|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
John Madeley <address removed> <address removed> 5th May 2004 The theme outline asks: âfrom a poverty reduction perspective, should smallholders persist in trying and break into higher-value agricultural trade.....or should they be concentrating on producing for the domestic market?â For those in the poverty bracket, the second option generally seems preferable. It is higher income, rather than lower-income, farmers who are likely to have the resources to produce and gain from higher-value agricultural produce. A high capital requirement makes the participation of the poor unlikely. There also appears to be a limited range of produce which could be exported profitably. The world prices of many traditional crops are below the cost of production. While non-traditional produce - flowers, shrimps, etc. - may offer some opportunities, competition is fierce, there may be an high environmental cost, and international business rather than poor farmers and rural dwellers stand to be the chief beneficiaries. It cannot be assumed that higher-value agricultural exports would reduce poverty. To quote Daryll E. Ray, holder of the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee: âThe trade approach implicitly assumes that the earnings from exporting non-staples agricultural products will be spent in ways that will increase the calorie intake of the country's citizenry. Increased supplies in a country's town markets of locally-produced staples often can provide a direct means for a country's populace to secure additional foodâ. I suggest we turn this round and look at value to the smallholder. One category of produce that is helping to reduce poverty is fairly traded produce. Many thousands of resource-poor farmers are already receiving higher returns from the sale of a growing range of fairly traded produce. UK sales of this produce rose from Â60 million in 2002 to Â100 million in 2003. With awareness and interest growing, the likely growth in sales of fairly traded products could be a more important part of the solution to the commodity crisis than supply management (SM). SM is a solid theory but there are doubts about it on at least two levels - would it work, and would it do very much for poverty reduction? Even if SM worked, and raised prices, poorer farmers would not necessarily feel the benefits, given the structure of the existing mainstream trading system in which traders not growers gain most. Coffee, for example, can change hands up to 150 times before reaching the consumer. SM is needed and may help to reduce poverty one day. Fair trade is helping to reduce poverty now. SMâs success would depend on a small number of managers. Fair tradeâs success rests with millions of people. For all this, however, SM and fair trade are not mutually exclusive. Finally, on the environmental impact of international trade, The theme outline does not mention the word âenvironmentâ but we surely cannot ignore this. Flying large quantities of goods around the world uses fossil fuels which contribute to global warming which in turn hits hardest at the poor. So to end with two questions - what level of international trade in goods is compatible with the UK governmentâs commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and to sustainable development in general? Given environmental considerations, should not poor-rich country trade be able to demonstrate clear benefits for the poor? John Madeley Caversham, Reading John Madeley is the author of âFood for All: the need for a new agricultureâ . Web: www.JohnMadeley.co.uk
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.