But delegates from developed countries argue that what Africa needs is to produce goods of high quality. If they do so, they would surmount the effects of subsidy policies.
Nevertheless, at the end of the summit, European countries agreed to reduce subsidies for their farmers, but they did not give targets and a timeframe of doing so. America also agreed the issue was under consideration, but it did not give strong commitments on what it was going to do.
Subsidy issue is like a thorn in the flesh for many developing countries. Speakers on Distortion of African Commodity Prices-Perpetuating of African Poverty at one of the summit sessions claimed that developed countries are using all arsenals at their disposal to frustrate Africa’s efforts to develop and eradicate poverty through rewarding agriculture practices.
Methods such as those requiring African commodities to meet certain standards and the intellectual property rights are being used to deny the continent access to developed countries’ markets, they say.
“ Because they have better technology, they are putting standards which determine the prices of the African commodities on the international market. Yet most African goods, due to technological problems, cannot meet these standards,” explains Joad Uthu, coordinator of the National Forum for Mozambican NGOs and Community Based Organisations (CBOs).
In his keynote speech on Distortion of African Commodity Prices-Perpetuating of African Poverty, Uthu gave the example of how over a period of about five years, Mozambique lost over $40 million due to price distortions of one of its crops on the world market.
Another graphic example he gave was of how heavy subsides affect Africa. He says, whereas Mozambican farmer spends $240 to produce a tonne of sugar compared to $660 spent by a European counterpart, the European farmer could still sell his or her sugar cheaply in Mozambique.
“ Consequently, African farmers, who produce under difficult conditions using costly inputs, give up farming because it is not profitable,” says Jessica Nkuuhe, associate director of Isis-Wicce, a Ugandan NGO.
“ The tragedy of it all is that unlike developed countries, Africa depends solely on agriculture for the survival of its people. And if it fails, even minimal standards of living are not feasible,” she adds.
Whereas developed countries subsidise about 55 per cent of their agricultural commodities, the same does not apply to African farmers. Hence, they cannot compete favourably with their Western counterparts.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, for instance, collectively gives their farmers subsidies of one billion dollars everyday. This translates to $365 billion annually. Recently, the Bush administration granted American farmers an extra $180 billion in form of subsidies.
The decision was roundly condemned as a show of insincerity to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which gives African countries easy access to American markets.
Speaking at the launch of a documentary on poverty and other related issues during WSSD, Hama Arba Diallo, Executive Secretary for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said addressing the subsidy issue can solve the poverty situation in Africa.
He gave the example of how several years ago he found it very difficult to sell his meat products on the international market because he could not compete with subsidised products from the Western countries.
“ Over 70 per cent of the African people, particularly women and children, live in the rural areas and depend solely on agriculture. Hence, if you improve the prices of their commodities, the issue of poverty will be significantly addressed,” notes Diallo.
As these scenarios play themselves out, institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are also accused of conspiring with developed countries and multinationals to ‘kill’ Africa’s prospects of development.
The World Bank, in particular, came under attack during the summit for promoting interests of Western countries. In Mozambique, for instance, Uthu says the bank wanted the lifting of import substitution on sugar.
“This,” he adds, “would improve the market for developed countries to come in, but at the same time perpetuate the suffering of the Mozambican people.” The bank is said to push similar policies in other African and developing countries.
In more recent times, some people have been claiming that food aid was also a new weapon being used to distort prices on the international market.
Paulo Cuinica, advocacy officer of Oxfam international, argues that food aid from countries like the United States is meant to manipulate and discourage agricultural production in developing countries.
However, speakers at the Johannesburg summit thought the policy of subsidies was one of the many instruments that put the death nail in Africa’s efforts to get favourable prices for her commodities on the world market. They also cite WTO rules as another instrument.
African scholars and civil society members attending the summit described WTO as one of the biggest enemies of agricultural development in Africa.
African countries are said to lack enough representation on WTO committees, which can enable them influence policies from within. Economic experts at the meeting said most African countries have less than seven representatives.
This, they add, is not a sufficient number to influence decisions, especially if passed through voting.
One of the problems cited was that African countries find it expensive to sustain many people in countries where such organisations are based.
Cuinica suggests that to increase participation of African countries, WTO should be decentralised and its selection rules of who participates made flexible.
Alternatively, other people want African countries to fight the process of how these rules are made before they start being executed. Also, the mentality of Northern countries about the agricultural goods coming from the South has to be changed.
In all this trade dynamics, Nkuuhe says women suffer more than anybody else. She, therefore, wants African women to have a central place when decisions are being made, “because they are the majority who farm, and what happens on the international scene hurt them most.”
“ What needs to be done is fight globalisation that gives more opportunities to the rich, and takes more from those already impoverished,” Ann Johnson from Zimbabwe adds.
An AWC Feature