Proposition 52K1197

Proposition de résolution relative à une nouvelle politique générale de lutte contre la faim dans la perspective de la crise alimentaire mondiale.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Jean Cornil, Patrick Moriau
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

May 29, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

hunger farm prices resolution of parliament development aid substitute fuel food aid food shortage

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.
• Jean-Jacques Flahaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Ben Weyts (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 12, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. President, if you wish, I will present you a short report followed by a few personal observations.

I would therefore remind you that this resolution is the subject of a consensus: it was voted unanimously by the committee. In fact, it amends the proposal from the groups PS and sp.a. Several political groups had shown interest in this food crisis since, at that time, the CD&V-NV-A group had also submitted a resolution proposal, as well as Ecolo-Groen!, as well as my group, the CDH. It shows the interest that our Parliament has in this issue.

This happened in June. In accordance with our usual working technique in the Committee on Foreign Relations, we have entrusted these resolutions to the working group chaired by Mr. of Donna . Thanks to the quality of his work, his kindness and the quality of the work of all the members of our committee, we have been able to introduce a general amendment to the resolution deposited by the PS Group. This item was the subject of the meeting of the committee of 18 February 2009. Ms. Muylle also introduced technical amendments to paragraphs 9 and 10, which therefore did not call for observation. This general amendment to the proposal of Mr. Moriau et consorts was adopted unanimously.

If you can, I will give you a few more personal comments.

First, despite the time required to arrive in the plenary to present you a text of consensus, the food crisis is not contained; it has not regressed, but on the contrary.

All the reports that come to us from the specialized agencies of the UN indicate how much it has worsened. It is ⁇ concerned with rural areas. This is probably why there are fewer hunger riots. But ⁇ also because the media coverage of the situation in the countryside of the poorest countries is really low.

The crisis affects children in a unique way and UNICEF recently recalled it, which estimates that in recent months, 40 million additional people suffer from hunger, half of which are children.

It should also be remembered that this resolution falls within the framework of the right to food. These are the first two considerations of our resolution and this is point 1 of the resolution dispositif. This was ⁇ by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. by Olivier de Schutter.

(Brouhaha) by

Can I ask you for a little silence?

I know that, unfortunately, the global food crisis interests only a few people. This is a worrying problem! If you could then make your talks outside, it would be more sympathetic.

This problem of food is addressed within the framework of the right to food, in particular in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 11 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is important to systematically recall this. Indeed, in reality, all the initiatives taken by the international community ultimately merely implement these rights and ensure that these rights are applied in mind and letter. It is therefore important to recall, in advance of our proposals, that this right to food must first and foremost be implemented. It is not normal that today, 15 percent of humanity – 1 billion people – live in precariousness, in shortages and in food shortages. This problem is crucial! This is probably the most important moral problem we face today.

Since the Rome Conference in June 2008, the economic crisis, which had not been foreseen at that time, at least not in its magnitude, seems to have established itself durably, with effects that are all the more serious as populations live in precarious situations. This economic and financial tsunami will further affect the shores of the poorest countries and the poorest populations. This was ⁇ the subject of recent discussions in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, at the International Monetary Fund and the African Union summit, which recalled that an additional 105 million people are shifting into extreme poverty.

I recall that in Katanga, 300,000 mining jobs were lost in a few months. In this province, which experienced a significant economic boom until last year, a great poverty settled.

There has been a lot of discussion about the causes of the food crisis. These causes are multiple, profound and structural. Some can be cited: climate disruption in a number of countries, lack of investment in sustainable agricultural policies, explosion in the production of certain types of biofuels – I will return –, increasing demand in countries such as India or China, the export subsidy policies that some countries continue to practice, and speculation for which it is necessary to be able to make the share of things between storage, at the time of the lowest prices, and pure speculation on certain markets that puts consumers and producers at risk. There has also been a lot of talk about the volatility of energy prices, which is the source of many problems with agricultural production prices.

All of these elements must be taken into account in the reflection and in the proposals that we can make. Since we are fortunate to have the Minister of Cooperation with us, I would have wanted to emphasize a few key elements given the international context and the economic crisis.

Today, everyone predicts a collapse of international cooperation budgets. This is an issue that needs to be discussed and discussed everywhere. Historically, it has been seen that whenever developed countries experience economic and financial difficulties, they cut the tap of cooperation budgets. This is one of our concerns. To what extent will Belgium be able to fulfill its commitments and intervene in international forums so that the international community can fulfill its commitments?

In particular, there is the call of Dar es Salaam. It is about ensuring that African countries can continue to honour their commitments and, in particular, their credit problems worth $25 billion. I do not know what our country has responded to this call. It seems to me important to make sure that Africa does not pay even more brutally than we do for the economic and financial crisis, a crisis in which it has no responsibility since its banking system has not intervened in the issue of structured products.

How will we make sure that the interests of the poorest countries are heard in the organization of international financial governance? In the G20, as its name implies, the least developed countries will not be represented as such. It is very important that in the solutions, the devices proposed for the future, the interests of the most vulnerable populations are also taken into account.

Then comes the issue of biofuels. In this regard, we have moved from a phase of euphoria to a phase of caution, I hope. How can the traceability principles of these biofuels be implemented in order to permanently put aside first- and even second-generation biofuels when they are competing with agricultural surfaces? How can we ensure that food security, biodiversity and decimated forests can be preserved, which have been replaced by large monocultures for the production of biofuels? We must be vigilant about this, both at the level of our domestic policy and our international policy.

I now address the vertical hyper-concentration of the agro-food sector. It is known that a few dozen multinational companies monopolize most of the purchases of food products from producers and sell them back to consumers.

They are therefore able to regulate prices, in particular the prices of producers, the prices at which they buy food products and those to whom they offer these products to the consumer. This is a problem because we do not, as I know, have an effective international mechanism that allows to counter dumping, price agreement, to set fair prices for producers in relation to their food production, and to be respected in their production and in their rights. This is an essential element of the issue of regulation of the food market and the protection of the most fragile productions, food, peasant, family productions. Today, we are trying to avoid a system that would only benefit large-scale farms and to ensure that food sovereignty is respected to some extent.

The last point of my speech that goes beyond cooperation is the issue of returning to protectionism. This is a worrying element, including for food markets. Here too, there must be a possibility of exchanges with the shelters of which I have spoken, and to make sure that commodities, agricultural materials, are not subject to protectionism, as I have seen in some countries. This would be contrary to food security.

Here are some of my thoughts on the food crisis. This question, unfortunately, has gone into the background, but it is raised brutally in the poorest countries. It requires sustainable action on our part, action on our cooperation and our foreign policy in general, and vigilance so that the numbers of malnutrition and poverty can finally change in the weeks and months to come.

I am actually a little surprised that there are no more speakers, because hunger in the world is a huge problem. 1 billion people suffer from hunger, mothers cannot feed their own crust, which is dramatic. What makes the whole situation even worse is that the numbers are still on the rise. It adorns the Parliament that at least is being considered or has been considered.

In this context, however, I would like to point out something that is obviously not included in the report that has just been read. Initially, the global food crisis was one of the most important dossiers addressed by the special committee on climate and sustainable development under the chairmanship of former Parliament President Herman Van Rompuy. Very interesting hearings were then organized, which also included a large number of people from the civil society and which ⁇ also attracted the necessary attention of our group.

Here, I would like to point out that – whoever deserves honour – Herman Van Rompuy, as chairman, considered the problem so important that he believed that there should be a strong broad-chamber signal about the problem, in order to effectively address it. He didn’t just talk about room width, he meant it, I think at least, because you never know with CD&V.

In any case, all factions, really all factions, including ours, were invited to a working meeting, where a common text would be drawn up. I would say it would be drafted, because of course it would have been counted without the politically correct church. The working group met once. Herman Van Rompuy became Prime Minister and the various existing proposals related to the global crisis moved to the Committee on Foreign Relations, you received the report on this. More political games were played there until a so-called room-wide resolution came into being.

Even on such an important topic, which is cross-border, it is considered necessary in this country to make it a political game. I no longer want to talk here about what I think or what I feel, about those who induce, stimulate, or maintain it in their own interest.

I would like to thank everyone who has made a certain contribution to resolving the problem of the global food crisis. Colleagues, I will also reassure you: knowing well that we will not give anyone a sandwich more or less, our group will abstain from voting on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. From Germany, he said with his usual force of persuasion about the severity of the food crisis.

Since 2007, 2008, this crisis has grown in importance. There have always been in the world populations and areas affected more or less cruelly by a conjunctual or structural food crisis but it is clear that over the past two years, statistics and facts indicate an aggravation of the situation.

This should worry us. It is not just a matter of suffering for people who experience hunger. It must be said that the more people in the world are suffering from hunger, the more direct and indirect perverse consequences it has on the northern countries of the planet, and therefore also on Belgium.

Recently, agricultural prices increased (approximately 80% since 2005). It is obvious that in the face of such increases, the situation of households in developing countries, which spend 60 to 90% of their income on food products, deteriorates extremely rapidly.

It is especially the African continent that is hit by the global crisis. However, countries and regions of other continents have also been severely affected. Remember the hunger riots in Haiti, the problems we may have known in the Philippines and Egypt. If my memories are good, there were riots in Cairo a few months ago. Sub-Saharan Africa, which is most affected, does not have the monopoly of this food crisis. Other parts of the world in Latin America, Asia, are also hit.

The causes of this crisis have been discussed. There is the fact that some countries, sometimes under pressure or on the advice of well-intentioned international organizations, have invested too much and developed too much in the production of exportable agricultural products; I think for example of palm oil, ⁇ in Colombia. Apparently, the expansion of areas dedicated to oil palm cultivation creates real problems in some regions of Southeast Asia and Africa. Other products could be mentioned. I will not do it here. In some countries there is an imbalance between industrial crops and food crops.

Furthermore, there is a rise in the prices of agricultural products that has multiple causes. The increased demand for food products in emerging countries is due in particular to the growth of the middle class (such as in India, China, Brazil and elsewhere) and the increase of the urban population, which decreases agricultural production capacity.

There is an increase in the price of intrants (fertilizers), petroleum products. There are climate disasters: floods, cyclones that devastate crops, and also scarce supply and, in some cases, speculation completely foreign to the legitimate speculation of the agro-food industry in order to protect itself from industrial and commercial risks. Financial funds are created to invest money in this or that agricultural product, by people who do not produce anything in the agro-food sector and therefore do not need to cover themselves in the future, as the agro-food industries legitimately do on the market of their raw materials.

All these causes have caused an increase in price, an increasing volatility of the price of agricultural products. Faced with all this, the urgent food aid, which must take place, is only a patch on a wooden leg and can only have an impact in the very, very short term. The main thing is to invest, as mentioned in the resolution, to encourage investment in rural development, in particular in food farming.

My party, of course, supports all requests in the resolution addressed to the federal government. I will not paraphrase them all. Let me remind you of what is important to us.

We must try to keep our commitments in relation to the size of the development cooperation budget at the level of 0.7% of GDP. I agree with the objective mentioned by Mr. Germany: Keep the path, despite our financial difficulties in this area. For again, any increase in poverty, underdevelopment in some parts of the world will have a direct effect in us through an increase in poorly controlled or illegal migration flows, through the insecurity that the tensions that will result will generate, which will increase the costs of international police in which we participate through the UN or other international organizations. We need to keep the 0.7% trend.

A sufficient portion should be devoted to agriculture and rural development. The resolution also states 10%. I can also subscribe to this goal through our own traditional cooperation channels. Priority to support food agriculture too, but all this is in vain if, simultaneously, we do not promote other objectives, which are general conditions of development, on the one hand, but also important conditions of the development of the agricultural sector, on the other.

First, I think of the primary importance of good governance. Obviously, underdevelopment in the world is largely explained by the fact that a number of failed states have failed to apply the most basic rules of good governance.

It is of no use to pump money into the economies of countries that stumble at the basic principles of good governance. It is important to simultaneously strengthen the democratic institutions of the countries we help, their judicial apparatus, the agencies that control financial flows. It is clear that the bankruptcy of some countries results directly, regardless of the other factors we have mentioned, from hunger. Let’s look at what is happening in Zimbabwe; the situation is catastrophic and is directly caused by the total overthrow of the institutions of that country.

Second, if we want to develop agriculture, it is obvious that we need to invest in all the infrastructure that allows for the circulation of agricultural products. We need to invest in rural roads, in storage capacities, and in the capacity of cold chambers. In a country like the Congo, extraordinary fishery resources are not exploited, simply because one is not able to run refrigerators twenty-four hours in twenty-four in the cities that run along the Congo River, the Kasaï River or other fish rivers.

It is useless to help farmers produce if they cannot flow their products. I was in Kivu recently and, walking the secondary roads, I was able to realize the extraordinary effort that merchants and farmers must make to transport their products on wooden trolley. The paths are chaotic, and the ornaments sometimes reach a meter deep. It is useless to teach the Kivu peasants how to plant sorgho or potatoes without allowing them to flow their products to the market in good conditions.

Third, to fight hunger, we must ensure the safety of people. Populations in regions such as Darfur, Ouellé or Kivu suffer from hunger, not because of the lack of products or climatic or geographical conditions that impede production, but because farmers cannot work in their fields because of the significant insecurity that prevails. These regions become completely enclaved non-legal regions.

About fifteen days ago, I learned that a delegation from all Kivu women’s associations had met with ambassadors of the international community in Kigali. Their message was to say that from the moment the security was ensured, the populations could feed. They have nothing to do with all this humanitarian aid and cooperatives who come to feed them on the basis of emergency aid programs. What they want is security.

I know that some will not like to hear this but, in some parts of the world, the first thing to do to feed people is to invest in their safety, that is, in the restructuring and consolidation of local security apparatus, allowing to end civil wars, rebellions, robbery which are real disasters in many regions of Sub-Saharan Africa essentially.

We must also – and it is important that we tap on this nail – ensure that the production and trade of biofuels does not have significant, sensitive perverse effects on food security. In some countries, there is clear competition between plants used to produce biofuels and plants intended for consumption. I’m not even talking here about the competition that can exist between forests and plants for the manufacture of biofuels. It could be said that the forest has nothing to do with food. This is not true! Deforestation increases CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, which further influences the climate whose disruptions are even more detrimental to food production. The continuation of the fight against CO2 emissions is very important in counteracting the climate disorders that scarce agricultural production.

One of the resolutions also aims to assist farmers’ organisations in building their technical capacity where necessary and to support agricultural SMEs, including through micro-credit. This is very important for small ⁇ .

Furthermore, it is necessary to study the mechanisms that could eliminate, at the level of food raw materials, speculation that has no industrial justification, no justification in terms of survival or efficient operation of agro-food enterprises.

Mr. Minister, within the framework of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, it might be appropriate that you set up an international conference on food security. It seems to me that by the second half of 2010, you still have time to organize it.

To conclude, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the fight against food crises, whether generalized, regional or local, conjunctual or structural, is obviously first and foremost a moral duty, an ethical duty, a humanitarian duty!

We must also realize that, if we allow food crisis situations to persist, we will encourage the creation of increasingly unbearable social tensions in some countries, which will degenerate into political tensions, which themselves will degenerate into security-type tensions – civil wars, local armed conflicts, etc. – with all the negative consequences that this leads not only to the populations concerned, but also to the international community, which always ends up having to pay the broken pots, repair the damage caused by the misfortunes and mistakes of others.

We all have the duty here to take the necessary measures to avoid food crises and all the consequences deriving from them, which we also pay the cost and which often turn to the second degree against our populations and our legitimate interests.

I thank you for your attention. The MP will vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker! After months and months of negotiation, discussions and even words, I am pleased to come today to defend a resolution that advocates a new policy of fighting hunger at the national, European and international level. This resolution, you will have understood it, holds me especially at heart because it concerns a fundamental principle enshrined in international law, the right to a proper and decent food for all.

“The right to adequate nutrition is a human right, inherent to all; the right to have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or through monetary purchases, to a quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people from which the consumer originates and which ensures an individual and collective psychological and physical life free of anxiety, satisfying and dignified.”

This right, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, has never been and is still not respected at the time when I speak to you in a large part of the world and in this case in the countries of the South. But this food crisis will have more lasting effects than the financial crisis. This is what we are announcing by many observers, many specialists, NGOs and no later than yesterday a White Card in "Le Soir" dedicated to the book of Claire Brisset, "The Children and the Law of the Jungle" which I invite you to read.

It was in May 2008, with the first hunger riots, that the international community as a whole became aware of the indecent situation in which ⁇ a billion people who suffer from malnutrition worldwide are immersed. Seeing people eating potatoes strikes, but not for a long time. Not a journalist today to talk about such a topic. Yes, one billion people, one-sixth of the world’s population, live below the survival threshold while the Earth provides food to feed the entire world’s population. Food sovereignty is truly violated in the Southern countries and every three seconds, someone on our planet dies of hunger. I’ve left you care to calculate the deaths since the beginning of my intervention.

For example, in Somalia, the price of imported rice increased by 350%. The same goes for soybean, wheat, but also the products necessary for any kitchen: wood, oil, kerosene. In Kenya, families are no longer able to cook. Certainly, prices fell again after the 2008 boom, but today’s prices are still 30% higher than those of 2007.

This food crisis has its roots in the policies put in place in the 1980s by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund with their famous plan of structural adjustment and trade liberalization. In fact, the WTO and IMF have encouraged developing countries to turn away from food-based agriculture to focus on the export of rent crops (cacao, cotton, mining products or coffee).

For decades, export monoculture has been advocated at the expense of a family and food farming oriented to local markets. This system was intended to increase the export revenue of the poor countries, with the aim of enabling them to repay their foreign debt, at the expense of food security.

Moreover, these same adjustment policies have led in the southern countries to a disengagement of states from the agricultural sector, leaving it in the hands of the sole market forces.

Of course, this is not the only cause of this crisis.

Take, for example, the meaningless urbanization. Did you know that in the 1950s the urban population of the southern countries reached 20% and that it is now approaching 45% to surpass 70% in 2050?

Another cause of the crisis is global warming. Or even the growing demand in quantity, given the growth of the world population, and in quality because we want more protein, which is quite normal. To produce one calorie of protein, 9 calories of cereal are needed.

It should also be highlighted the introduction of crops for first-generation agrofuels. They are in the hands of agri-food industries and presented by the industrialized countries as the miraculous solution to the economic problems they face, as were at the time rent crops.

Dear colleagues, "using corn to make biofuel is a crime against humanity", to take the formula of Jean Ziegler or that of Olivier De Schutter.

In fact, let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past: Cameroon, a country that has suffered hunger riots, exports biofuel to Malaysia and Burma.

See also the consequences in Madagascar: Daewoo has lost 1.4 million hectares, or half of the country’s arable land.

I would like to mention, as Mr. Donnea, the serious consequences induced by speculative funds and financial products which are likely to aggravate food insecurity as they increase the volatility of prices of basic agricultural products, which is neither favourable to the Southern countries nor to farmers of the industrialized countries. They simply fall under the “casino” economy and we know where it has led us.

Before concluding, I would like to draw your attention to the international trade of agricultural products that are regulated within the WTO. Indeed, this current idyllic vision advocated by this body which, with an invisible hand, regulates the agricultural markets for the good of the greater number, falls under irresponsibility.

We must cease to see agriculture as a traditional market that meets the same challenges as other economic sectors. We are facing a specific market that requires highly strategic specific responses for the survival of billions of people. It cannot be delivered to the law of the market alone, a fortiori when the market is distorted by Western subsidies to their producers. I’m referring here to just one example: the best cotton in the world is in Mali but is competing with the subsidies of American cotton manufacturers. As a result, Mali is one of the poorest countries on the planet.

The financial crisis has shown this. It is not only this type of exchange that must be regulated but also all international exchanges of all kinds, in particular, financial and banking transactions to name only those. This is how a system as a whole has collapsed in the name of an ideological vision to endanger a large part of the world’s population, at different stages and at different levels.

It is the whole system that needs to be re-thinked by placing at the center the man, in fact the entire humanity!

I could still have a long conversation with you on the global food crisis and we will have – I am sure – the opportunity to discuss it again here and elsewhere, especially in international instances. Mr. Minister, I agree with the idea of my colleague of Donnea. Why not take the opportunity of the European Presidency to hold a major conference on the subject?

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will conclude by saying that it is obviously not here, in Belgium, with a resolution voted in this Parliament and the fruit of a consensus that we will solve the global problem of malnutrition, as it is not here nor that we will solve the deep and structural crisis that the financial system faces today. However, I believe that we can act, initiate, or maybe hope to raise awareness of decision-makers at any level. With this resolution, our government will have a concrete message to defend within the various international instances, based on the principles that are ours and that are dear to us. Belgium, as it has always done, can and wants to take initiatives to make the world a little more human.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues for your attention but above all also for the attention you will pay to this dramatic topic.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to succeed in this resolution process on the food crisis, which we started in June 2008 and which was unfortunately neglected for a few months.

The situation is quite dramatic and although it was at the top of the news last spring, it is still relevant. The FAO report from January 2009 states that hunger in the world continues to increase. The goal of the World Food Summit to halve the number of undernourished people worldwide by 2015 is becoming more difficult to ⁇ in many countries. The FAO’s latest estimates predict the number of 923 million people suffering from hunger in 2007 and this figure increased in 2008.

The high food prices are the main cause. Although several factors can be invoked, high prices are driving millions of people into food insecurity, aggravating insecurity conditions and threatening long-term global security.

The third finding in the FAO report concerns the poorest, landless, female-led households, which are hardest affected. The vast majority of urban and rural households in developing countries rely on food purchases to feed themselves and are therefore the losers of the food crisis, at least in the short term. The fact of depriving households of the ability to produce their own food will plunge them into insecurity.

Hunger riots in the spring of 2008 caused a major reaction and a FAO summit in June 2008. The findings were made: weak stocks, climate disruption, price speculation, competition between food crops and agrofuels. The answer given at that time was not at all at the height. The summit conclusions have not sufficiently emphasized the importance of agricultural production modes.

The increase in productivity and the amplification of trade are presented in a simplistic way as the miracle solution.

Since then, we have a tendency to forget. The financial crisis has diverted our attention from this other crisis, yet far more important in its social and ecological dimensions. Some episodes remind us of it. For example, the large outbreak of violence in Madagascar was caused by the fact that 1.3 million hectares were bought by Daewoo to grow oil palm trees for export to South Korea. At the same time, 70% of the population of Madagascar lives below the poverty line.

We are constantly receiving testimonies about the deprivation of land in Latin America, about the violations of human rights. The Argentine lands are bought by the Chinese to grow GM soybeans and the Argentine farmers – the Argentine steak as Mr. G. From Donnea appreciates so much – they themselves are pushed back into the heights of the Andes, into the arid lands. Colombian peasants are driven out of their lands to give way to companies that grow oil palm trees. We have very serious testimonies of murders with the complicity of militias.

In addition, the United States announces that it will triple its production of agrofuels to increase from 11 million hectares of corn to 36 million in the coming years. This means that the demand for food corn will move and weigh on prices. In Mexico, this will cause the population problems with maize supply.

In Europe, too, the agricultural world is not spared. Producer prices do not allow a minimum of profitability. Farmers talk about abandoning livestock, and many of them do so for the benefit of a concentration of production in the hands of a few large mining companies. This phenomenon of concentration of the agro-food sector in the hands of producers of seeds, fertilizer, pesticides and GMO patents weakens the capacity for political regulation and above all the autonomy of farmers.

As suggested by a show broadcast on Arte recently, I fear we are going to a food crash.

I would like to draw your attention to a report that has not been sufficiently discussed or at least not sufficiently taken into account. This is the IASD report.

This organ comparable to the GIEC is composed of scientists, who have established their diagnosis on the evaluation of agricultural sciences and techniques. This report, which can be considered to be the result of a large scientific consensus, reflects a general awareness that despite significant scientific and technological advances that have allowed us to increase agricultural productivity, we have been much less attentive to the social and environmental impacts of our successes.

According to this report, the main challenge is to increase agricultural productivity but in a sustainable way. To do so, it is important to recognize multifunctional agricultural systems, improve social well-being and livelihoods in the rural sector, and provide marginalized actors with the means to preserve the diversity of agricultural and food systems, including in their cultural dimension.

The report also states that it is necessary to ensure the supply of clean drinking water – conflicts around water are likely to be very, very serious – to preserve biodiversity and available natural resources and mitigate the negative effects of intensive agricultural activities.

This report is very important because we are at the crossroads, and one reaction would be to produce intensely, with GMOs, a lot of fertilizers and pesticides to increase productivity, but with negative effects on the environment, on rural employment and on the capacity of farmers to continue to produce their own food and to feed their families and their country.

More than ever, political intervention is needed. All countries should be aware that agriculture is not a field where goods can be exchanged from one end of the world to another without regulation.

This resolution is the result of consensus. We had submitted a resolution which further deepened the dimensions of ecological order, protection of human rights, social protection of the peasant world.

I am grateful, and I thank Mr. From Donnea, that there was a listening, a very open dialogue between the different parties. In fact, we have come to a simpler text. I know that our proposal seemed to you complex: we referred to a whole series of international agreements, we went quite far in detail. I hope that the "simple" phrases of this resolution will not be weakened; it will depend on how the government will refer to them.

The primary aspect of this resolution is the recognition of the right to food. The Belgian government must defend, in international instances, the effective implementation of the right to food. This is very important, this is what Olivier De Schutter came to us to say. According to him, this right to food has not been sufficiently used in international negotiations. Often Southern countries have been put so under pressure by donors and negotiators of trade agreements that they have neglected to use it to protect their agricultural production capacity.

In spite of the right to food, another concept is expensive to us. Unfortunately, it is not included in the resolution: it is the concept of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is different from food security. You know my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have often used the word "security" instead of the word "sovereignty". It is not the same thing!

Food sovereignty is defined as the right of sovereign peoples and states to democratically develop their agricultural and food policies. Food security has an international definition that assumes that the population has, at all times, material, social and economic access to safe food.

The expression "food security" is insatisfactory for us because, at the limit, food security could be achieved with food aid, without having an entire agricultural system to make this security sustainable.

Food sovereignty is an aspect of the right to self-determination. This is not self-sufficiency or protectionism. It presupposes that states can effectively protect their capacity to consume and produce the essential food goods corresponding to local needs.

As said by Mr. De Schutter, "trade becomes unjustified when countries import what they could produce," especially if it helps to maintain rural social tissue and manage ecosystems.

I would like to emphasize the point concerning biofuels. The formulation of this point is general, but even more demanding. They must not have a negative impact on food security or sustainable development. The EU’s target of 10% biofuels would mobilise, if we produced them here, a third of the EU’s useful agricultural area. It is unable. But it is equally unacceptable that we import these agrofuels massively while their development is all but sustainable. That is why we want to review this rate and impose a moratorium while waiting for sustainability criteria to be seriously developed.

This wish, which is found in our resolution, is a pious wish for the moment, unless Mr. The Magnetic, Mr. Michael and Mr. De Gucht was able to obtain, in European negotiations, these sustainability criteria that must be both social and environmental.

Finally, I would like to further emphasize point 17 which speaks of raising resources for multidisciplinary agricultural research. The first type of research we want is research in agroecology. This corresponds to the findings of the IAASTD study, which I quote: "A solution to the problems of biotechnology research and development would be to invest in defined local priorities following a participatory and transparent approach, prioritizing multifunctional solutions to local problems. This approach requires new types of support to encourage public authorities to actively participate in the assessment of the effects of modern biotechnology. Biotechnology should be used to preserve local skills and genetic material, so that local communities can continue their research. This research and development work will focus on participatory plant selection projects and on agroecology.”

This is important, but it is not what is happening today. Today, biotechnology is oriented towards the production of GMOs which is not done at all in respect of local characteristics and in respect of biodiversity. These are important things that need to be defended in international audiences and even here in Belgium.

This draft resolution contains a list of requirements that should guide your interventions. The Minister of Development is present. But it also addresses the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and all those who negotiate at the European level. We will ensure that it serves as a guide to your interventions. We also want to evaluate its implementation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, before I proceed to my discussion, I would like to thank two people.

First of all, this colleague is de Donnea. With his wisdom and calmness, he has brought together all parties for many hours, until late in the evening in this house, in an attempt to reach a compromise. Mr de Donnea, thank you very much. Without your efforts, this amendment would not have come, that I dare to say very strongly.

I will also bear in mind that he is, as first undervoorzitter van de commissie, steeds bereid om nauwkeurig verslag uit te brengen. Mr Dallemagne, thank you very much.

I would like to press all of you with the nose on the facts. I think each of you sometimes lives with uncertainty. I am counting about thirty people. I look a little around. I look at Mrs. Vervotte. I look at Mrs. Detiège. I look at Mrs. Avontroodt. We all occasionally experience uncertainty in our lives. An uncertainty that can be about different things. Some people in Belgium are currently uncertain about their job due to the current financial and economic crisis.

We too, politicians, are uncertain; we have to present ourselves to the voter every so many years and we never know if the outcome will be positive. All those personal uncertainties, which can already be difficult to carry. Imagine that you are not sure if you will have food tonight. We know that tonight, thanks to the Presidency, we were able to order a cold dish. We know that tonight, when we go home, we will have food on the table.

Well, dear friends, 1 billion people suffer from hunger. They do not know if they will have food tonight and tomorrow. They do not know what to feed their children. Imagine something so unbearable! Every year – I don’t know if you can imagine it – 5.4 million children die, directly or indirectly, as a result of malnutrition. We all know that the recent food crisis has exacerbated the problem.

A lot has been said about the causes, we all know that. I look around. Many colleagues have visited these poor countries with me. The causes may be the increased world population, the total area occupied by our agricultural land on this planet, the fact that the growing middle class in China now naturally wants meat or fish on the table.

I also think of biofuels that have replaced food crops, and the high oil prices. We can say a lot about those causes, but the main thing is that we are looking for a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the House would unanimously approve this resolution. That hope has again been pressed on the head because after that the speaker of the Flemish Interest has already announced that they will abstain. Apparently it is not important enough for this group to vote for it. Nevertheless, I will try to convince them, if they listen, and draw up some points that are important to me.

First, we call for an increase in the share of agriculture in the budget for development cooperation. It is important that we do this not only for our country, but also with regard to the bilateral and multilateral donors. We have given agriculture too much too little resources. Just look at the figures the UN rapporteur De Schutter has given us. He says that the budget for development cooperation in agriculture of all OECD countries combined has fallen from 18 or 19 percent in 1980 to 4 or 5 percent in 2007. Hallucinating numbers if you ask me. If we want to tackle the food crisis and prevent a recurrence, we need to invest massively in agriculture. Mr. Minister, I hope that your budget for development cooperation can provide for this in part.

Second, ⁇ even more important are the developing countries themselves. It is very important to have good governance in developing countries. It is of course essential that the leaders of those countries ensure that their population does not suffer from hunger. They have the key in their hands to guarantee the people’s right to food. We can very clearly say that both our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of Development Cooperation always hammer, in all our contacts, on good governance in developing countries.

Third, the infrastructure needs to be expanded. You can have the food crops, but you must also market them and get them to the population. In many places, roads are lacking. Mr. de Donnea travels a lot and has undoubtedly already seen that. Food simply does not reach the people who need it.

Colleagues, we have long and hard discussed this amendment, because sometimes we were on a discussion field, namely, what do we do with the free market? There are countries that want to exclude the free market in every possible way. There is no less hunger here. Look at North Korea. There have been unprecedented hunger crises long before the food crisis.

I think the market is part of the solution, but it must be a market that is truly free, truly open and truly fair. Therefore, we advocate the abolition of export subsidies by OECD countries. In addition, these countries must open their borders to agricultural products from developing countries. It is also important that the barriers to trade between developing countries, between the different countries in the south, for the export of goods to each other, be reduced or removed.

I believe that only with strong regional agricultural markets can we provide food security for everyone. Therefore, the major exporting countries should not simply restrict exports, as some of them did when food was scarce, thus aggravating the problems elsewhere.

Colleagues, we all have different doubts and different uncertainties, but a billion people do not have access to a basic right that we all should have, namely the right to food. I find this unacceptable. So, in order to do something about this, we will have to invest – as I have asked – in agriculture.

Mr. Minister, I have one last question. We will leave next Sunday with a whole delegation to Benin. It is a mission, led by colleague Moriau, of the Belgian Survival Fund. The Belgian Survival Fund was created by the Parliament, with money from among others the National Lottery, to ensure that people in the poorest countries would have food. I had the opportunity to lead a shipment from the BOF to Niger a few years ago. The colleagues Detiège, Pécriaux and Van den Eynde participated. We had a good delegation. We have worked very hard there. We have seen what Belgium has done for it. I hope to see it again in Benin.

Mr. Minister, we have been waiting for a while for a new law for the Belgian Survival Fund. The second fund will soon expire. This fund was specifically created to help the poorest in the poorest countries. I hope that you will soon be able to say in your response that we will soon get a new law on the Belgian Survival Fund and that we will get a third fund to eradicate hunger from the world.

Colleagues, I hope that the House will later unanimously approve the amendment and that we will all put our shoulders under it, so that we can soon say that we can provide food to more people.

The Minister of Development has the word. I suppose he wants to replicate briefly.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to begin by thanking those who have intervened in this debate and, more ⁇ , by welcoming the work done, beyond the different political groups, in order to be able to present a resolution which, in my view, is strong since it addresses with clarity a number of essential points.

Others have said it to this tribune before me but I want to share the words that have been used. Fighting hunger in the world is ⁇ a moral duty, but it is also to ensure that a fundamental right, the right to food, is not merely an express right or a declared right. This means ensuring the capacity to fully mobilise the means to implement this fundamental right to food.

I would also like to return to the considerations that have been expressed regarding the overall character of the policy to be conducted.

It is Kofi Annan who has repeated it repeatedly: the links between peace, security and development are close. There is no possible development without peace, without security and without stability, the latter generating the ability to build models of society more impressed by improved living conditions. This is essential in the poorest countries.

I will briefly react to any of the interpellations that have been mentioned but I will obviously not comment in an exhaustive manner on the terms of the resolution that is proposed for voting today.

Georges Dallemagne raised a fundamental question. As a Minister of Cooperation, I have faced this debate for several months. Is the financial and economic crisis that we are facing at risk of challenging the extremely important international commitments, which reflect a strong development volunteerism?

In particular, you think of the goal of 0.7% of the GNP.

I share the analysis expressed by some at this tribune that we are facing an extremely important issue. Do we have the capacity, but above all the political will, within the Belgian government and the Belgian Parliament, to continue our efforts to honour the commitments made? This debate should also take place at the European and United Nations level.

I think we would commit a historical mistake, which would be paid a very heavy price in the months and years to come if, given this economic and financial crisis, one chose to be below the set goals.

On the contrary, especially for the African continent, in which we are very involved in terms of development cooperation, investment in development, political mobilization around the development of this continent is not part of the problem but can become part of the solution. This is my belief and I would like to share it with you.

In a very concrete, operational way, the Belgian government, backed by the texts of this resolution debated in recent weeks, has made very clear commitments. It is true that we can and must advocate in all international audiences so that this issue remains on the international agenda. In this agenda, certain issues run the danger of being relevant for a certain time, a few months, before being considered less important. Let us not wait for new spectacular riots to mobilize us. In this context, I support the request made in the proposal for a resolution to use the leverage of the European Presidency. I have repeatedly had the opportunity to add this issue to the agenda of European ministers, and in particular two proposals that I would like to highlight.

The first is the evidence of underinvestment in the agricultural sector in the framework of development aid in the last twenty or twenty-five years. This is an indisputable finding: the figures are hallucinating. It is therefore necessary to increase the share of development aid devoted to the strengthening of agricultural capacity, ⁇ in partner countries. Indeed, in terms of food security and better in terms of food sovereignty, more investment is needed in agricultural capacity and in basic infrastructure allowing chains to deploy. I think of the efforts we make in favor of irrigation or rural trails.

We take a firm commitment in this regard: we say the goal is to dedicate 10% of development aid to enhance agricultural capacity.

We must aim for a growth of around 15% of GDP for 2015, as it is observed – this is reiterated in the text of the resolution – that food needs will continue to grow in the coming decades. This implies, therefore, an increase in efforts in a parallel manner.

Another important element is support for local purchases. Compared to the initiatives that are supported, it is fundamental to give partner countries the capacity to have opportunities in terms of local purchases. Within FAO, the Belgians, for a few years now, have been in the forefront to advocate for concrete projects that are in this direction and that allow to increase the share of local purchases in the framework of food aid.

Food security is all the more important in a context of climate change that already disrupts in a number of countries the ability to implement sufficient agricultural production to ensure the consumption of local populations. In this regard, I retain the suggestions that have been made, in particular in terms of vigilance with regard to the sustainable management of forest resources.

I will give a few considerations about biofuels. Many things have been said on this subject, this subject actually giving rise to many discussions and exchanges of arguments. I fully agree with the content of this resolution. When looking at biofuels, it is important to avoid any penalization and any negative impact on the ability to implement a strong policy in terms of food sovereignty. Above all, I would like to share with you the belief that agricultural research must fully mobilize our attention.

We practice this in Belgium: since last year, we have increased the funding for international institutions for biodiversity research and agricultural research on fundamental elements in order to be consistent and consistent in our further efforts to promote this food security.

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee discussed the question of the Belgian Survival Fund. Together with the working group chaired by Patrick Moriau, we had the opportunity to hold meetings on this topic, including one more this week. Textes are in preparation and can be discussed soon in committee and then in this assembly. It is important to continue our efforts to enable Parliament to play a useful and effective role in development cooperation and, in particular, in food aid.

Montesquieu said, “An injustice done to one man is a threat to all.” There is no doubt that this suffering of hunger that affects millions of people around the world is a threat to the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intervene on the resolution: my colleagues have done a great job there and I thank them for leading to this text.

I simply wanted to express my satisfaction with the Minister’s response regarding the Belgian Survival Fund (FBS), especially through the formulation he used, in connection with the meeting we held with him on Tuesday morning. Indeed, the fact of renewing this FBS for the third time, in collaboration with Parliament, is crucial: Parliament must be involved in this FBS.

Mrs Vautmans’ formulation saying “We are waiting for a third Fund to be brought to us” surprised me somewhat. The work we do is a collective work, in collaboration with the government, associations, and administration, and they are an integral part of the FBS Monitoring Working Group. In this way, it suits me.