OBSERVACIONES

It has been an ongoing bone of contention for developing countries that they have been given very limited access to CAC activities (and other organizations listed in the agreement), as far as their participation in expert panel meetings and their ability to influence decisions are concerned. Industrialized countries have far larger delegations than developing countries. As a rule, the EU and the US make up almost half of all participants in the commission and expert panels. Another problem area is the influence exerted by transnational food corporations upon CAC negotiations. They are members of governmental delegations from industrialized countries and are granted observer status during meetings in their capacity as representatives of international industry associations. During the 19th meeting session, one quarter of participants were directly linked to industry. Only 1% were NGO representatives serving public interests like consumer or health protection. The highly delicate task of the Codex Alimentarius of setting balanced international standards serving both

health protection as well as easing trade regulations, is not made any easier due to the overpowering influence of lobbyists working mainly for free trade.

Another international, value-driven approach toward sustainable solutions is eco- logical agriculture. Ecological agriculture has the longest tradition of defining and supervising extensive agricultural production standards. Its international governing body IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) defines basic principles and general benchmarks for worldwide organic agriculture: • The Principle of Health: Organic Agriculture should sustain and enhance the

health of soil, plant, animal, human, and planet as one and indivisible.

• The Principle of Ecology: Organic Agriculture should be based on living eco- logical systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them, and help sustain them.

• The Principle of Fairness: Organic Agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities. • The Principle of Care: Organic Agriculture should be managed in

a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations and the environment (http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html).

International guidelines have been adapted and refined by regional and national member organizations in order to create specifications tailored to local requirements for organic agriculture. Organic agriculture not only aspires to producing pure food and greater biodiversity, but in a similar vein to “conservation agriculture,” higher shares of humus in the soil and more carbon sequestering. The FAO in its confer- ence report on organic agriculture and food safety held in conjunction with IFOAM, states that organic agriculture has a number of advantages:

The entire eco-agrarian system is more solid due to higher humus content of soil. This entails better water retention and reduces the need for irrigation, while increasing yields during periods of drought. In comparison to conventional agricul- ture its climate footprint is positive. Many studies have shown that fossil fuel use for fertilizers is one third lower; soils sequesters twice as much CO2, while nitrogen or nitrous oxide emissions are also reduced. In contrast, methane emissions due to animal husbandry and rice cultivation are approximately equal. “Conservation agri- culture” with its zero tillage can show better greenhouse gas balance per surface unit or food unit. These emissions, however, do not take into account the normally required amounts of pesticides and artificial fertilizer.

Organic agriculture practiced in low-yield areas can lead to immediate increases in productivity, especially if the areas had not been cultivated in a sustainable fash- ion. In these cases, the World Bank recommends either organic agriculture practices or methods that closely resemble those of organic agriculture. The biggest obstacles for the application of these methods in developing countries is the fact that they are “knowledge-based” and require a relatively high amount of consultation and a min- imum of education. In favored areas in Europe and the US, somewhat lower yields

and higher production costs are to be expected in comparison with conventional cul- tivation. Therefore, in order to be profitable for farmers, organic products will have to be sold at a premium.

This necessitated reliable labeling of organic food products right from the start. At the beginning, independent associations created and administered appropriate food labels and methods of certification. Although the surveillance and control mechanisms worked well, the multiplicity of varying labels depicting very similar, if not totally identical standards, were soon seen as a major obstacle to increasing market share of organic products. As terms like “organic” and “ecological” had no trademark protection, “copycats” managed to mark conventional food items with the same labels, which confused consumers and did not help to build consumer confi- dence. As of 1991, terms like “organic” and “ecological” have been protected by the EU and may only be used for food items produced and certified in compliance with appropriate EU regulations. These standards conform to European organic agricul- ture associations, and thus are commensurate with IFOAM standards, with a few exceptions where these strict standards have been eased a bit, for example by allow- ing operations to certify individual units – like crop cultivation – while others like animal husbandry conducted in the same location, would still be conventional. As the EU and the US are the biggest markets for organic agriculture, their defined stan- dards carry the status of global guidelines. The EU is at the cutting edge, especially as the EU-defined standards are compatible to those of IFOAM.

An international fair trade ethos has been created to serve as an additional semi-institutional structure in the globalization of food production and distribution. Around 800 world stores run mainly by volunteers and 8,000 activist groups carry on the fair trade movement in Germany alone, which started out in the early 1970s to support the cry for a “New World Trading Order.” Trade was limited to produce like coffee, tea, cocoa, or bananas on the one hand and arts and crafts on the other. Independent small producers, preferably united in democratically structured cooper- atives have been the trade partners of choice. On the surface, there are no conflicts of interest between owners and employees. Problems like hiring seasonal workers for small-scale farming are rarely addressed by fair trade. Social goals are met through higher prices paid to producers (or organizations).

Additionally, further criteria for business dealings between growers and traders have been established, for example long-term trade relations, (low interest) advance financing and help in product development. Once fair trade ideas had been extended to products from privately owned large plantations growing tea or bananas, social standards gained in importance. As a rule standards for basic labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO) are applied. Higher prices levied for social purposes have remained an integral part.

In June of 1998 the “Declaration on basic principles and rights at work” was passed. It identified most of the 182 ILO conventions and called on member states to ratify them. The “basic labor standards” or “basic rights at work” read as follows (BMZ 2000):

• Right of association and right for collective bargaining (Conventions No. 87 and 98),

• Equal pay and nondiscrimination at work (Conventions No. 100 and 111), • Prohibition of forced labor (Conventions No. 29 and 105),

• Prohibition of child labor (Conventions No. 138 and 182).

The umbrella organization of fair trade stores revised their “Criteria for Fair Trade” in 1999 and included a list of demands addressed to all participants in the trade chain. In addition to trade, one important criterion is active participation in information and educational work pertaining to producers and questions of trade policy. The TransFair seal guarantees that producers maintain fair trade criteria. They have to prove their socially exemplary conduct to certification authorities, while retailers may apply the seal to fairly traded goods only. There are no further requirements imposed on retail outfits on how to conduct their business beyond pay- ing a higher price, which allows producers to supply the TransFair mandated social benefits and a licensing fee for the seal. These injunctions do not apply to general purchasing policies, which allow discounters like Lidl to offer products bearing the TransFair seal.