Aprendizajes del concierge

GATT and WTO have been established on the basis of the principles of “Most Favored Nation” and “National Treatment,” both expressions of the general prin-ciple of Nondiscrimination. In our view, nondiscrimination should continue to be an underlying principle so long as it is properly qualified by the principle of Democratic Sovereignty. Yet we suggest eliminating the National Treatment rule, at least in the context of agriculture. We believe that the ethos of global solidar-ity and the principle of Extra-territorial Responsibilsolidar-ity require that nations should not be discriminated against, either in a positive or negative sense. However, they

- As a first step, countries would establish independent quality standards and certification systems at the domestic level. As a second step they would evolve these standards into mandatory requirements for domestic producers

- Based on proven implementation of these mandatory requirements, countries could then gradually impose quality standards at the border and differentiate market access conditions between products that adhere to their sustainability standards, as opposed to products that are unsustainably produced;

- Revenues from tariffs applied to harmful products in the North are channeled into an international ‘Sustainable Rural Development Fund’, which supports the transition towards sustainable farming practices and the implementation of qualified market access schemes in developing countries.

Fig. 12.4 “Qualified market access” and “sustainable rural development fund”

justify protection of domestic producers over foreign competitors at the border.

In this light, we concur with the principle expressed in the 2004 Draft Peoples’

Convention on Food Sovereignty that: “Food sovereignty becomes the right of peo-ple and communities to decide and impeo-plement their agricultural and food policies and strategies for sustainable production and distribution of food” (Windfuhr and Jonsen 2005). Indeed, the proposed policies to govern imports are grounded in the principles of Democratic Sovereignty and Economic Subsidiarity, which themselves are incompatible with the National Treatment principle.

Furthermore, the concept of “nontariff barriers” is difficult to reconcile with the principle of Democratic Sovereignty. The concept was introduced during the transi-tion from the GATT to the WTO. It has led to major interventransi-tions in support policies, patenting rules, basic services, and property laws, extending the influence of trade rules into domestic politics far behind borders. But the weight given to the concept of “nontariff barriers” undermines the right of people and communities to organize their affairs – for example support to farmers, intellectual property rights, and land tenure laws – according to their preferences. The language of “nontariff barriers”

has a reductionist effect; it boils down complex and diverse political arrangements to mere obstacles to trade. In accordance with the principle of Democratic Sovereignty, trade policy rule-making should not interfere with domestic politics, but should con-centrate instead on market access issues and on quality standards for international exchanges.

However, the principle of Democratic Sovereignty is circumscribed by the right of other people and communities to their own right to sovereignty. In other words, the freedom of a nation ends where the freedom of another nation begins. This is where the principle of Extra-territorial Responsibility comes into play, i.e. nations

have to be held accountable for the external trans-border effects of their policies that might harm other countries. The most obvious examples are export subsidies, domestic support influencing export prices, food aid etc. that lead to dumping on international and foreign markets. It is on the basis of Extra-territorial Responsibility that such policies must be abolished, and not on the grounds of establishing a global level playing field.

Moreover, the principle of Democratic Sovereignty is also circumscribed by the principle of Trade Justice. The latter principle, especially if understood as a systemic differential treatment of countries, seeks to address the drastic inequalities among nations in the world; it systematically privileges less powerful nations over more powerful ones and requires that rights and duties must be distributed unequally, i.e.

according to respective needs and capacities.

Finally, any new multi-lateral institution on agricultural trade would have to be established under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the foundational principles enshrined in the UN Charter would naturally govern the new trade insti-tution. As a result, all of the UN instruments on human rights, most notably the UN Declaration on Human Rights would underpin the new trade institution as well. By contrast with the goal of economic efficiency that is currently the dominant objec-tive of the WTO, the new multi-lateral trade institution would be governed by the principles of Human Rights, Environmental Integrity, Trade Justice, and Economic Subsidiarity. The goal of economic efficiency would step back to become one among other means available to maximize employment opportunities and to achieve decent livelihoods, as well as environmental security and social justice.

References

Ash M, Livezey J, Dohlman E (2006) Soybean backgrounder. Economic research service (ERS) of US Department of Agriculture, USA

Baldwin RE (2005) Who finances the Queen’s CAP payments? CEPS Policy Brief, no. 88, December

Barrett HR, Browne AW, Harris PJC, Cadoret K (2001) Smallholder farmers and organic cer-tification: Accessing the EU market from the developing world. Biol Agric Hortic 19:

183–199

Clay J (2004) World agriculture and the environment. A commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices. Island Press, Washington, DC

Dabbert S, Häring A, Zanoli R (2002) Politik für den Öko-Landbau. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart Dahlberg KA (2002) Green revolution. In: Munn T (ed) Encyclopedia of global environmental

change, vol. 3. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 347–352

FAO (ed) (2005) Earth trends data tables: Agriculture and food. http://earthtrends.wri.org/

pdf_library/data_tables/agr1_2005.pdf

FAOSTAT (2006) Statistical database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Accessed 30 November 2006

Glipo A (2006) Achieving food and livelihood security in developing countries: The need for a stronger governance of imports. EcoFair Trade Dialogue Discussion Paper no. 2. www.ecofair-trade.org

Hawken P, Lovins A, Lovins H (1999) Natural capitalism. Creating the next industrial revolution.

Little, Brown, and Company, Boston

IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) (2002) IFOAM norms for organic production and processing: IFOAM Basic Standards. IFOAM, Victoria

IFOAM (2006) The world of organic agriculture: More than 31 million hectares worldwide.

Statistics and Emerging Trends 2006. IFOAM, Bonn

International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture (2003) Manifesto on the future of food. Florence, Region of Tuscany

Korten DC (1999) The post-corporate world: Life after capitalism. West Hartford, San Francisco, CA

Lorenzen H (2007) Qualified market access. How to include environmental and social conditions in trade agreements. EcoFair Trade Dialogue Discussion Paper no. 5.www.ecofair-trade.org Malhotra K (2006) A sustainable human development approach to the role of exports in a national

development strategy. EcoFair Trade Dialogue Discussion Paper no. 4.www.ecofair-trade.org Maynard R, Green M (2006) Organic works. Providing more jobs through organic

farm-ing and local food supply. Study for the Soil Association. http://www.soilassociation.

org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/f194c3c4ae11f3578025716c005 84962/$FILE/organic_works.pdf

Offermann F, Nieberg H (2000) Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Organic farming in Europe. Economics and policy, vol. 5. University of Hohenheim (ed) Stuttgart-Hohenheim

Ongwen O, Wright S (2007) Small farmers and the future of sustainable agriculture. EcoFair Trade Discussion Paper no. 7.www.ecofair-trade.org

Pretty JN (1995) Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance.

Earthscan, London

Reichert T (2006) A closer look at EU agricultural subsidies. Developing modification criteria.

ABL and Germanwatch, Hamm/Berlin.www.germanwatch.org/tw/eu-agr05e.pdf

Rosset PM (2006) Food is different: Why the WTO should get out of agriculture. Zed Books, London

Sachs W, Santarius T (2007) World trade and the regeneration of agriculture. EcoFair Trade Dialogue Discussion Paper no. 9.www.ecofair-trade.org

South Centre (2006) Operationalizing the concept of policy space in the UNCTAD XI mid-term review context. South Centre, Geneva

Vocke G, Allen EW, Ali M (2005) Wheat backgrounder. Economic Research Service (ERS) of US Department of Agriculture, USA

Wade R (2005) What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The world trade organ-isation and the shrinking of “development space.” In: Gallagher KP (ed) Putting development first: The importance of policy space in the WTO and IFIs. Zed Books, London, pp. 80–101 Windfuhr M, Jonsen J (2005) Food sovereignty – Towards democracy in localized food systems.

ITDG/FIAN International, Chippenham, Wiltshire

WSSD (World Summit of Sustainable Development) (2002) Plan of implementation

Epilogue: The Schweisfurth Foundation – A