LOCAL OR GLOBALISED AGRICULTURE?

Sophie Banasiak

According to a report of the association Oxfam, if they had access to the markets of developed economies for their agricultural products, developing countries would realize a gain of 100 billion dollars. However, this promotion of the opening of markets is harshly criticised by Vandana Shiva. Agriculture, she says, must be local to insure food sovereignty. Moreover, exportations have social and environmental costs. Meanwhile, the disappearance of local and peri-urban agriculture is also denounced in developed countries. In the end, does it make sense to transport food all around the planet when you could buy local products that would be fresher and better, and use less fuel doing so? Should agriculture be  “localized”?

We will see first what kind of problems the globalization of agriculture poses, (I), then what can be done and is already being done to localize agriculture (II).

Exportations are said to favor development and to be profitable as much for developing countries as for developed countries. Thus, countries should specialize where they are more efficient and competitive, so that products will be less costly, and consumers in all countries can take advantage of the drop in prices.

This division of labor would be like a kind of technical progress: it brings efficiency, lowers prices, and increases purchasing power. In addition the added efficiency eliminates jobs. However, according to the theory of “sloughing” (Sauvy), other jobs are created in other sectors: indeed in these sectors other goods or services are produced to supply the new demand that comes from the gain of purchasing power.

Thus, developing countries are encouraged by world institutions (International Monetary Fund, World Bank…) to develop commercial agriculture, for exportations, rather than food-producing – for self consumption. Indeed, the opening of their markets has shown that they were not competitive and that imported food was cheaper. These importations would be paid for with the revenue from the exportation of luxury agricultural goods (flowers, coffee, meat, vegetables…). This revenue is supposed to be higher than what would come from food production.

At this time, the problem is that developing countries hardly have access to the markets of developed countries, because of the protectionist policies in both North America and Europe. It is nothing less than unfair competition, as the European Union and the United States subsidize their agriculture. So we ask,  would the opening of markets be the solution? Many think so, and a study of Oxfam agrees, as it explains that the opening of markets would bring a gain 100 billion dollars to developing countries.

However, according to Vandana Shiva, it is illusory to expect the liberalization of agricultural exchanges to favor the development of poor countries; on the contrary, agriculture should be re-localized, and for many reasons. These reasons are economic but also social and environmental.

First, commercial agriculture is not necessarily more profitable than food-producing from an economic point of view. Thus, Vandana Shiva explains that India spent 1.37 billion rupees in the development of its floriculture, to gain only 0.32 billion rupees. With its revenue from flower exportations India can only buy a fourth of the food products that it could have produced itself.

For Vendana Shiva, the “globalization” of agriculture is not at all advantageous for developing countries. On the contrary it prolongs the relationships that were established during the colonialism. Then, commercial agriculture was there to satisfy the needs of the colonizer, whereas national consumption was declining. Thus, according to an Indian economist, under the British occupation, cereal consumption per year passed from 200 kg in 1918 to 150 kg in 1947, whereas crops of non-edible cereals grew twice as fast as food cereals. That was the probable cause of the famine in Bengale that killed two million people.

Thus, exports create dependence on world prices, and an export economy leads to a loss of “food sovereignty”. For Vendana Shiva, agriculture must first feed the people of the country.

In addition, we have to take into account the “hidden costs” of agricultural commerce. These costs are social and environmental. Indeed, commercial agriculture is more “industrial”, and it needs less of a work force. As jobs get eliminated, people do not have any means of subsistence, and they have to go to the cities where they find no jobs and no place to live except in the slums. It can be a very severe factor of deterioration. In addition, there is a transfer of resources from small farmers to the food industry that concentrates the property in the hands of a few. It’s a scheme of redistribution that increases inequalities.

The hidden costs can be environmental too, as ecosystems are affected. Actually, local practices are usually more efficient and more environment-friendly. For instance water is very efficiently used and preserved with the traditional techniques of  water clocks (Nepal), “kariz” (China), “kanat” (Iran), that are systems of underground waterways. 

Thus, Vendana Shiva calculates that for one dollar of revenue for food exporters, there is a hidden cost of 10 dollars in terms of ecological degradation because of the fuel cost of transport and the ruin of the local economy. For the 100 billion dollars that would come from the opening of agricultural markets, there would be a hidden cost 1,000 billion dollars.

So the globalization of agriculture is not necessarily advantageous for developing countries. What about developed countries?  

In western countries, there is also some concern about the disappearance of local and urban agriculture. For instance, the environmental cost of transportation is criticized. Thus, a Canadian study showed that food was transported along 2500 km in the mean between its production and its consumption. Does that really make sense?

In the United States, however, the debate there is more centered on the phenomenon of urban sprawl, which threatens suburban farmland. This is notably denounced by the smart growth movement. First, it is a waste of resources, as low density urbanized areas spread to the detriment of very fertile lands. In addition sprawl requires more public services, and costs more in terms of transportation. Moreover, the contribution of local agriculture is multifunctional, and adds to the quality of life of city dwellers. Indeed, it can provide fresh and healthy food. It can help contain urban growth, and protect the environment from contamination (air, water…). Finally, local agriculture maintains scenic landscapes that can attract tourists.

Thus, the globalization of agriculture is criticized in both the South as in the North, sometimes for different reasons, but with the same attention paid to the environmental and social dimensions of local agriculture. This question becomes: How can agriculture be re-localized?

Several movements and organizations criticize the globalization of agriculture. For instance, the movement Via Campesina  introduced the notion of “food sovereignty” in 1996, at the World Food Summit in Rome. This idea is supported in general by alter-globalization movements (José Bové, Vendana Shiva…). In 2003, farmers from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas met to demand solidarity in agricultural and commercial policies (declaration of Dakar). In 2004, some French associations led an awareness campaign called “Comment l’Europe plume l’Afrique”.

Above all, it is essential for farmers to organize themselves locally to influence the agricultural policies of their countries. Thus there is in Cameroun an association called ACDIC (Association citoyenne de défense des intérêts collectifs) that petitioned to defend food sovereignty and direct subsidies to small farmers. In Senegal, there is a similar network called ROPPA (Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest).

Thus, these movements oppose liberalization (so-called free markets) and promote the protection of agriculture as the best way to develop food sovereignty and employment in developing countries. In Guinea such policies were implemented in the sector of potatoes in the 1990s. Imports were prohibited so that national production could be sold off. After six years, the output was four times higher, the potato culture had become profitable, and the system of protection was abandoned. Self-sufficiency had been reached, and the country could then develop its exports. In Bengale, productivity could be increased as well, through a land reform.

Rather than liberalizing markets, alter-globalization movements and small farmers think there are better ways to develop agriculture: the protect[ion of] local markets, through the redistribution of lands, international systems of stable prices, land reform, micro credit, land settlement, and technical resources to improve local practices (irrigation…).  

Local agriculture in developed countries needs to be defended and promoted as well. In the United States, the main issue is to resist urban sprawl. There are several means of action. First, tax policies are really important. Currently, homeowners are allowed to deduct mortgage interests from federal taxes regardless of the size of their home, which is denounced as favoring urban sprawl. That should be changed. In addition, small farmers can be helped by better-targeted subsidies (currently most subsidies go to large commodity producers).

Currently, programs that are designed expressly to protect farmland originate with local communities, states and private organizations (American Farmland Trust…). The first state to reduce property tax on farmland was Maryland in the mid-1950s. As for California, its landmark Williamson Act in 1972 allows additional property tax relief to the farmland owners who make a legal commitment not to develop their property for a decade or more. In Pennsylvania, Agricultural Security Areas were created to stabilize urban influenced agricultural use. Compensation is provided  for “giving up” property rights.  Currently nineteen states are buying conservation easements on farmland specifically to keep it in agriculture use.

Above all, what is necessary is public awareness and broad local consensus. Thus, influential local groups and foundations are really important to influence whether and how land is developed, and to build broad local consensus. They can contribute also to a better documentation about smart growth policies.  

As a conclusion, the “re-localization” of agriculture sounds rather strange in a context essentially dominated by “de-localizations”.  However, it is a very attractive issue because it seriously questions the real economic sense of the de-localization of agriculture (for reasons of unfair international trade or urban sprawl), and it also pays attention to its other vital social and environmental dimensions as they relate to the quality of agriculture and the quality of life of both producers and consumers.