Rice Trade and the Right to Food International Human Rights Organization for the Right to Food

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Overview  Right to Food in Trade Policies  Purpose of the EAA Studies  Preliminary Results in Honduras, Ghana and Indonesia  Conclusions  Challenges for Follow up

Rice Trade and the Right to Food The Human Right to Food (in International Covenant on Econ., Social and Cult. Rights, Art. 11) =Access to productive ressources, work in dignity and social services  Respect in own policy measures (no evictions)  Protect from evictions by third parties  Fulfill for those people currently suffering hunger Traditional interpretation: States responsable within their own territory: But global actors increased importance

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Extraterritorial State Obligations (ETO) “Governments must recognize their extraterritorial obligations towards the right to food. (...) Governments should respect, protect and support the fulfillment of the right to food in other countries, including through their decisions taken under their roles within WTO, IMF and the World Bank.” (Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food)  Same levels of obligations  Respect = minimum obligation = do no harm: e.g. dumping and forced market access  In own policy measures and in IGO

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Country Case Studies  Question: Have specific trade policy measures contributed to violations of the right to food of rice farming communities in Honduras, Ghana and Indonesia?  Challenge 1: Causual chain between market access, dumping, import surges, decline in incomes and hunger  Challenge 2: Responsabilities of different actors: domestic state, origin states of exports, IMF, WB, WTO and signatories of bilateral free trade agreements

Rice Trade and the Right to Food HONDURAS: Come back of “Free Trade”  : Market opening through Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) → import surge („Arrozaso“)  : Hurricane Mitch → Dumping and Food Aid  2002: Rice Agreement („Convenio de Arroz“) → Recovery at a low level and limits to expansion  2006: DR-CAFTA → progressive elimination of all tariffs until 2024

Rice Trade and the Right to Food

Impact in Jesús de Otoro and Guangolola  Imports and high input costs pushed many farmers out of production (in 72 to 12 in Otoro)  Return to subsistance farming (Otoro) after successful market integration during 1980s  Modest recovering in Guangogola due to the Convenio  Reconcentration of land tenure (Guangolola)  Less incomes, more debts, poverty and food insecurity

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Violations of the Right to Food  Honduras: Market opening through LMA in 1990ies and DR-CAFTA since 2006 (obligation to protect)  USA: Dumping, misuse of food aid and pressure to cut tariffs through CAFTA (ET-obligation to respect)  Members of IMF and WB: Enforcement of SAP (ETO to respect)

Rice Trade and the Right to Food GHANA: Liberalisation under Auspices of IMF  Imports shot from 170,290 to 415,000 Mt  Origins: USA (33%), Thailand (30), Vietnam (17)  US dumping: export prices much lower than production costs and home market price in US  2003 Act 641: Parliament increased tariff from 20 to 25%  Act suspended and withdrawn illegally after „consulation with IMF stuff“ and approval of 270 million USD loan PRGF

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Impact in the Community of Dalun  Local rice demand of market women and processing volume of millers dropped by 75% compared to the 1990ies  Real farm gate prices decreased dramatically from 2000 to 2003  Real production costs remained stable, but state support had been withdrawn from 1983 to the late 1990s (SAP)  „Period of hunger“ before harvest (quantity and quality) and higher vulnerability to external shocks

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Violations of the Right to Food  Ghana: Market opening in 1992 and non-implementation of Act 641 in 2003 (obligation to protect); withdrawal of support through SAP (obligation to respect)  USA: Rice dumping (ETO to respect)  Members of IMF: Enforcement of SAP since 1983 and pressure to suspend Act 641 in 2003 (ETO respect)

Rice Trade and the Right to Food INDONESIA under Threat of the World Bank  : Import and price controls through BULOG → Imports only filled the gap when domestic production insuff.  : Financial crisis: elimination of all trade obstacles and privatisation of BULOG as IMF condition  2000: Moderate import control (ban during harvest, tariff eq. 30%) → stable prices, recovery of rice farming sector  WB now proposes 50% cut of tariffs and unlimited quantity for imports

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Impacts on Farmers in Jawa Barat Province  : Low and unstable producer prices; middlemen pay price according to price of import rice; growth of production stagnated in these years  WB proposal threatens existence of 20% of 13,6 million food insecure rice peasants in Indonesia; incomes of 40% of peasants would drop to 175 USD per year  Existing food insecurity would be increased dramatically

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Threat to the Right to Food  Indonesia must protect the right to food of the peasants by at least maintaining existing import control  The WB and its members are threatening the right to food of peasants by proposing the 50% cut in rice tariff and removal of quantitative restrictions (ETO to respect).

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Common observations in all countries  No „hunger“ among farmers, but growing food insecurity through trade policy measures = violations of the Rtf  All countries suffer dumping and withdrew own support  In all countries market protection was dismantled in the 1990s due to pressure of IMF and WB  All countries raised tariffs after 2000, but were (or are) pressured to remove them again, with „success“ in Ghana (IMF) and Honduras (CAFTA), now Indonesia (WB)

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Demands from a HR perspective a)Developing Countries (DC) must maintain or increase protection and support for rice farmers b)Industrialised Countries (IC) must stop limiting policy spaces of DC to protect their rice farmers (through regional agreements, IMF, WB and WTO) c)IC must end overproduction and exports below their costs of production

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Challenges for Follow up  Develop strategies for „case work“ in countries and with international Human Rights bodies  Sensitise governments, trade and Human Rights bodies for impact of liberalisation on the Right to Food  Develop proposals for effective HR monitoring tools of trade policies at national and international level  Promote HR approach to trade among civil society actors through training and conferences (cases and campaigns)

Rice Trade and the Right to Food Thank you very much!