Implemented in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), liberalized trade between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Under NAFTA, farmers' income in all three countries has declined, and millions of small farmers have lost their land, while corporations have reaped huge profits. In spite of the obvious failures, negotiations are currently proceeding to model new agreements after NAFTA. One of the new agreements, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) will extend the scope of NAFTA to include all countries in the western hemisphere with the exception of Cuba—thus multiplying the harrowing effects of NAFTA on small farmers and threatening food security for generations to come.

The FTAA is being written to be compatible with the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Underpinning the AOA is the idea that market forces—prices determined at the Chicago Board of Trade—rather than national policies set by democratically elected officials, should control agricultural food systems. As a result, national, state, and local policies addressing food security are being undermined by transnational corpora-tions looking to flood markets with imports from abroad.

The World Trade Organization: Reducing "Barriers" to Trade

The WTO's alleged goal in agriculture is to eliminate tariffs, or taxes on agricultural imports, to promote "free trade" in agriculture. Many countries maintain high tariffs on agricultural products to protect their local industries. If an imported product has an additional tax that a locally-produced product doesn't, the local production is protected from some competition. This is an important strategy used by many governments around the world to assist farmers in times of crises in global market prices, or to help guarantee food security through local food production. Many rich countries, however, maintain tariffs that are too high for products from poor countries to compete. So many poor countries with strong agribusiness sectors are demanding that rich countries lower their tariffs on certain products, so that poor countries can gain market access.

For example, one of the most important issues for Brazil in the FTAA negotiations is access to U.S. markets in orange juice, soy, and beef. But the U.S. has high tariffs on all three of these products. These industries are well-represented in the trade negotiating committees of the FTAA, and are based in states that are key to the electoral college (like Florida). Therefore, the Bush administration is unlikely to concede to developing countries on an issue that would hurt key sectors in the U.S. economy that are important for the presidential elections!

The larger issue for developing countries at the WTO, however, is the issue of dumping. Dumping refers to the selling of products in another country below the cost of production. Companies are able to sell below the cost of production because of the government sets prices at record low levels, and then gives the farmers subsidies to make up for lost income. In many countries, subsidies also work to assist not just corporate but struggling farmers. The WTO works to eliminate most subsidies on the grounds that they are trade-distorting or protec-tionist. But rich countries have largely won exemptions for the types of subsidies they use, while prohibiting the types of subsidies used by developing countries.

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a farm bill which sets prices lower than the cost of production for many agricultural commodities, drastically reducing the income of farmers without significantly hurting agribusiness. To somewhat offset this, the bill also allocates an additional $190 billion in subsidies over the next ten years, two-thirds of which will go to farmers growing export crops such as wheat, soybeans, corn, cotton, and rice. Developing countries usually do not have enough money to subsidize their farmers to this extent. Even a New York Times Editorial recently acknowledged that "no matter how small a wage Filipino workers are willing to accept, they cannot compete with agribusinesses afloat on billions of dollars in government welfare."

But there is no guarantee that farmers will see the majority of these allocated subsidies, and even abolishing them would not solve the problem of artificially low prices, the real culprit. Artificially low prices create a broken system in which transnational trading corporations reap windfall profits because they can buy at artificially low prices but sell at market rate, and taxpayers are set up to bail out the farmers. In the FTAA negotiations, the U.S. is attempting to coerce developing countries into accepting a wide range of painful new concessions, such as privatization of health care and education, in exchange for U.S. concession to eliminate some trade-distorting subsidies to large American agribusiness. However, the U.S. claims it can only do this if Europe and Japan also eliminate their subsidies, a negotiation which will take place in the WTO. Therefore, the WTO negotiations on agriculture have the potential to bring the entire FTAA process to a standstill.

Effects of "Free Trade" Agricultural Policies on Small Farmers and Food Security

As the FTAA and WTO would consolidate and expand the free market policies, the crisis gripping rural communities in the U.S. and around the globe grows.

Increased Poverty/Loss of Food Security

Although it is against trade law, in practice, dumping is common, as rich countries disguise such policies as subsidies. Family farmers have watched their incomes fall, as heavily subsidized agribusinesses have flooded the international market with artificially low priced agricultural goods. In India, a massive increase in farmer suicide rates has been documented as farmers are no longer able to feed their own families. Developing countries are unable to utilize traditional methods of encouraging self-sufficiency in food production, because the WTO prohibits internal support programs and import controls. The result has been an increased dependence on imported staples such as wheat and corn that have to be bought on the global market instead of grown locally. Since many countries can't afford to buy imported food, they have to increase their foreign debt or suffer increased rates of malnutrition

Unfair Tariff Escalation

The practice of increasing the tax rate on imported goods as their value increases is known as tariff escalation. Such economic policies favor countries with developed manufacturing sectors by increasing their access to cheap raw materials. Unfortunately, it also discourages industrialization in developing countries because it is cheaper to export raw materials to the richer countries for processing, rather than to develop their own manufacturing capacity. This leaves developing countries with only the smallest piece of the pie of production. Since many poor countries rely on only one or two raw commodities for a large share of their national earnings, the unfair practice of tariff escalation can dramatically limit the potential for economic growth.

Corporate Control of Seeds

The TRIPs agreement establishes global and uniform protection for trademarks, copyrights and patents. Perhaps most controversial and worrisome is the fact that it also applies to life forms. For example, traditional, plant-derived medicines used by Indigenous populations in countries such as Brazil could be patented by a transnational corporation for profit, as long as the Indigenous peoples had not already done so. It is highly unlikely, however, that Indigenous communities would seek a patent, because plants are considered to be a shared resource, not a commodity to be exploited for profit.

The TRIPs agreement undermines global access to and distribution of seeds and, therefore, the food supply. As corporations begin to patent seeds, local farmers must pay annual fees and/or sign technology use agreements that limit their use of the seeds that have been used by generations. Subsistence farmers cannot afford the cost of purchasing new seeds each year. Furthermore, the TRIPs agreement does not prevent corporations from collecting and patenting seed varieties held by Indigenous peoples. Some corporations are even researching and planning to use genetically engineered seeds that produce sterile plants that can neither be saved nor replanted. Currently, the U.S. plans to strengthen corporate protections under the FTAA, imposing even stronger requirements for intellectual property rights on biological resources than those required by the WTO in TRIPs. Because it is almost exclusively multinational corporations that patent seeds, there is no potential for poor countries or farmers to benefit from the patenting of life.

Loss of Land and Increase in Migration

Millions of Mexican farmers have lost their sources of income, forcing them to abandon their farms as a result of NAFTA and the WTO. Cheap corn imports from the U.S. into Mexico have increased from 156,000 tons to 6 million tons per year. This has destroyed the livelihood of millions of Mexican peasants, and created a massive farmers' migration to big cities and other countries in search of jobs. Annually now 500,000 Mexicans per year attempt to cross the US border to find a way to feed their families. In April of 2001, 14 farmers from Veracruz perished in the Arizona desert while trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in an attempt to feed their families. Not an isolated incident, families are being torn apart because of the results of unfair global trade policies that favor corporate profit over communities. Family farmers in the US and Canada have also felt the devastating conse-quences of NAFTA, losing land to the more concentrated agribusinesses. A mere 2% of farms in the U.S. constitute 50% of American agricultural sales. Only 4 companies control 89% of the cereal market, with similar figures in the livestock industry.

The Spread of Genetically Modified Organisms

Currently, agreements under the WTO grant unprecedented rights to multinational corporations producing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The WTO has ruled that GMOs must be treated no differently than their conventional counterparts. Thus, consumers are unknowingly being used as guinea pigs for the powerful biotech industry. Scientists have argued that the spread of GMOS drastically reduces biodiversity as a result of the contamina-tion of conventional crops by pollen from those containing GMOs. Currently, no satisfactory protections exist to safeguard our food supply from known or unknown dangers of this new technology.

Environmental Degradation

Industrial agriculture practices take an extra toll on the environment that is not reflected in consumer prices. The overuse of fertilizers and chemicals, overgrazing, and the dumping of agricultural by-products such as excrement and pesticides into rivers and streams all damage the quality of air, water, and soil, which are our shared resources. Corporate "free-trade" agree-ments continue to stick communities and taxpayers with the costs of cleanup and loss of environmental quality, while corporations reap the profits embodied in indus-trial agriculture.

Increased Food Prices

Consumer prices were supposed to decline under NAFTA—yet hunger and malnutrition have increased during the last 10 years. Meanwhile, agribusiness has seen record profits during this period. ConAgra, one of the largest food processors in the U.S., saw profits jump from $143 million to $413 million from 1993 to 2000. At the same time, without domestic support for family farmers, poor countries have become increasingly dependent on food imports. When exchange rates fluctuate, this can lead to a dramatic rise—sometimes a doubling or tripling—in food prices for poor consumers in developing countries.

Erosion of Democracy

In order to be in compliance with NAFTA, the Mexican government actually had to change the Mexican Constitution statutes regarding land ownership. This led to the uprising of the Indigenous people of Chiapas in the Zapatista rebellion on January 1, 1994 -- the very day NAFTA took effect. The Zapatistas view NAFTA as a death knell for Indigenous people. Farmers across Mexico protested the implementation of the final phase-in of NAFTA agricultural policies on January 1, 2003. A new movement called "The Countryside Can't Take Anymore!" is working to educate the world about the failed promises of "free trade" in Mexico. This situation is not unique to Mexico. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, corpora-tions are empowered to directly sue national governments (called investor-to-state rights) in the event that legislation interferes with their profit maximization. The FTAA and WTO negotiations intend to expand such investor-to-state rights.

Food is a Human Right: Towards a Policy of Food Sovereignty

Farmers worldwide are demanding an entirely different approach to agriculture and trade, one that prioritizes food sovereignty, security, and the preservation of rural livelihoods. Via Campesina, the global movement of peasant and family farmers' organizations, has led the way in advocating Food as a Human Right and is demanding that governments uphold their right to food sovereignty.

A twelve-step program for global human rights and food security would include:

1. Agriculture out of the WTO. Food is a human right and should not be treated the same as any other commodity. Food as a human right demands that govern-ments set national policies that encourage food security—local and diverse production of food to guarantee adequate and accessible nutrition for all citizens. Governments must maintain the ability to pass laws for the national security of their populations—food sovereignty.

2. Stop Dumping. Developed countries should completely eliminate their domestic subsidies for export crops. The prosecution of dumping cases in the WTO and antitrust cases against transnational agribusiness must be pursued.

3. Improve Market Access. Developed countries should address the problem of tariff escalation, the practice of increasing tariffs with the level of processing. Developed countries should reduce their tariffs, eliminating higher tariffs faster than lower ones. Without the requisite reduction of high import tariffs on processed and semi-processed commod-ities, commodity-dependent countries will be unable to diversify into higher stages of the commodity values chain.

4. Reinstate Qualitative Restrictions. Developing countries should be able to put in place qualitative restrictions on imports and domestic subsidies for the protection of and support to household-subsistence farming. Developing countries should be encouraged to produce food for their domestic market.

5. Promote Fair Trade. Cash crops like coffee, cocoa, sugar, and bananas represent the largest source of income for developing countries. The Fair Trade system is the best model for an agricultural trading system that guarantees fair prices and community empowerment. It is a model based on cooperative economics, farmer empower-ment, direct relationships, increased transparency in global trade, and decreased power of purchasing monopolies. Fair Trade now holds 1% of the U.S. trade in coffee, and is growing steadily. However, we need to ensure that all commodity crops are produced under this system.

6. Reinstate Global Commodity Agreements. These agreements, which regulate supply and demand to keep prices within a steady range, promote stability and sustainability within rural communities. Action to reverse the trend in falling commodity prices is essential to any initiative undertaken at the international level to facilitate sustain- able development, poverty reduction and debt relief.

7. No Patents on Life. Seeds, plants, animals, and their components--the fabric of life--should be exempt from patenting. Agricultural policy must preserve the rights of Indigenous farmers to utilize their cultural knowledge and collective use of resources. Indigenous knowledge (as related to agriculture methods, use of seeds and plants) should be protected from bio-piracy. The TRIPs provisions that permit multinational corporations to patent seeds originally developed by farmers, requiring farmers to pay for the right to replant those seeds, must be abolished.

8. No GMOs. Laws and regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary standards should guarantee high quality and safe food for consumers and the environment. GMOs have yet to be proven safe. Utilizing the pre-cautionary principle, any trade agreement should ban the trade of genetically-modified substances.

9. Promote Real Land Reform. There can be no real discussion of sustainable development without considering the needs of millions of landless peasants around the world with no access to land of their own. Any global agreement that is truly based on the needs of the poor must prioritize the fair and adequate redistribution of lands that have been concentrated from colonial times in the hands of an elite few. Additionally, the necessary resources must be redistributed to enable them to productively work the lands. Already, the Brazilian Movimento Rurais dos Sem Terra (MST) has a model land redistribution campaign that has achieved land security for tens of thousands of landless peasants.

10. Enforce Labor Laws for Farm Workers. Globally, farm workers are among the most exploited laborers, suffering the lowest wages. Even in the U.S., farm workers are not covered under many domestic labor laws. Any global agreement relating to agriculture should include provisions for the enforcement of a living wage for agricultural producers, and include all of the basic International Labor Organization's labor rights. These include the right to organize freely and form a union; the right to strike; the right to adequate health and safety protec-tions; freedom from discrimination in the workplace; and the elimination of forced overtime.

11. Create Policies Supportive of Small Farmers and Sustainable Agriculture. International financial institutions and governments should finance sustainable agricultural practices and the improvement of rural infrastructures. They should acknowledge that small farmers and cooperatives need policies that protect land ownership, provide access to credit, offer technical assistance, provide appropriate technology transfers, and guarantee pricing mechanisms that reflect the true costs of production. Investments in agriculture should promote local knowledge and organic and sustainable production systems rather than artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that harm the planet and place communities at risk.

12. Promote Real Democracy. All countries should guarantee that rural populations are represented in decision-making, nationally and globally. Small producers, farm workers, consumers, and their organizations, previously excluded, should be involved—and invested with real decision-making power—in trade negotiations that affect their futures. Governments must have the right to enact legislation that protects the environment, health and liveli-hood of its citizens.

Corporate globalization is responsible for the loss of land, the loss of income, and the exposure to unsafe food and unhealthy working conditions for millions of people worldwide. Furthermore, it has severely exacerbated the risk of hunger and starvation, and caused the general erosion of rural communities and biodiversity across the globe. Fortunately, agricultural policies that promote food sovereignty have been developed. We have the power to change the global food system if we work together with farmers, environmentalists, consumers, and human rights advocates to say NO to the global corporatization of the food system and YES to people and earth-centered global agricultural policy.

In September of 2003, farmers led massive protests against the WTO in Cancún, Mexico under the slogan "WTO Out of Agriculture." One Korean farmer, Lee Kyung Hae, sacrificed himself to bring awareness to the destruction of the WTO, holding the sign "WTO Kills Farmers." Despite herculean efforts by the developing countries, rich countries refused to change the agricultural policies - particularly dumping - that are reaping a fatal harvest of poverty worldwide. Because of their refusal to allow poor countries to protect their national food security, the poor countries refused to allow the rich countries' agenda of WTO expansion - and the talks collapsed! It was a major victory against the WTO, but the suffering continues - and so does the struggle. In November, the FTAA will meet massive popular resistance in Miami, Florida. Please join us in creating Another World Is Possible by opposing the expansion of corporate globalization.

For more information on agriculture, the FTAA and the WTO:

International:

Via Campesina www.viacampesina.org

Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg

Our World Is Not For Sale Network www.ourworldisnotforsale.org

U.S.:

National Family Farm Coalition www.nffc.net

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy www.iatp.org

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy www.foodfirst.org

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch www.tradewatch.org