rural areas development, with the necessary protection and providing food security to people in and gradual openness when the right poverty. In accordance with its own conditions are put in place. Price development needs, each developing stabilisation policies, and in some cases country should be allowed to select an supply management, may be useful tools for developing countries to improve farm appropriate number of agricultural products incomes and food security. The challenge is relevant for food and livelihood security and to develop models for sustainable sustainable rural development with agriculture that strengthen public goods attention to specific gender needs. These (including food security) and create resilient special products should be exempt from ecosystems and vibrant economies. further tariff reductions.

PROTECT FOOD SECURITY WITH SPECIAL 5. Summary of policy SAFEGUARD MECHANISMS recommendations Special safeguard mechanisms should provide CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis call on the flexibility to developing countries to protect Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference to give small farmers, including women, with such real priority to a pro-poor perspective. mechanisms as removing food security crops from tariff reduction commitments, or raising STOP DISTORTING TRADE THAT GENERATES tariffs, or imposing non tariff measures such POVERTY as quantitative restrictions. The existing The WTO should endorse the UN Millennium Special Safeguard Mechanism should be Development Goals (MDGs) as its primary replaced by another that is easier to use, commitment. The WTO negotiating process

6 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

Northern subsidies remain. Least Developed Countries need special treatment (including duty-free and quota-free access). In accordance with its own needs for food security and sustainable rural development, with attention to specific gender differences, each developing country should be allowed to self- designate an appropriate number of Special Products to be exempted from further tariff reductions. In the event of a drop in prices or a significant increase in the volume of imports, a Special Safeguard Mechanism should provide must be more transparent and more flexibility to developing countries to protect inclusive. Loss of revenue by developing small farmers. Open policy space should be countries due to tariff cuts and preference given to the developing countries to erosion in agriculture should be develop national policies (price stabilisation, compensated. supply management…) that protect and promote sustainable agricultural practices. Northern countries should substantially reform their agricultural subsidy regimes to ensure an end to the dumping of products on global markets. The importing developing countries should have the flexibility to impose additional duties on subsidised imports. Members States have to commit on short deadlines and processes to eliminate all trade-distorting subsidies (Amber Box) and all export subsidies. Product-specific caps and reduction commitments should be introduced for the Blue Box payments. A thorough review of the Green Box (de-coupled and “minimally trade-distorting” subsidies) is needed to reduce trade-distorting effects. The Green Box should secure the livelihoods of small farmers. Developed countries should commit to significantly reducing all non-tariff trade barriers.

PROMOTE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WORKING FOR POOR PEOPLE Special and Differential Treatment for developing countries must constitute an integral part of all elements of the Agreement on Agriculture. The tariff reduction for developing countries must be progressive, proportional and flexible to avoid negative impacts for small-scale farmers. The AoA should also be rebalanced by guaranteeing developing countries the right to protect their borders by maintaining tariffs or quantitative restrictions as long as

7 1. Support a pro-poor approach to trade

The daily struggles of women and men in on people in poverty. poverty around the world are calling for a The following policy proposals for poverty humanising transformation of the global reduction at the Sixth WTO Ministerial economy. There is an urgent need to strive Conference in Hong-Kong aim to contribute for the creation of international rules to to building a better world for people in ensure the ability of a globalising world to poverty and oppressed men, women and truly work for the global common good. children, providing a beacon of hope and does acknowledge global solidarity and contributing to the potentially positive role of the market changes and development of social justice. in the international economy1 but has also always pointed out that today’s world markets, including labour, trade and financial markets, are dominated by the realities of power. Agreements presented as free contracts, and so as bearing the full consequent obligations between trading nations, are in reality shaped by unequal power relations and therefore lack 1 The goods of the earth are given by God to ‘the legitimacy.2 Whatever claims are made in whole human race for the sustenance of all its favour of the markets, there are many members, without excluding or favouring anyone’ human needs which find no place on the (Centesimus annus 31, 1991). market.3 Political and international affairs 2 ‘When two parties are in very unequal positions, and the multiplicity of arrangements their mutual consent does not guarantee a fair which constitute the international contract. The rule of free consent remains subservient to the demands of .’ economic, social and political order need (Encyclic Populorum progressio, Nr. 59, 1967) to be ruled by moral values recognisable by 3 4 “The market [has to] be appropriately controlled all people. by the forces of society and by the state to ensure The vulnerable and oppressed are agents of that the basic needs of the whole society are change leading the struggle to eradicate satisfied” (Centesimus Annus 1991, #35). dehumanizing poverty, unacceptable living 4 ‘With respect to States themselves, Our and working conditions, and unjust social, predecessors have constantly taught, and We wish to lend the weight of Our own authority to their political, economic and cultural structures. teaching, that nations are the subjects of reciprocal The daily work of organisations and rights and duties. Their relationships, therefore, partners supporting people in poverty in all must likewise be harmonized in accordance with the developing countries5 legitimates a the dictates of truth, justice, willing cooperation, political perspective to fight poverty that and freedom. The same law of nature that governs makes human dignity and social justice the the life and conduct of individuals must also regulate the relations of political communities with priority to guide international trade rules. one another.’ (Encyclic Pacem in Terris, Nr. 80, 1963) These positions are in accordance with two 5 CIDSE (International Cooperation for Development principles of Catholic Social Teaching. The and Solidarity) is a coalition of 15 Catholic principle of subsidiarity – where the development organisations in Europe and North decisions that most affect peoples and America working with two thousand partner whole communities must be most influenced organisations in developing countries. Caritas by those peoples and communities. The Internationalis is a confederation of 162 Catholic relief, development and social service organis- principle of the preferential option for the ations working to build a better world, especially poor – where the economic decisions must for the poor and oppressed, in over 200 countries start with a full consideration of their effects and territories.

8 2. Give a clear priority to progress on agriculture

A priority for poverty security, reduces rural and urban poverty, eradication promotes equitable and sustainable development, and helps ensure social There is an intimate relationship between stability, cultural continuity and rural poverty and agriculture. Of the 1.2 billion heritage. Studies have shown that a $1 people worldwide living on less than a increase in agricultural value added leads to dollar a day, 900 million live in rural areas a $1.50-$2.00 increase in value added in the where agriculture remains the major means non-farm economy. Similarly, a 1 per cent of securing a livelihood.6 Agricultural increase in agricultural gross output has sustainable growth has a more powerful been shown to raise rural non-farm impact on poverty reduction than any other employment by 1 per cent.10 economic sector.7 Agriculture can and does reduce poverty and inequality, making specific contributions as measured by 6 IFAD, Achieving the MDGs by Enabling the Rural progress towards achieving the Millennium Poor to Overcome their Poverty, (IFAD, Rome, Development Goals. 2003). Agricultural development favours the sector 7 Hanmer, Lucia and David Booth Pro poor growth: where the majority of poor people work, why do we need it, what does it mean and what use the land and labour that they possess, does it imply for policy?, (ODI, London, second draft August 2001). See also Lipton, M. and M. Ravallion, produce crops that they consume and “Poverty and Policy” in Behrman and Srinivasan favours the rural areas where they live. It (eds.) Handbook of Development Economics, Vol 3b generates employment, creates income, and (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1995) Ravallion, M. and increases the ability of poor people to secure G. Datt, When is Growth Pro-Poor? (Mimeograph, and create further assets. In contrast to World Bank, 2000); Timmer, C.P How well do the poor connect to the growth process? (Harvard industrialised economies, the majority of Institute for International Development, agricultural products in developing Cambridge, Mass, 1997). countries are grown, produced and 8 In , agriculture employs about two thirds of marketed by small-scale family producers. the labour forces and accounts for 37% of the GNP Agriculture is the most important source of and one half of exports. World Development employment in most of the poor countries.8 Report 2000, World Bank. A 1 per cent increase in agricultural 9 Eastwood, Robert and Michael Lipton “Pro poor productivity has been found to reduce the growth and pro growth poverty reduction: what do proportion of people living on less than $1 a they mean? What does the evidence mean? What day by 0.6-1.2 per cent.9 can policymakers do?”, paper delivered at the Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies Not only can agriculture reduce poverty and Institutions for Poverty Reduction, held at the directly, but it can also stimulate growth in Asian Development Bank, Manila, 5-9 February the wider economy, provided it is based 2001. The World Bank found that a 1 per cent increase in agricultural GDP per capita led to a 1.6 mainly on family producers. Family-based percent gain in the income of the poorest fifth of agriculture is not only a key to both rural the countries analysed. See Timmer, C.P. (1997) How and urban food security and to household well do the poor connect to the growth process? livelihoods but also to agriculture’s broader (Harvard Institute for International Development, contributions to economic growth and its Cambridge, Mass, 1997). indirect linkages to poverty reduction and 10 Hazell, P. and S. Haggblade “Farm-Nonfarm Growth sustainable development are often Linkages and the Welfare of the Poor” in van der Gaag, J. and M. Lipton, (eds.), Including the Poor: overlooked in development policy Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the World formulation. Agriculture contributes to Bank and the International Food Policy Research viable rural communities, enhances food Institute (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1993).

9 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

including Burkina Faso and . Transnational companies are more interested in high sales volumes and in keeping inputs cheap for their more profitable livestock and grain processing operations. This threatens livelihoods of farmers all over the world, leaving them either impoverished or dependent on subsidies to earn a living.

A priority for securing livelihoods and fighting hunger Food security is one of the most prominent Not everyone benefits from the features of agriculture’s multi-functionality. opportunities of increased trade – in many Agriculture has ensured that global food cases the livelihoods of small-scale farmers production has more than kept pace with and agricultural labourers have worsened.11 human population growth. Ninety percent Few people can benefit from international of the food produced in the world is agricultural trade because a handful of consumed within the country or region companies dominate world markets. In 1986 producing it, and most of that usage lies it was estimated that 85-90% of global outside of the commercial system. On agricultural trade was controlled by five average worldwide, poor people in rural companies. Around 75% of the global areas derive half of their household income cereals trade is controlled by two 14 multinational companies. Approximately from farming. Agriculture supplies food 50% of the world coffee supply comes from and primary commodities, lowers food small-scale farmers, 40% of the global prices, provides surplus labour and capital, coffee trade is controlled by four and consumes non-farm production. companies.12 Companies gain an increased Availability of food through imports is not share of the market by consolidating and sufficient to address the food security acquiring production resources and by concerns of developing countries as trade extending their activities beyond simply liberalisers claim. According to the UN’s producing. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Transnational commodity traders and food security is significantly strengthened if processors, predominantly from developed increased per capita food availability is due countries, have the means to invest in the to increased domestic production rather production, processing, transporting and than imports. It has been well documented trading processes, giving them a massive that as a result of the implementation of the advantage over small-scale producers. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) balance of power is extremely skewed Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) developing between the 1.3 billion farms and countries’ agricultural imports have agricultural workers and the very few increased faster than their exports. Sixteen international traders and large distributors. country case studies carried out by the FAO, Huge firms control the sale of chemicals and looking at the impact of the AoA, found seeds to farmers, grain purchasing and processing, livestock production, and the sale of food and other products to 11 Smaller, Carin, Planting the right seed: a human consumers. Their market power enables rights perspective on agriculture trade and the them to set prices at the expense of farmers WTO, 3D, Geneva, March 2005 and consumers alike.13 For example, firms 12 Vorley, Bill, Food Inc. – Corporate concentration sell US cotton on world markets at prices from farmer to consumer, UK Food group, 2003. close to 50 percent below what it costs to 13 Murphy, Sophia, Will the Doha Round play a role in produce. That cotton drives down the world ending poverty ?, Au courant, p. 7-9, CCIC, 2005. price for cotton, at the expense of growers 14 Better livelihoods for poor people, the role of in some of the world’s poorest countries, agriculture, DFID, 2002.

10 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper that food imports surged after agriculture is not properly valued or liberalisation.15 understood. These gender biases constrain women’s A priority for gender equity ability to succeed in some sectors of “There will be no food security without rural developing country agriculture. What has women” Jacques Diouf, FAO Director been termed “gender exploitative General.16 It is difficult to overstate the integration”17 limits women’s participation importance of women in developing country in export-oriented agriculture, and also in agriculture. Women account for 70-80 per cent of food grown in sub-Saharan Africa, while in South and Southeast Asia, women 15 See, FAO, Developing country experience with the carry out 60 per cent of the work in implementation of the Round Agreement agriculture and food production. There is on Agriculture: Synthesis of the findings of 23 also an increasing trend towards the country case studies. Paper presented in a Symposium in Geneva on 2 October 2002. “feminisation of agriculture”, owing to 16 conflict, HIV/AIDS and rural-urban FAO High-level Consultation on Rural Women and Information migration. However, women also suffer from severe gender biases. They have 17 Hewitt de Alcántara, C., Real Markets: Social and unequal access to capital (notably credit), Political Issues of Food Policy Reform, (Frank Cass, in association with EADI and UNRISD, London, legal and social ownership rights (land in 1993). particular) and inequalities in access to 18 productive resources and services (including Hernández, María Pía, Incorporating Gender Considerations for the Designation of Special agricultural extension services, training, Products in WTO Agriculture negotiations, IGTN, technology and market information). Geneva, March 2005. Women’s higher rates of illiteracy lead to 19 Williams, Mariama, Gender mainstreaming in exclusion from new market opportunities, multilateral trading system, A handbook for policy- while women farmers are often neglected makers and other stakeholders, Commonwealth by policy makers and their contribution to secretariat, 2003.

Women’s role in agriculture According to the FAO, rural women are crucial role in ensuring supplies of food responsible for half of the world’s food not only for household purposes, but also production and have a prominent role in as food vendors and post-harvest agriculture at all levels, in home farm processors of livestock and fishery production critical to household products. In Tanzania, ILO estimates that maintenance as well as in commercial women comprise 54% of those agriculture mainly oriented to export economically active in agriculture. In crops. They produce between 60 and 80 Honduras, rural women play an important percent of the food in most developing role in agriculture, especially in the countries and are also the main producers peasant and small farmers sectors, working of the world’s staple crops – rice, wheat, an average of four hours a day in crop and maize – which provide up to 90 percent of livestock activities.18 the rural poor’s food intake. Women “A common feature of women’s work in contribute significantly to secondary crop the majority of rural areas of the production, such as legumes and developing world is the underestimation vegetables, which provide essential and lack of economic remuneration for nutrients for their families and are often their work and contribution to household the only food available during the lean and community maintenance, as well as to seasons or in case the main crops fails. the macroeconomic level. Women have In India, agriculture and allied industrial extensive work loads with dual sectors employ as much as 89.5% of the responsibility for farm and household total female labor force. Women play a protection”.19

11 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction larger-scale – and more profitable – activities Bank have already done. It would provide a (trading, marketing) in domestic agriculture. framework in which to discuss trade impact Gender biases in turn often trap women in on people in poverty and which trade rules low-productivity, low-growth economic would really benefit them. activities, leaving them few opportunities Since the Doha Ministerial Conference other than home-based employment in low- (November 2001), the focus of the technology sectors. negotiations has been on devising a set of ‘modalities’21 that will determine the depth, The need for political will scope and speed of further trade Current global trade rules are biased against liberalisation in agricultural trade in poorer countries and poorer people. developed and developing countries. From Millions of people want to be able to trade the start of the negotiations, developing their way out of poverty. All they are lacking countries have stressed the importance of is a fair chance to do so. Therefore, the rules the agricultural sector for their economic need to be changed to empower these development and for their economic, social marginalised countries and communities to and political stability. The Framework develop their economies and trading agreement approved on 1 August 2004 in systems. A new system of trade rules should Geneva marked rather limited progress in place trade at the service of international the negotiations. Even if it does not address human rights, poverty eradication and all the necessary issues, the Hong Kong sustainable development. A more equitable Ministerial should narrow its work to regulated system of trade rules and reaching outcomes on the core issues negotiations would allow for a model of already under negotiation. The upcoming agriculture that empowers the poor to series of discussions should not be guarantee food security in developing broadened to any “issue of interest but not countries. This implies a complete agreed”. There is a need for a much stronger reorientation of the WTO towards a political will to go beyond the rhetoric and stronger focus on development to make real progress on agriculture that makes trade work for development in the The trade liberalisation agenda promoted world and provides policy space for concerns by the WTO is seriously undermining people other than trade. and their human rights.20 Accordingly, Member States have to ensure that their WTO commitments are not in conflict with their human rights obligations. Member States of the WTO should also respect and abide by the international treaties that they have ratified (including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women) as guiding principles when making trade policy. The FAO’s Right to Food Guidelines provides practical guidance 20 3D, Planting the Rights Seed: A Human Rights for countries in implementing their Perspective on Agriculture Trade and the WTO, March 2005. obligations related to the right to adequate food. 21 The term modalities refers to the numerical targets for further commitments in the different areas of In this context, the WTO itself should also disciplines established in the AoA during the fully embrace the concept underwritten in Uruguay Round and new trade rules under which the Monterrey Consensus of trade as a step the new commitments will take place. The Doha forward for development. The WTO should Ministerial Conference established a mandate for the negotiations identifying specific objectives on endorse the UN Millennium Development each of the pillars or areas of the negotiations – Goals (MDGs) as its primary concrete market access, domestic support, and export overarching objective, as the IMF and World competition – and tight timelines for concluding the negotiations.

12 3. Stop trade distortion that generates poverty

Stop trade liberalisation denying subsidised products from developed the liberties of the poor countries as part of the EU Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), US Free Trade policies adopted at the international Trade Agreements, through conditionality level increasingly have a direct and often imposed by the World Bank and the IMF or deleterious effect on the lives of the poorest through the WTO. This view of coherence of the poor. The globalisation of the market needs to be broadened to ensure that economy takes shape regardless of its countries do not enter into trade or financial influence on people’s lives. Due to trade agreements that undermine their social liberalisation, developing countries have policies or their ability to meet their human become more vulnerable to short-term rights obligations including food security. import surges, which can have devastating However, much greater emphasis is also and permanent impacts on small farmers needed on developing countries’ domestic and rural communities. This sets off what policy needs – to increase productive the FAO describes as “a progressive capacity, prioritise local and regional pauperisation of small-scale farmers, who markets, add value, tackle the commodity cannot possibly compete with modern crisis and diversify. capitalised farms in an increasingly open world economy.”22 On paper, the WTO is the most democratic of all the international institutions with a Many developing countries have already global mandate. Each country has one voice undergone substantial trade liberalisation as and all decisions are taken by consensus. part of IMF and World Bank conditionality. However the negotiating and decision- Liberalisation often occurred at a making practices have marginalised breathtaking pace and depth, seemingly developing countries through non-inclusive promoted more by economic dogma than a working methods, lack of transparency in considered analysis of its probable impact the negotiations, a proliferating number of on poor people. Both Mozambique and informal consultations… The use of Zambia now have more open economies exclusive meetings (mini-Ministerial, green than the UK and , for example.23 room meetings…) the five interested parties to build consensus among the few, which is The current WTO Agreement on Agriculture then presented to the majority, contradicts (AoA) continues to push developing the fundamental tenets of one country, one countries to liberalise, whilst taking no vote and consensus. Reform of the account of the large reductions already 24 negotiating process is a pre-requisite for a made by them in the past. The AoA, as good development outcome of the Doha currently constituted, pushes countries away Round as well as a vital factor for from more sustainable options towards an legitimisation of the WTO.25 industrialised model of agriculture that has jeopardised food security in developing 22 countries by pursuing a capital and chemical FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2000 (FAO, Rome, 2000) intensive form of production, geared to exports from large farms rather than the 23 Based on the IMF’s Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) interests of small producers. from the IMF’s International Financial Statistics CD Rom (1999). Coherence between agriculture policy, trade 24 See Sophia Murphy, Food Security and the WTO, policy and development policy is lacking: CIDSE, September 2001 one cannot pretend to support developing 25 See the policy proposals developed in “A hearing countries’ agricultural development needs in the WTO for all Members. Guidelines for while at the same time demanding these improving the WTO negotiating process”, CIDSE- countries open up their markets to Caritas Internationalis, April 2005.

13 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

Stop making the poor pay the continued reduction of trade and investment cost of trade liberalisation barriers championed by many development experts and institutions is leading to the loss of The United States and the European Union significant sources of revenue in developing have taken the position to subject any countries. This revenue loss as a consequence progress on the pace and the content of of trade liberalisation comes at a time when agricultural negotiations in which poor developing countries face rising debt burdens, people and countries have a major interest, at best stagnant ODA, and the pressure to to a condition of substantial progressive increase social spending in order to achieve offers from developing countries on the Millennium Development Goals. industrial tariffs and services. This does not take into account the fact that developing Non-reciprocal trade preferences27 are of countries have already paid a high price importance to many developing countries. suffering the dumping of agricultural goods They are being eroded by both regional and from the European Union and the United multilateral liberalisation because of the States for thirty years. overall reductions in tariffs. Preference erosion should be addressed in the While the AoA forces developing countries to cut tariffs,26 which are in many cases their only means of protecting their farmers, there are numerous loopholes that allow rich countries 26 According to the Chairman’s text the depth of cuts to continue to subsidise their own farmers, will depend on the level of the final bound rate established during the Uruguay Round. Small and enabling them to dump products on the poor countries such as , Honduras, and Sri world market at less than the cost of Lanka with tariffs at or below 50 per cent would be production. This fundamental imbalance required to reduce tariffs by 30 per cent on between North and South has meant that average. Many African countries, whose tariffs developing country farmers (who constitute were bound at higher levels using tariff ceilings (e.g. 100 per cent), will be required to reduce their 97% of the world’s farm population) have tariffs by 40 per cent on average faced devastation as a result of liberalisation- 27 induced surges of imports, many of them Almost all sub-Saharan African countries are members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific produced by heavily-subsidised agribusinesses group of countries which, as former colonies of EU in the developed world. member states, have enjoyed privileged access to European markets. As the EU has extended trading With the public finances of many developing benefits to other developing countries, the value and emerging market countries heavily of this privileged access has been eroded. This is dependent on trade tax revenues, the known as preference erosion.

14 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper negotiations, in accordance with the Importing countries should have the ability provisions of the ‘July Framework’, and to immediately impose countervailing and requires mainstreaming the development anti-dumping duties where goods are sold dimension in the multilateral trading system abroad for less than the cost of production. through (i) expanded market access for The linkage of the level of subsidies in products which are of vital export developed countries and the tariff importance to the preference beneficiaries; reductions should be undertaken by (ii) effective utilisation of existing developing countries. Through a so-called preferences and (iii) additional financial balancing measure, the proposal would assistance and capacity building to address provide the flexibility to importing supply constraints, promote diversification developing countries to impose additional and assist in adjustment and restructuring.28 duties on subsidised imports by calculating a subsidy-equivalent tariff.30 Stop dumping on developing Annual full-cost-of-production estimates for countries’ markets OECD countries should be published. Governments should develop a more Agricultural products are considered thorough and transparent methodology to dumped when they are sold below their cost measure the extent of dumping, and make of production. Dumping denies fair access the relevant data publicly available in a for developing country farmers to their own timely way. markets. Dumping of Northern exports is preventing developing country farmers from marketing 28 G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005, their production on their local or regional http://www.agtradepolicy.org/output/resource/ markets at a fair remunerative price. G20_delhi_declaration.pdf The current WTO anti-dumping rules (mainly 29 Sophia Murphy, Ben Lilliston, Mary Beth Lake, WTO art. 6 of the GATT) make it technically Agreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping – United States Dumping on Agricultural Markets, complicated for poorer countries to establish Geneva, 2005. grounds for anti-dumping duties because of 30 See, for example, submission by the in the requirements to demonstrate harm to the September 2002, WTO document JOB(02)/111 sector involved. It is also politically difficult 31 for a poor country to impose prohibitive See Laura Carlsen, The Mexican Experience and Lessons for WTO Negotiations on the Agreement tariffs against a powerful country on which on Agriculture. Presentation at the European most of its exports depend.29 Parliament, 11 June 2003

Mexico and agriculture Maize is Mexico’s principal crop and major undocumented workers without labour source of sustenance. Mexico is the guarantees or benefits. The potential birthplace of maize and the country’s development outcomes of trade history and culture revolve around the liberalisation were destroyed by its other crop. Since NAFTA, maize imports have consequences: increase of rural poverty, nearly tripled, and the price has dropped malnutrition and migration; increased 64% since 1985.31 Genetically modified workloads, particularly for women; maize imports have contaminated local increased profits and market control by varieties, leading to fears of loss of transnational traders and processors at the biodiversity and increasing dependency on cost of small-holder farms; increased food transnational seed and chemical dependency and lost national revenues; companies. Under NAFTA, the Mexican and severe risks to the environment and countryside has lost 1.7 million jobs, with biodiversity. De-agriculturalisation has led little employment generation in other to a loss of culture and the destruction of sectors. Thousands of Mexicans migrated the traditional fabric of society. to the US, many to work in agriculture as

15 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

In addition, Northern countries should G The trade distorting subsidies (Amber substantially reform their agricultural Box) should be eliminated and subsidy regimes to ensure an end to the reductions should be made according to dumping of products on global markets. The a tiered formula, with higher levels of European Union and the United States support being cut more steeply should focus agricultural reforms on G Direct subsidies to farmers, partially de- reducing overproduction and redressing the coupled and linked to production- disparity between millions of small-scale limiting programmes (Blue Box) should producers and the few biggest agribusiness see a substantial reduction. Product- companies that dominate agricultural specific caps and reduction production and trade. commitments should be introduced by establishing criteria to disaggregate Stop trade-distorting supports Blue Box payments at a product-specific To redress the imbalances in the current level. This would prevent shifts in agreement, based on the unsatisfactory support among products or the results of the implementation of the AoA concentration of large amounts of and the negative impact to date of trade support in a few products. Price liberalisation on food security, developing linkages should be disciplined to ensure country organisations have stressed the that there is no incentive to increase need to significantly reduce or eliminate production. Although Blue Box trade distorting domestic support and payments are granted under export subsidies in OECD countries before production-limiting programmes, there further trade liberalisation is required from are no requirements for details as to them. how these payments in fact limit production. The need and importance Subsidies depress the price of agricultural of improved monitoring and products on world markets. The recent WTO surveillance provisions is clear.33 framework agreement reached in Geneva in July 2004 is unlikely to lead either the US or G The de-coupled or “minimally trade- the European Union to undertake any distorting” subsidies (Green Box) are significant reform of their subsidy regimes.32 permitted subsidies including payments The July Package takes a very gradual approach towards reforming subsidies on production and exports. Moreover, while 32 See CAFOD “Analysis of the WTO Framework the July Package set an initial 20 percent cut Agreement” (CAFOD, London, 2004) and South in trade-distorting support during the first Centre “Detailed Analysis of Annex A to the General Council Decision July 2004 ‘Framework for year of implementation, the effect of this Establishing Modalities in Agriculture’” (South cut is not significant due to the gaps Centre, 2004) between countries’ allowed support bounds 33 G20 statement on the Blue Box, 15 March 2005: As and their actual support levels. In addition, regards Blue Box payments which are not aimed at the proposed disciplines on export credits, limiting production, the G20 proposed the credit guarantees and insurance following: programmes, as well as food aid, include * No updating of base areas and yields: This loopholes that undermine their would reduce the incentive to farmers to effectiveness, potentially allowing members increase planted areas on the expectation that a to elude their export subsidy reduction possible future updating would increase their commitments. revenue received from the Government. As a consequence, farmers would focus more on In order to reach the end objective of market signals; eliminating dumping, the following steps * Payments should be independent from what is should be taken: being produced: This proposed change is intended to allow for a larger degree of G All forms of export support should be flexibility for the farmers to move away from eliminated. A clear frontloaded their original crops and even to withdraw land schedule should be set up for from production; eliminating export subsidies and * Accumulation of payments: If the Blue Box is a support. half-way to reform, commodities benefiting

16 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

The impact of Northern subsidies on cotton “Cotton is everything for us – our cotton is grown for export – are among pharmacy, our hospital, our schools, our those that suffer most from the high level children,” farmer Joseph Kabore tells of subsidisation in the sector. Over ten CIDSE visitors in his village, Limseyga, in million people in the region depend Burkina Faso. He has been growing cotton directly on cotton production. Cotton since 1986. “In the beginning, cotton gave exports represent around 30 percent of us hope; but with the low market price total export earnings and more than 60 and the high cost of inputs, we can’t make percent of earnings from agricultural enough money to take care of our exports. The International Cotton Advisory families.” Declining world cotton prices Committee (ICAC) estimates at US$6 billion have dealt a severe blow to the livelihoods the combined support granted to the of more than 2 million people in Burkina cotton sector by the US, the EU and China Faso who depend on cotton. Despite in 2001/2002, which corresponds to total producing high quality cotton at low cost, world exports in that year. US cotton Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries subsidies alone exceed by 60 percent the on earth, is finding itself undercut by the total GDP of Burkina Faso, where nearly strategy of the agrobusiness industry that two million people depend on cotton lowers prices to producers, and facing production. Nearly half of US support goes heavily subsidised producers from the to a few thousand growers with farms of richest countries in the world, that manage more than 1,000 acres, penalising West to stand these low prices thanks to their and Central African farmers whose plots subsidies. The US is the world’s largest average five acres and who live on less exporter of cotton, accounting for 41 per than a dollar a day.35 cent of world cotton exports in 2003. US But while defending poor cotton cotton farmers are relatively producers of developing countries is very uncompetitive, and are able to take such a important, this should not prevent all large share of the market only because of countries’ efforts to get out of commodity lavish subsidies. In 2001/2002 the US spent specialisation and crop monoculture, and around $3.9 billion on cotton subsidies, to enhance local and regional trade for more than the entire gross domestic diversified family based food production product of Burkina Faso, and three times that would both address poverty reduction the entire US bilateral aid budget for and food needs, reduce the vulnerability Africa.34 of developing countries on the world While the elimination of cotton subsidies market, and contribute to more would benefit all low-cost cotton sustainable agricultural development. producers, West and Central African countries – where more than 90 percent of

from it should not be allowed to receive Amber 70%. It is proposed that a factor or reduction be support; introduced to bring down the level of income- loss compensation due to normal market risks; * Setting criteria to determine target prices: Target prices are currently fixed arbitrarily, which * Product specific caps: This would be a means of creates an effectively permanent incentive for preventing the shift of support among products farmers to continue to produce a specific crop, or the concentration of large amounts of support insulating the farmer from market signals. A in a few products. good alternative could be loan rates fixed in 34 CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, Unfair Trade and relation to a 5-year Olympic average, following Cotton: Global Challenges, Local Challenges (CIDSE market price fluctuations; and Caritas Internationalis, 2004) * Limits to price-gaps differentials: Current WTO 35 This section is taken from Bridges, May 2003 agreement on agriculture (AoA) rules in terms of direct payments limit the compensation for farmers’ income loss due to natural disasters to

17 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

linked to environmental programmes, pest and disease control, infrastructure development, and domestic food aid (paid for at current market prices). The Green Box also includes payments to producers that are not linked to changing levels of production (so-called decoupled payments) and government payments to income insurance programmes. A thorough review of the Green Box is needed to ensure that any remaining domestic support has minimal trade-distorting effects and contributes to public goods such as environmental protection and securing the livelihoods of small farmers. In addition, the Green Box should accommodate development programmes in developing countries. Disciplines are needed on the Blue Box and Green Box, in order to thwart “box shifting.” Subsidies to agriculture should be focused on addressing development concerns for family-based production and poverty reduction. Developed countries should address non- tariff trade barriers. For instance, The Commission for Africa, established in 2004 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in its report issued on 11 March 2005, calls on developed countries to ensure that standards are not unnecessarily stringent and to help Africa in meeting these standards. It also urges rich countries to explore standard harmonisation so that African exporters are better able to identify and meet such requirements.

18 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

4. Promote agriculture and rural development working for poor people

Mainstream differential The G20 emphasised that the tariff treatment to protect people in reduction formula must contain for poverty developing countries: (i) progressivity – deeper cuts to higher bound tariffs, (ii) The same international trade rules may not proportionality – developing countries have the same impact in different countries making lower reduction commitments than depending on their level of economic developed countries and neutrality in development (competitiveness on global respect of tariff structures; and (iii) flexibility markets, supply side capacity, constraining – to take account of the sensitive nature of factors in the ability to access markets…) some products without undermining the and on their sectoral composition (e.g. overall objective of the reduction formula proportion of national production and and ensuring substantial improvement in employment in agriculture). The gap market access for all products.39 The G33 between the productivity of agriculture in developing countries warned that the North and of a limited number of developing countries with already low developing countries on the one hand and tariffs have little capacity to undertake the majority of developing countries on the further significant cuts without disrupting other hand was at 1 to 10 at the beginning their rural economies.40 There should be of the 20th century and now stands at 1 to differentiated coefficients for rich and poor 1000, if not more.36 Same rules for all, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, create new injustices. 36 Seminar « How to achieve food security: a major challenge for policy coherence », EU Therefore, special and differential presidency, 21-23 March 2005, Luxembourg. treatment (SDT) needs to be given to 37 Only those countries that provided export subsidies developing countries in order to establish at the time of the Uruguay Round and inscribed global trade rules that aim to achieve not export subsidy commitments in their schedules of trade growth but trade justice, development commitments have the right to provide those and poverty reduction. However, most of subsidies. The following developing countries have the right to provide export subsidies: , the provisions providing temporary Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, , South exceptions to general rules are in fact Africa, Turkey, Uruguay and . WTO meaningless for the large majority of document TN/AG/S/8. developing countries, which do not have the 38 During the Uruguay Round it was agreed that only right to provide export subsidies37 or the those countries that undertook tariffication were means to do so, or administer TRQs38 (Tariff given the option to establish commitments on Reduction Quotas), or provide trade TRQs. Most developing countries did not tariffy but rather established tariff ceilings. The following distorting domestic support to their developing countries inscribed TRQ commitments agricultural sectors as most developed in their schedules: Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, countries do. Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, , Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Governments of developing countries Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, South should be allowed to set their own course Africa, South Korea, , Tunisia, and for growth, diversification and development Venezuela. WTO document TN/AG/S/6. and this principle should prevail over trade 39 G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005 liberalisation, deregulation and privat- 40 G33 statement on market access, 13 December isation. 2004.

19 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

countries in the final tariff reduction farmers. Given that de minimis support is formula to allow for this. The FAO noted the only form of support available to that “tariffs were often the primary, if not farmers in most developing countries, any the only, trade instrument open to these attempt to reduce de minimis support in countries for stabilising domestic markets developing countries should be avoided, as and safeguarding farmers’ interests”.41 The this would negatively affect the WTO Agreement on agriculture should be programmes benefiting subsistence and rebalanced by guaranteeing developing resource poor farmers.43 The amounts of countries the right to protect their borders support in developing countries are via quotas and/or quantitative restrictions as insignificant when compared to those in long as Northern subsidies remain. developed countries (over 95% of total domestic support in agriculture goes to Given the lack of substantial progress by rich farmers and the agri-industrial sector in countries in negotiations and the remaining unbalanced nature of the AoA, developing countries should have the right to determine the nature and extent of their 41 FAO, Agriculture, Trade and Food Security Issues tariff commitments in this round of and Options in the WTO Negotiations from the negotiations. If this includes choosing not to Perspective of Developing Countries - Vol. II Country Case Studies (FAO, Rome 2000). cut their agricultural tariffs, and indeed raising them, to secure development 42 A de minimis threshold, expressed as a percentage, objectives, they should be able to do so. is the amount of domestic support a country may exempt from its calculation of total domestic Developing countries’ farmers face high supports and therefore further reductions. For costs in accessing markets due to lack of developed countries, the de minimis threshold is limited to 5 percent, while for developing infrastructure and other constraints. Indeed countries the de minimis threshold is 10 percent” most of the time, access to world markets 43 “Developed members with high domestic support does not benefit farmers, but rather will reduce their support levels on an average basis industries and companies specialised in only, whereas developing members which hardly international trade, whether national or give support would reduce it on a product-specific international. De minimis42 programmes are basis. In other words, a discipline which has not one of the very limited options available to been accepted by developed countries since the beginning is being imposed on developing developing countries to offset some of these countries”, G33 statement on de minimis domestic costs and other disadvantages faced by support, 14 March 2005

20 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper developed countries) and therefore should opportunities in the rural areas. Agricultural not be subject to reductions.44 products on whose production low-income and resource poor farmers, including There are also some developing countries women, depend for their basic food needs for which there is no possibility of a net and income should be exempted from positive outcome from negotiated changes further tariff reductions. in trade policy until the very long term. LDCs are particularly badly affected by some In accordance with its own development aspects of current trade.45 These include not needs, each developing country should be just trade measures: tariffs, agricultural allowed to self-designate the SPs based on subsidies, and the end of the MFA, but an appropriate number of domestically- environmental trade barriers and two produced agricultural products. The economic trends, the decline in extractive selection of SPs should be made on the basis industries and the fall in commodity prices. of an appropriate number of products and Least Developed Countries need special not tariff lines. The criteria for special treatment, including duty-free, quota-free products should be their relevance for food access to richer countries’ markets. They and livelihood security and rural should be exempted from any reduction development. The design and commitments. Specific support should be implementation of gender analysis and provided to promote their export capacities, gender sensitive policies should be including the need to address the supply integrated when defining trade policies, constraints of LDCs. While promoting these especially special products provisions, to export capacities, special attention has to be ensure that the needs of women as given to enhancing family-based farmers’ producers and as those responsible for 46 and national industries’ capacities for household nutrition are protected. The organising themselves and benefiting from treatment of SPs must be more flexible this trade. Multinational companies compared with the treatment of other investing in developing countries derive products, including sensitive products. Given benefits from increased market access to the that many developing countries bound their North. tariffs at low levels during the Uruguay Round, especially in relation to the Special and Differential Treatment for conditonalities of IMF and World Bank developing countries must constitute an loans, special products should be exempt integral part of all elements with a view to from further tariff reductions, tariff preserving the food security, rural increases should even be allowed if development and livelihood concerns of necessary and must not be excluded from millions of people who depend on the the coverage of the Special Safeguard agriculture sector Measure.

Protect rural development with Protect food security with Special Products Special Safeguard Mechanisms Under the AoA, tariff reductions in Developing countries should not be developing countries, in conjunction with expected to undertake fast, deep and across Northern agricultural subsidies, dumping the board agricultural trade liberalisation as and concentration of global agribusiness, have led to numerous instances of import surges of food and other crops and a long- 44 term deterioration in agricultural trade G20 New Delhi Declaration, March 2005, G33 statement on de minimis domestic support, 14 balances. These have particularly hurt small March 2005. farmers. Putting a pause to trade 45 liberalisation by exempting sensitive crops UNCTAD Secretariat (2004) The Least Developed Country Report, New York and Geneva, United from further tariff reductions can play a vital Nations. role in national development programmes 46 Hernández, María Pía, Incorporating Gender directed at increasing small farmer Considerations for the Designation of Special production and productivity, and Products in WTO Agriculture negotiations, IGTN, maintaining and creating employment Geneva, March 2005.

21 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction a result of the current negotiations, given measures beyond tariffs, including non-tariff the negative impact of such liberalisation on measures such as quantitative restrictions. their food security situation to date. Special Developing countries attempted to address safeguard mechanisms should provide the concerns regarding the effects of the flexibility to developing countries to protect SSM on South-South trade50 by proposing small farmers, including removing food that where imports from other developing security crops from tariff reduction countries are not significant (i.e. no more commitments or raising tariffs. If a crop is of than 3 per cent of total imports of the crucial importance to food security in a poor product concerned and no more than 9 per country, governments should have the cent of imports of the product concerned flexibility to set tariffs at whatever level from countries below the 3 per cent required to protect the livelihoods of the threshold taken together) such imports shall poor against fluctuations in prices, even if be exempted from the application of the 47 that involves raising them. This is a short- SSM. term mechanism for dealing with price volatility, not a long-term solution to the Open policy space for structural imbalances of world trade. sustainable agriculture Moreover, the value of the safeguard development mechanism will depend on the detail of the Headline figures from projections conducted mechanism still to be negotiated. The WTO’s by econometric studies have beguiled policy existing Special Safeguard Mechanism – makers into assuming that developing used primarily by rich countries - was countries will automatically benefit from conceived as a transitional instrument and global agricultural liberalisation. But these should be eliminated. Constraints regarding projections ignore issues with important the trigger mechanisms for using the current implications for most of the poor developing SSG as well as restrictions related to the countries: in particular, the supply-side remedy measures that can be applied have rigidities or lack of capacity to take led developing countries to propose the advantage of market opportunities and establishment of a new special safeguard losses caused by erosion of trade mechanism available to all developing preferences. The EU, the US and other countries to help them address import powerful trading blocs must also take stock 48 surges and price volatility. Overall, of the failure of the dominant paradigm of developing countries made use of the SSM liberal trade policies as part of export- in just 5 per cent of the cases for which they oriented economic growth, promoted as the could have used it, in large part because the model for developing countries by the WTO criteria needed to trigger its use are too and the international financial institutions. 49 strict and cumbersome. This model does not, and has never, provided The safeguard mechanism should be easy to an automatic path to poverty eradication, use and applicable for all products. Safeguards could be invoked both on the basis of a drop in prices or a significant 47 increase in the volume of imports. The new Matthews, Alan (2003) Special and Differential Treatment Proposals in the WTO Agricultural SSM should cover all agricultural products, in Negotiations, International Conference on particular SPs. Import surges and steep drops Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: where are in prices for any crop can have deleterious we heading?, Capari, , June 23-26, 2003. effects on their rural economy, employment 48 WTO document JOB(02)/177/Rev.1. Proposal and farmers’ income levels, and there is no presented by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, reason to exclude a priori some agricultural Honduras, Nicaragua, , Pakistan, Sri Lanka products from protection against import and Venezuela. surges. 49 FAO, Consultation on the Special Safeguard Mechanism, Rome, December 2004. As the SSM intends to smooth out 50 WTO document JOB(02)/177/Rev.1. Proposal temporary fluctuations in imports or a drop presented by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, in price that can disrupt local production, it Honduras, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka should allow developing countries to take and Venezuela.

22 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

the key objective of any development policy. their impact will be severely limited, if In practice, trade liberalisation often tends to agricultural markets are opened too rapidly increase poverty and food insecurity, and without allowing developing countries to widen the gap between rich and poor men maintain the conditions in which pro-poor and - particularly - women.51 Poor countries agricultural policies can be implemented. need the right and the capacity to regulate Poverty of peasants in developing countries trade and investment in the interests of is the result of the existence of an national development, with the necessary agricultural price formation system which protection when building up industries and gradual openness when the right conditions 52 are put in place. 51 See: The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Food Some economic models predict that poor Security in the South. A Literature Review by John Madeley and Solagral, CIDSE, May 2001. developing countries will face net losses, in the politically likely scenario of small or 52 See: Joseph Stiglitz, Globalisation and its medium levels of global agricultural Discontents (2002), Ha-Joon Chang, Kicking Away 53 the Ladder (2002), Ha-Joon Chang, Duncan Green, liberalisation. The elimination of Northern The Northern Agenda on Investment: Do as we say, agricultural subsidies impacting on not as we did, South Centre/CAFOD, June 2003 international trade is only one element in 53 Achterbosch, T.J. et al. “Trade liberalisation under the trade policy reform needed to make the Doha Development Agenda; Options and agriculture work for poverty reduction. The consequences for Africa”, (Agricultural Economics dogged pursuit of the rapid and unhindered Research Institute (LEI), Economic opening of Southern agricultural markets Commission for Africa, The Hague, 2004). will negate any benefit derived from reform Stephens, Christopher, “Food Trade and Food Policy in sub Saharan Africa: Old Myths and New of Northern agricultural and trade policies. Challenges” Development Policy Review, 2003 21 Indeed, most poor rural producers are (5). Jean-Christophe Bureau, Sébastien Jean and simply unable to compete against Alan Matthews, “The consequences of agricultural international agribusiness and richer trade liberalization for developing countries: producers with much greater capacity and a distinguishing between genuine benefits and false hopes”, Institute for international integration highly capitalised agriculture, even without studies, 2005, Discussion Paper No.73 subsidies.54 Poor and small-scale farmers 54 This process is well described in Stephens, depend on the functioning of local markets Christopher ‘‘Food Trade and Food Policy in sub and effective national policies that promote Saharan Africa: Old Myths and New Challenges’, rural development. These policies will fail, or Development Policy Review, 2003 21 (5).

23 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction leads to a decrease in these prices and, as a at around 40-60 per cent in order to cope consequence, a collapse in the revenue and with world market fluctuations in their the purchasing power of this population. prices, with an additional 10-15 per cent to The global prices of the main products of ensure protection for basic foods.57 Policy agricultural trade – corn, wheat, soy, cotton space will allow each government or and rice – have fallen by over 40% since regional grouping to put in place price 1996. A similar phenomenon can be support mechanisms, accompanied where observed regarding other important export necessary by supply management, in order products, especially within certain Least to prevent and address the collapse of Developed Countries. Thus, within the last agricultural prices. 20 years, prices of coffee, cocoa, sugar and palm oil have decreased by over 60%. In order to pursue policies that assure all Between 1985 and 2002, the average world residents a basic standard of living, market price of rice fluctuated between developing countries need policy space, 310$ and 185$.55 This situation is made even rather than rigid and constricting trade rules more alarming by the fact that the which constrain and shape the formulation governments of these countries are not able of domestic policy. The Consensus of to grant subsidies to their farmers, especially UNCTAD XI, agreed in June 2004 stated: “It when tariff cuts deprive them of one of their is for each Government to evaluate the financial resources. trade-off between the benefits of accepting Over the last 20 years, many of the international rules and commitments and instruments for public intervention in the constraints posed by the loss of policy agricultural commodities such as state space. It is particularly important for marketing boards have disappeared as developing countries, bearing in mind structural adjustment programmes cut development goals and objectives, that all government spending and reduced the countries take into account the need for possibilities of states to regulate. Instead of appropriate balance between national seeking to redress the imbalance, WTO rules policy space and international disciplines have locked all countries into the existing and commitments”.58 Trade rules are not unfair system, which is characterised by flexible enough in many areas to allow poor many developing countries having few trade countries to develop and implement trade barriers, leaving them little space to re- policy consistent with both short and long introduce trade policies to support their term development objectives.59 agriculture sector.56 Fair prices and price stability are crucial issues as they directly affect farm incomes 55 OXFAM, Kicking down the door, April 2005, p.45. and agricultural workers’ wages and, hence, food security and poverty reduction. It is 56 South Bulletin 100, 30 March 2005. likely that the elimination of subsidies under 57 Sharma, R, “Quantifying appropriate levels of the the current WTO Agreement on Agriculture WTO Bound tariffs on basic food products in the will not result in a price increase and not context of the development Box proposals”, FAO, Rome, 2004. even their stabilisation. Fair prices allow producers to renew their very modest 58 UNCTAD XI, Sao Paulo Consensus, para. 8, page 3 working capital, to modernise this capital 59 In Trade and Solidarity: A statement of the Catholic and increase productivity, to provide for the bishop’s conference of and and the basic needs of their families and those of Catholic Bishop’s Conference of 2003 agricultural workers and to be less (http://www.cafod.org.uk/policy/trade_solidarity 2003.shtml) it was stated that: . “Despite all the dependent on development aid. Price efforts made to transform the situation, the stabilisation policies, and in some cases economic and trade relationships between the supply management, may be useful tools for wealthy and the poor countries of the world developing country states to use to achieve remain deeply unjust. If trade rules are to take these goals. The WTO and other account of the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society, the process of international institutions should not impose liberalisation must not override such primary constraints on them doing so. According to development goals as poverty reduction, health the FAO, bound tariffs would need to be set and education”

24 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

The challenge is to develop models for agriculture that strengthen public goods (including food security), resilient ecosystems, vibrant economies and genetic diversity. To some extent, this is already happening. Researchers at the University of Essex found that 9 million farmers around the developing world now use sustainable agricultural practices and technologies, up from 0.5 million in 1990. The new approaches, which account for about 3 per cent of all agricultural land, have systematically improved yields: - when 45,000 families in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras introduced the nitrogen-fixing velvet bean into their maize fields, the natural fertiliser produced by ploughing the bean back into the soil led to a rise in yields from 400-600kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha. - Kenyan farmers who used double-dug beds with composting, green and animal manures found that after four to six seasons, their land had better water holding capacity and was able to sustain vegetable growth into the dry season. The number of households free from hunger rose from 43 per cent to 75 per cent, the number of households buying vegetables during the year fell from 85 per cent to 11 per cent and the number of maize self-sufficient households more than doubled from 22 per cent to 48 per cent. The current WTO Agreement on Agriculture embodies one of several different models of agriculture. It favours large-scale, industrial farming, and – for the South in particular – significantly narrows the choices that each country can make about its own economic development. Local communities and the domestic private sector should be allowed to protect and promote some of these practices, while recognising the role of accountable national governments and international institutions in moving towards better models.

25 5. Summary of policy recommendations

CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis call on the importing developing countries should have Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference to reach a the flexibility to impose additional duties on pro-poor perspective in integrating in its subsidised imports by calculating a subsidy- conclusions the following proposals: equivalent tariff. Stop trade-distorting supports – Member Give a clear priority to progress States have to commit on a short deadline to on agriculture eliminate, through a tiered formula, all Given the development objectives of the Amber Box supports (trade-distorting Doha Round, a clear political priority must subsidies). A clear frontloaded schedule be given to reaching conclusions on pro- should be set up for eliminating export development rules in international subsidies and support. Product-specific caps agricultural trade. and reduction commitments should be introduced by establishing criteria to Progress on agriculture must not be linked disaggregate Blue Box payments at a to any condition of reaching sufficient product-specific level. A thorough review of outcomes in the others pillars of the the Green Box (de-coupled and “minimally negotiations. The Ministerial should narrow trade-distorting” subsidies) is needed to its work to reaching outcomes on the core ensure that any remaining domestic support issues already under negotiation in has minimal trade-distorting effects and agriculture and should avoid any new “issue contributes to public goods such as of interest but not agreed”. environmental protection and securing the livelihoods of small farmers. The Green Box Stop trade distortion that should accommodate development generates poverty programmes in developing countries. Stop trade liberalisation denying the Disciplines are needed on the Blue Box and liberties of the poor - The WTO should fully Green Box, in order to thwart “box embrace the concept underwritten in the shifting”. Developed countries should Monterrey Consensus of trade as an engine commit to develop standard harmonisation for development. The WTO should endorse and to significantly reduce all non-tariff the UN Millennium Development Goals trade barriers. (MDGs) as its overarching objective. The negotiating process must be more Promote agriculture and rural transparent and more inclusive. development working for poor Stop making the poor pay the cost of trade people liberalisation – Loss of revenue by Mainstream differential treatment to developing countries due to tariff cuts and protect people in poverty – Special and preferences erosion in agriculture should be Differential Treatment for developing compensated by trade concessions or countries must constitute an integral part of development support from the developed all elements of the Agreement on countries. Agriculture. The tariff reduction formula for Stop dumping on developing countries’ developing countries must contain markets - Northern countries should progressivity, proportionality and flexibility. substantially reform their agricultural The coefficients for rich and poor countries subsidy regimes to ensure an end to the should be differentiated in the final tariff dumping of products on global markets. reduction formula. The WTO Agreement on Through a balancing measure, the agriculture should be rebalanced by

26 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

should provide flexibility to developing countries to protect small farmers, including removing any food security crops from tariff reduction commitments, raising tariffs or non tariff measures such as quantitative restrictions. Open policy space for sustainable agricultural development - Flexibility should be given to the developing countries to develop national policies (price stabilisation, supply management…) that address the challenges of poor countries’ agriculture. Local communities and the domestic private sector should be guaranteeing developing countries the right allowed to protect and promote some of the to protect their borders via quotas and/or sustainable agriculture practices, while quantitative restrictions as long as Northern recognising the role of accountable national subsidies remain. Given the remaining governments and international institutions unbalanced nature of the AoA, developing in moving towards better models. countries should have the right to determine the nature and extent of their tariff commitments in this round of negotiations (including not cutting their agricultural tariffs, or raising them to secure development objectives). Any attempt to reduce de minimis support in developing countries should be avoided, as this would negatively affect the programmes benefiting subsistence and resource poor farmers. Least Developed Countries need special treatment, including duty-free, quota-free access to richer countries’ markets and exemption from any reduction commitments. Protect rural development with Special Products - In accordance with its own needs for food and livelihood security and rural development, each developing country should be allowed to self-designate Special Products based on an appropriate number of domestically-produced agricultural products. Special products provision should especially protect women as producers and as those responsible for household nutrition. Special products should be exempt from further tariff reductions and must not be excluded from the coverage of the Special Safeguard Measure. Protect food security with Special Safeguard Mechanisms - In case of a drop in prices or a significant increase in the volume of imports, a Special Safeguard Mechanism

27 CIDSE Members

CIDSE Secretariat General Development and Peace Contact: Guillaume Légaut 5633 Est, rue Sherbrooke, 16 Rue Stévin, B-1000 Brussels, Montreal - Quebec H1N 1A3, Tel: +32 2 230 7722 Canada Fax: +32 2 230 7082 Tel: +1 514 257 8711, E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 514 257 8497 Web: www.cidse.org E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.devp.org Contact: Mr. Bart Bode Entraide et Fraternité 165 Huidevettersstraat, 32 rue du Gouvernement Provisoire, B - 1000 Brussels, Belgium B-1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 502 5700 Tel: +32 2 227 6680 Fax: +32 2 502 8101 Fax: +32 2 217 3259 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.broederlijkdelen.be Web: www.entraide.be

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development Fastenopfer/ Action de Carême/ Swiss (CAFOD) Lenten Fund Contact: Mr. Matthew Griffith Contact: Ms. Anette Homlicher 2 Romero Close, 44 Habsburgerstrasse, Stockwell Road, Postfach 2856, London SW9 9TY, England CH-6002 Luzern, Tel: +44 20 7733 7900 Tel: +41 41 227 5959 Fax: +44 20 7274 9630 Fax: +41 41 227 5910 E-mail: receptio@.org.uk E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.cafod.org.uk Web: www.fastenopfer.ch

Comité Catholique contre la Faim et pour le Koordinierungsstelle Développement (CCFD) Contact: Ms. Judith Zimmermann-Hößl Contact: Ms. Catherine Gaudard 3 Türkenstrasse, 4 rue Jean Lantier, A - 1090 Vienna, F - 75001 , Tel: +43 1 317 0321, Tel: +33 1 4482 8000, Fax: +43 1 317 0321 85 Fax: +33 1 4482 8143 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.koo.at Web: www.ccfd.asso.fr Manos Unidas Contact: Ms. Maria Teresa Valdivieso Contact: Mr. Bob van Dillen Barquillo 38 - 3°, Lutherse Burgwal 10, 28004 Madrid, Postbus 16440 Tel: +34 91 308 2020, NL - 2500 BK Den Haag, Fax: +34 91 308 4208 The E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +31 70 313 6300 Web: www.manosunidas.org Fax: +31 70 313 6301 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.cordaid.nl

28 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

Misereor STRATEGIC PARTNER Contact: Ms. Alicia Kolmans Catholic Relief Service Postfach 1450, Contact: Ms. Kathleen Selvaggio 9 Mozartstrasse, 209 West Fayette Street D - 52064 Aachen, Germany Baltimore, MD 21201, USA Tel: +49 241 4420, Tel: +1 410 951 7449 Fax: +49 241 4421 88 Fax: +1 410 685 1635 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.misereor.org Web: www.catholicrelief.org

Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund MIJARC (SCIAF) Contact: Mr. George Dixon Contact: Mr. Patrick Bell Tel: +32 2 7349211 19 Park Circus, Fax: +32 2 7349225 Glasgow G3 6BE, Rue Joseph Coosemans 53 Scotland 1030 Brussels Tel: +44 141 354 5555, Belgium Fax: +44 141 354 5533 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.mijarc.org Web: www.sciaf.org.uk

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

Volontari nel mondo - FOCSIV Contact: Dr. Alberta Guerra 18 Via S. Francesco di Sales, I - 00165 Rome, Italy Tel:+39 06 687 7796 Fax: +39 06 687 2373 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.focsiv.it

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

Center of Concern Contact: Mrs. Maria Riley 1225 Otis St NE, Washington, DC 20017, USA Tel: +1 202 635 2757, Fax: +1 202 832 9494 E-mail: [email protected] Web www.coc.org

29 Caritas Internationalis Members

Caritas internationalis – Secretariat General - Caritas Côte d’Ivoire Contact: Jacques Bertrand, Jean-Claude KENYA - Caritas Kenya Michellod and Yuri Munsayac LESOTHO - Department of Development - Palazzo San Calisto - 00120 Caritas Lesotho Tel: (+39) 06 698 797 99 E-mail: [email protected] - Caritas Liberia http://www.caritas.org - Caritas Madagascar MALAWI - CADECOM - Catholic AFRICA Development Commission in Malawi - ANGOLA - Caritas de Angola Caritas Malawi BENIN - Caritas Benin MALI - Commission Nationale de Pastorale BOTSWANA - Tirisanyo Catholic Commission Sociale - Caritas Mali - Caritas Botswana MAURITIUS - Caritas Ile Maurice BURKINA FASO - OCADES - Caritas Burkina MOZAMBIQUE - Caritas Moçambicana Faso NAMIBIA - NACADEC - Namibian Catholic BURUNDI - CED - Caritas Burundi Development Commission - BASC - Bureau des Activités NIGER - Caritas Niger Socio-Caritatives - Caritas Cameroun NIGERIA - Caritas Nigeria - Caritas Caboverdeana RWANDA - Caritas Rwanda - Caritas SAO TOME & PRINCIPE - Caritas Sao Tome & Centrafrique Principe CHAD - UNAD - Union Nationale des - Caritas Senegal Associations Diocésaines de Secours et de SEYCHELLES - Caritas Seychelles Développement - Caritas Tchad SIERRA LEONE - NCDCO - National Catholic - Caritas Comores Development and Caritas Office CONGO REPUBLIC - Caritas République du SOUTH AFRICA - Caritas South Africa Congo - SUDANAID - Caritas Sudan DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO - Commission Episcopale Caritas / SWAZILAND - Caritas Swaziland Développement - Caritas République TANZANIA - Caritas Tanzania Démocratique du Congo TOGO - OCDI - Organisation de la Charité EQUATORIAL GUINEA - Caritas Guinea pour un Développement Intégral - Ecuatorial Caritas Togo ERITREA - Eritrean Catholic Secretariat UGANDA - Uganda Catholic Secretariat - ETHIOPIA - Ethiopian Catholic Secretariat Caritas Uganda GABON - Caritas Gabon ZAMBIA - Catholic Commission for Development (CCD) GAMBIA - Catholic Development Office ZIMBABWE - Catholic Development GHANA - SED - Department of Socio- Commission - Caritas Zimbabwe Economic Development - Caritas Ghana GUINEA - OCPH - Organisation Catholique AMERICA LATINA & CARIBBEAN pour la Promotion Humaine - Caritas ANTILLES - Antilles - Rép. de Guinée Caritas Antilles GUINEA-BISSAU - Caritas Guinée-Bissau - Caritas Argentina

30 A CIDSE Caritas Internationalis Position Paper

BOLIVIA - Pastoral Social - Caritas Boliviana SRI LANKA - SEDEC - Social Economic BRAZIL - Caritas Brasileira Development Centre - Caritas Sri Lanka CHILE - Caritas Chile TAIWAN-R.O.C. - Commission for Social COLOMBIA - SNPS - Secretariado Nacional Development - Caritas Taiwan de Pastoral Social - Caritas Colombia TAJIKISTAN - Caritas Tajikistan COSTA RICA - Pastoral Social Caritas Costa THAILAND - CCHD - Catholic Commission Rica for Human Development - Caritas CUBA - Caritas Cuba Thailand DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - Caritas Dominicana UZBEKISTAN - Caritas Uzbekistan ECUADOR - SENAPS - Secretariado Nacional EUROPE de Pastoral Social - Caritas Ecuador ALBANIA - Caritas Shqiptar - Albania EL SALVADOR - Caritas El Salvador ANDORRA - Caritas Andorrana GUATEMALA - Caritas de Guatemala ARMENIA - Caritas Armenia HAITÍ - Caritas Haiti AUSTRIA - Oesterreichische Caritaszentrale HONDURAS - Caritas de Honduras AZERBAIJAN - Caritas Azerbaijan MÉXICO - CEPS - Caritas Mexicana BELARUS - Caritas Belarus NICARAGUA - Caritas Nicaragua BELGIUM - Caritas Secours International PANAMA - Pastoral Social - Caritas Panamá Belgique PARAGUAY - Pastoral Social Nacional - BELGIUM - Caritas Catholica Belgica Caritas Paraguay BELGIUM - Caritas en Communauté PERU - Caritas del Peru Française et Germanophone PUERTO RICO - Servicios Sociales Catolicos - BELGIUM - Caritas Vlaanderen - Belgium Caritas Puerto Rico BOSNIA – HERZEGOVINA - Caritas Bosnia- URUGUAY - Caritas Uruguaya Herzegovina VENEZUELA - Caritas de Venezuela BULGARIA - Caritas Bulgaria ASIA CROATIA - Caritas Croatia BANGLADESH - Caritas Bangladesh CZECH REPUBLIC - Ceska Katolicka Charita - CAMBODIA - Caritas Cambodia Caritas Ceska EAST TIMOR - Caritas East Timor DENMARK - Caritas Danmark HONG KONG - Caritas Hong Kong ENGLAND – WALES - CAFOD - Catholic Fund for Overseas Development - Caritas INDIA - Caritas India England and Wales INDONESIA - Caritas Indonesia ENGLAND – WALES - Caritas - Social Action - Caritas Japan ESTONIA - Eesti Caritas - Caritas Estonia KAZAKHSTAN - Caritas Kazakhstan FINLAND - Caritas Finland KOREA - Caritas Coreana FRANCE - Secours Catholique - Caritas MACAU - Caritas Macau France MALAYSIA - NOHD - National Office for - Caritas Georgia Human Development GERMANY - Deutscher Caritasverband MONGOLIA - Caritas Mongolia GREECE - Caritas Hellas MYANMAR - Karuna Myanmar Social - Caritas Hungarica Services - Caritas Myanmar ICELAND - Caritas Island NEPAL - Caritas Nepal IRELAND - TROCAIRE - Caritas Ireland PAKISTAN - Caritas Pakistan ITALY - Caritas Italiana PHILIPPINES - NASSA - National Secretariat of Social Action - Caritas Philippines LATVIA - Caritas Latvia SINGAPORE - Catholic Welfare Services - - Caritas Lithuania Caritas Singapore LUXEMBOURG - Caritas Luxembourg

31 Make a Difference for Poverty Reduction

MACEDONIA - Caritas Macedonia NORTH AMERICA MALTA - Caritas Malta Canada - Développement et Paix / MOLDOVA - Caritas Moldova Development and Peace - Caritas Canada - Caritas Monaco UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - USA - Caritas USA NETHERLANDS - CORDAID UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Catholic NORWAY - Caritas Norge Relief Services - Caritas USA POLAND - Caritas Polska UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Catholic - Caritas Portuguesa Campaign for Human Development ROMANIA - Confederatia Caritas Romania (USCC-CCHD) RUSSIA - Federal Caritas of Russia OCEANIA RUSSIA - Caritas of the Asian Part of Russia AUSTRALIA - Caritas Australia RUSSIA - Caritas of the European Part of NEW ZEALAND - Caritas Aotearoa - New Russia Zealand SCOTLAND - SCIAF - Scottish Catholic PACIFIC ISLANDS - CEPAC - Comm. for International Aid Fund - Caritas Scotland Justice and Development - Caritas Pacific SERBIA – MONTENEGRO - Caritas Serbia - Islands Montenegro PAPUA NEW GUINEA - Caritas Papua New - Slovenská Katolícka Charita / Guinea Caritas Slovakia SOLOMON ISLANDS - Caritas Solomon SLOVENIA - Slovenska Karitas Islands SPAIN - Caritas Española TONGA - Caritas Tonga (CCJD) SWEDEN - Caritas Sverige SWITZERLAND - Caritas Schweiz TURKEY - Caritas Turquie UKRAINE - Caritas Spes - Caritas of in Ukraine UKRAINE - Caritas Ukraine - Caritas of Greek in Ukraine MIDDLE EAST / NORTH AFRICA ALGERIA - Services Caritas des Diocèses d’Algérie - Caritas Algérie CYPRUS - Koinonia Caritas - Caritas Djibouti EGYPT - Caritas Egypte IRAN - Caritas Iran IRAQ - Caritas Iraq - Caritas Jordan LEBANON - Caritas Liban LIBYA - Caritas Libie - Caritas Mauritanie MOROCCO - Caritas Maroc SOMALIA - Caritas Somalia SYRIA - Caritas Syrie - Commission Commune de Bienfaisance - C.C.B. Syrie TUNISIA - Services Caritas de la Prélature - Caritas Tunisie LEBANON - Caritas Internationalis

32