Index

Expert Opinion: Agriculture, Environment and Social Justice

By Adriano Campolina

Any analysis of the impacts of agricultural trade on the environment needs to consider the often-overlooked diversity that exists within the agricultural sector. Considering the enormous differences within the sector, it is necessary to look carefully at how trade policies can have different impacts on different agricultural areas and, therefore, different impacts on the environment.

It is possible to devise various analytical categories upon which to base a thorough analysis of the agricultural sector. Scholars have, for example, suggested the existence of three “rural worlds,” comprised of: (a) wealthy and industrialized farmers, who are connected to global markets through contracts with agribusiness, have superior access to resources and capital, and use input-intensive methods of production; (b) small-scale and family farmers, who face declining returns and increased risks, lack capital, information and resources, and are vulnerable to globalization; and (c) subsistence farmers and landless labourers, who are seasonal, migrant or family labourers, with little or no land.

In Brazil, the government has recognized these different categories in the agricultural sector and their different circumstances and needs and devised two separate credit systems. The first focuses on the so-called agricultura patronal, which encompasses larger farms, defined as containing more than two permanent labourers. The second is PRONAF (the National Program for Strengthening Family Farming), which benefits small-scale farmers who use family workers, are located in rural areas and generate at least 80 per cent of their earnings from farming activities. The recognition of the special needs of family farming was a result of years of struggle by the Brazilian peasant movement. As a result, PRONAF credit now offers lower interest rates, among other measures.

It is also necessary to recognize the different circumstances and needs of rural agricultural communities with respect to trade policy. ActionAid has analyzed the impacts of trade liberalization on small- and large-scale farmers in Brazil during its unilateral liberalization in the 1990s. During that period, the large-scale farmers tended to defend trade liberalization policies, particularly improved market access. The priority of small-scale farmers, on the other hand, was to seek protection from dumping and cheap imports. Given Brazil’s active membership in the Cairns Group, the government had mostly responded to the needs of the large farmers and its agenda had centred on eliminating export subsidies, reducing domestic support and increasing market access. Analyzing the evolution of the prices of the crops in this period, ActionAid found that prices fell much more for family-farmed agricultural products (decreasing by 4.74 per cent per year), than for large-scale agriculture (decreasing by 2.56 per cent per year).

If we look at the environmental impacts of agriculture, once again the different agricultural “worlds” will have different impacts. Using the case of Brazil again, 45 per cent of the country’s area is used for agriculture. The impacts of commercial agriculture based on Green Revolution techniques—e.g., high use of fertilizers and agrochemicals, monoculture, mechanization, large-scale farms and intensive irrigation—include deforestation, soil erosion and contamination and biodiversity loss.

On the other hand, agriculture can also provide many environmental services, such as soil and water conservation, and sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Some experts suggest that small-scale farmers are best placed to provide these environmental services. This is because: (a) their economic logic is not based on maximizing capital returns or short-term profits, but on attending to family needs and maintaining the long-term productive potential of the land (perceived as family patrimony); (b) as a production and consumption unit, small-scale farmers value diversity through shared crops and diverse livestock distributed in a balanced way; (c) the organization of labour in the small-scale farming unit favours the technical practices required for sustainable agriculture; and (d) family farmers have a long-lasting, deep-rooted and positive relationship with their land and can recognize the particular potential of the agroecosystem and use it in their economic reproduction strategies.

We need to urgently review our approach to trade negotiations in the agricultural sector, considering how trade liberalization impacts small-scale farmers, how this sector is wellplaced to provide environmental services and that most of the global poor are small-scale farmers, peasants, landless or rural labourers. The main outcome of trade negotiations should be a set of rules that enable, strengthen and protect small-scale farmers.

It is crucial to remove the trade distortions that currently allow rich countries to dump their agricultural products on Southern markets. However, putting an end to dumping should be closely linked with ensuring the rights of developing countries to protect and consolidate their small-scale farming. It is, therefore, important to eliminate export subsidies and reduce domestic support in the North. Yet, it is equally important to ensure special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing countries to allow them to protect the key crops of their small-scale farmers to enable a stable economy and food security (i.e., Special Products), including the right to raise tariffs and create a Special Safeguard Mechanism.

Trade rules should allow developing countries to implement the public policies they deem appropriate in order to strengthen, consolidate and develop their peasant and smallscale agricultural sectors. Such an approach could maximize the positive interactions among agriculture, environment and social justice.

However, this approach will require concerted efforts to defeat strong protectionist interests that lobby to maintain high levels of subsidization in much of the developed world. It will also require a shift in the trade negotiating strategy of developing countries from simply prioritizing market access to include an emphasis on special and differential treatment, as well as ensuring provision for the tools necessary to protect and develop their small-scale farming sector.

This change in the focus of agricultural negotiations represents both a challenge and an opportunity for developed and developing countries.

Adriano Campolina is the Regional Director for the Americas for ActionAid International, based in Brazil.