Proposition 53K1321

Proposition de résolution concernant la hausse des prix des denrées alimentaires.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens, Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
Groen Eva Brems, Wouter De Vriendt
PS | SP Patrick Moriau

Submission date

March 25, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable agriculture resolution of parliament development aid developing countries food price price increase speculative capital food policy food shortage food resources

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Open Vld VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Patrick Dewael (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Patrick Dewael (Open Vld) voted to reject.

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 ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. President, I thank you.

This resolution has also been the subject of long negotiations between the various groups and a shared final co-signature. Nevertheless, it experienced a relatively difficult path since it initially aroused little interest. After a vote of 6 for, 6 against and a recovery by your care in the plenary assembly, she was able to continue her path to result in a largely majority vote.

Thro ⁇ this course, the text has been improved, which has allowed it to be supported by a greater number of groups, but I think it has not yet been weakened.

This is about the global food crisis. This is a topic close to the previous resolution but this time wider, price volatility, direct access to food for the population.

According to FAO estimates, the number of undernourished people in the world reached 925 million in 2010 and this number, it is said, will increase due to rising food prices, coupled with an increase in population and unpredictable shortages. Around the world, 29 countries face food supply difficulties and need external food assistance. The increase to be assumed for countries in difficulty will be close to 30 percent, according to a FAO estimate dated June.

The current price surges are due to a number of supply shocks caused by extreme weather events, increased food demand from growing populations, increased production of agrofuels, dependence on conflict-induced imports or failure of food security policies, increased use of cereals in livestock feed to meet the growing demand for meat in emerging and developed economies.

The problem of volatility itself is due to the increased financialization and speculation on commodities by purely financial institutions. Investments made by institutional investors in commodity markets, which amounted to €13 billion in 2003, increased to €170 and €205 billion in 2008.

As early as 2008, we talked about the major role of speculation in the food crisis. This continues as some internal markets are neither supervised nor regulated because they benefit from exceptions and take advantage of gaps in the Directives on markets in financial instruments.

Food prices are also associated with the price of fossil fuels, due to high-energy production systems that rely on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, processed feed and long-distance transport. The price of these inputs increases proportionally to that of fossil fuels.

The production of agrofuels leads to land conflicts and creates competition between the production of foodstuffs and fuels. In the face of the global financial crisis, the increased use of agricultural products to feed livestock and produce agrofuels has encouraged speculation on basic agricultural products.

On the part of international institutions, there has been a systematic encouragement of the liberalization of trade. The WTO urges countries to reduce tariff barriers and open their borders. However, the strength ratio is extremely different and this has helped to impose everywhere a dominant model of large-scale commercial agriculture, focusing on exports and often at the expense of local and sustainable food production.

Our aid to agriculture and rural development in developing countries has declined in the last 30 years, even though it has regained interest since the 2008 FAO Summit. There was previously a considerable decrease in investment and cooperation in agriculture.

There is also a problem of waste. It is impressive to know that at least 30% of all food produced in the world is wasted at different points of the food chain.

All these elements lead us to say that hunger is mainly due not to a low level of stocks or a global supply unable to meet demand, but to poverty. The best way to fight it is to increase the income of the poorest.

What are the solutions to these challenges, difficulties and constraints? According to the most commonly cited estimate, overall agricultural production is expected to increase by 70% by 2050, taking into account demographic growth and the evolution of dietary regimes and consumption levels.

This is where I would like to quote Olivier De Schutter in his March 2011 report: “If it is necessary to meet future needs, increasing food production is not enough. It will not make significant progress in the fight against hunger and malnutrition if it is not accompanied by increased incomes and improved livelihoods for the poorest. Short-term gains would be neutralized by long-term losses if it results in further degradation of ecosystems that compromises future capabilities to maintain current production levels.”

It is therefore not enough for Europe or the United States, or even for wheat growers like Argentina, to produce more and more for export. It is clear that there must be increasingly autonomous agricultural systems in all countries, so that everyone has sustainable access to quality food.

It is always Olivier De Schutter who says it: "It is not enough to put money in agriculture. The most important is to take measures that facilitate the transition to a type of agriculture that is low-carbon, resource-efficient and benefits the poorest farmers (...). Nearly half of the world’s cereal production is used to produce animal feed and meat consumption is expected to increase, if it continues as it is today, from 37 kilograms per person to more than 52 kilograms by 2050, so that by the middle of the 21st century, 50% of the world’s cereal production would be used to make meat.

So there is a big problem. He cites the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which says that “if you take into account the energy value of produced meat, the calorie loss due to giving grains to animals rather than using them directly to feed humans is equivalent to the annual calorie needs of more than 3.5 billion people.” This is what confronts us with reality. The question is not only quantitative, it is fundamentally qualitative. It is a matter of justice and redistribution.

Olivier De Schutter's report on the food crisis ends with the promotion of what he calls "agroecology". “The development of agroecological practices can simultaneously increase agricultural productivity and food security, improve rural income and livelihoods, and reverse the trend towards species extinction and genetic erosion.”

Agroecology presents the following qualities: availability because increasing productivity at the local level, accessibility because reducing rural poverty, adequacy because improving nutrition and sustainability because agroecology facilitates adaptation to climate change.

The resolution that will be voted soon contains, in our opinion, key elements. It calls on the European Union to defend, at the WTO level, the possibility for States to increase their autonomy and decide on their food policy. It also calls for the future Common Agricultural Policy, which is being decided within our European institutions, to be oriented towards the self-sufficiency of the Union rather than to continue the trend towards an export agriculture, itself dependent on imports. This will prevent various forms of dumping on the markets of developing countries, dumping resulting from direct or indirect public support to certain productions.

Our resolution calls for the regulation of futures markets, the regulation of speculation and the reduction of speculation. It also addresses pension funds by asking them to avoid participating in food speculation. It calls for the establishment of food reserves by going beyond the recent G20 conclusions, in which transparency and stocks were discussed, but very little.

The resolution also explicitly refers to agricultural practices that contribute to the fight against climate change and enable farmers to adapt to it. It refers to the findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. This is a very important report, somewhat equivalent to the report of the Climate Committee, which calls for an agriculture adapted to ecosystems, respecting biodiversity and, above all, promoting the most vulnerable populations.

The resolution calls for strengthened criteria for the import of agrofuels and even an emergency mechanism to ban the use of cereals for energy production and stop imports if the price of cereals exceeds a certain threshold.

Finally, the resolution addresses the Regions to support the creation of local food networks and more sustainable agricultural practices.

The journey has been long, but the text we are going to vote on is a very important step. It is the expression of a broad consensus in favour of more equitable and more resource-efficient food production models.

This text responds to the challenges of the future: to feed a population of 9 to 10 billion people in a fair manner, to protect the renewability of our resources, and finally, to mitigate and adapt to energy and climate disruptions.

Whatever happens to our assembly, I hope that this resolution will remain a reference for the government and for our negotiators on the international stage.

I would like to thank all our colleagues who worked on preparing it, and in particular the Chairman of the Commission.

The proposal for a resolution on food prices has gone a long way. For us, the no has become an abstinence. In the committee we tried last week to nuance the text through various amendments. We also partially succeeded. Some things have disappeared.

The original resolution referred to the old European agricultural policy. The causes of the food crisis were too unilateral. It is much more than just speculation, as originally mentioned in the text. Through us and many constructive amendments from again colleague de Donnea, the text was improved.

We also distanced ourselves from the explanation. There are still problems in some areas. We consider that the proposal for a resolution, which is in line with that on land grabbing, is not courageous enough. In this issue too much too little is done to review the own development policy. It is also too little to look at how we can make a difference with our partner countries. Although the proposed text is an improvement, we will abstain at the vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the text we are examining at this time may seem somewhat peripheral in view of the issues that agitate the public opinion, the press and the Belgian political microcosm. This question of volatility in agricultural prices and, more broadly, food security is one of the main points, if not the essential point, of the G20, whose agriculture ministers met in June in Paris to discuss it. And heads of state and government will discuss this issue in Cannes after the summer.

The rise in food prices, which corresponds to a shortage, undoubtedly played a role in some Arab revolutionary movements. About two or three years ago, hunger riots took place in several countries in West Africa. If we fail to control the phenomena of food shortages or rising prices, which is the other side, new disturbances will affect the security of some countries that are close to us and will contribute to destabilize certain branches of our society.

Therefore, it seems to me important not to disinterest ourselves in this topic, but rather to realize that in view of our well-understood interest, even outside of any humanitarian or charitable consideration, we must take care of it.

I will not be very long, as Ms. Snoy has recalled some essential elements. The FAO and OECD have been looking at these phenomena in recent months, as has the G20 Secretariat in preparation for ministerial and heads of state and government meetings. Their conclusion is that the source of rising prices or food insecurity is an insufficient supply in relation to demand. And Ms. Snoy recalled a whole series of reasons that can explain this.

It is important to note that today experts agree that speculation on agricultural products amplifies fluctuations, but has never been the source of fluctuations in food price. This is the conclusion to which FAO and OECD experts have come.

This means that it is not enough – but it is still necessary – to regulate certain forms of food speculation, but that above all it is necessary to increase the supply. This can be achieved by increasing the cultivable areas – we talked about it recently in the debate on land acquisition – and by another market organisation.

A part of the price surges, especially of rice, a few months ago, was caused by the ban of some major rice producers from all exports to protect themselves from an entirely imaginary shortage. This blockage for a few weeks or months caused an immediate price rise, then supported by speculation on the product in question.

Increasing supply not only increases agricultural productivity and cultivated land, but also improves market organisation. Ms. Snoy recalled that it is essential to improve the conservation, storage and compliance systems of the cold chain. A large amount of food produced in many countries is destroyed by parasites, rodents, etc.

It is also about being cautious before claiming that the production of biofuels is necessarily incompatible with food security. The Brazilians will hold you a diametrically different language. I don’t know if they should be believed, but according to their arguments, they have managed to ensure food security in their country and a large production of biofuel and bioenergy. Of course, this is not done starting from wheat or corn, but from sugar cane or other vegetables.

In Africa, the opinions are very divided. Some experts will tell you that fatally, in Africa, biofuel production will undermine food security and other African experts will tell you the opposite. This debate is not closed, it must be objective, we must continue the analyses but under certain circumstances, of which Ms. Snoy gave examples, in fact, biofuels can undermine food security.

What should be avoided in any case is the closure of certain markets, temporary export bans, all of which contribute to artificial reduction of supply.

Finally, it is also essential to develop in the regions most threatened by food insecurity and food shortages, networks of emergency humanitarian stocks that should only be operated in serious crises, to alleviate human misery. On the other hand, everybody today has abandoned the idea of regulatory stocks, large stocks purchased and sold according to the conjuncture to regulate prices. In contrast, the ministers of the G20 agreed to fund, in some regions of Africa in particular, networks of humanitarian food supplies to cope with serious and temporary crises.

The MR group will of course support this resolution whose birth will not have been easy. As soon as we touch the common agricultural policy, and as we cannot talk about food security in Africa without also referring to the security of our common agricultural policy, passions are aroused; this is why we have not reached a text gathering the support of the whole Parliament. We still managed to get a very large support and ultimately this resolution should pass with an excellent majority.

The rise in food prices is a problem for our fellow citizens, but also and especially for the most fragile countries, i.e. those of the South.

This resolution addresses a problem that is both current and crucial, a problem that has already been discussed and will undoubtedly still have to be discussed by the G20, as its multiple facets affect the entire planet.

Even though we cannot see a single factor, there is no doubt that speculation and rising prices of basic food in developing countries are at the basis of various revolts in the countries around the Mediterranean. Beyond the desire for democratization, they also insurged against the high cost of living.

However, the problem of feeding a population often excluded from development cannot be solved through individual projects. A real everyday and international policy is indispensable.

This is where the resolution of which my colleague Patrick Moriau is co-signed goes. My group is therefore very happy that we have been able, thanks to our colleagues, to send it back into a commission so that we can continue to work seriously on a topic that does not allow us to mislead. After several hours of amendments improving the text without affecting its scope, we were able to reach a balanced and strong resolution.

In particular, it calls for further increases in development aid for agriculture and food security, for greater transparency in pricing, or for taking into account the crucial role of women in food production.

The international aspect of this debate, both at European level and at the G20 level, is also not forgotten. European farmers are in no way threatened or forgotten by the scope of this text. Indeed, the abandonment of direct export subsidies must go through a reorientation of the future CAP, so that the European Union can guarantee its degree of self-sufficiency, respecting the demands and social expectations of our fellow European citizens. The simple goal is to avoid unfair competition with Southern producers.

This distortion cannot be denied. The mode of production and marketing in developing countries, poorly equipped and old-fashioned, does not allow them to increase their volumes or find outlets.

Support for this family farming, promoted by NGOs and the experts we received here in the hearing at the initiative of my group, as well as an absolute struggle against financial speculation on basic foods, therefore appear to be necessary.

After many steps, my group is delighted with the outcome of this text. Not later than two weeks ago, FAO was still concerned that food prices would remain high and unstable. This resolution proposal is ⁇ not perfect, but the themes and challenges it covers should unite us, not divide us.

The increase in food prices is a crucial challenge for peace, democracy, and the economy. This is a problem that will only grow, as will the crying inequalities if we do not act immediately.

Indeed, demographics, climate change and especially the shortage of water and exploitable agricultural land only accelerate the volatility of food prices. It is not economic opportunities but human lives that are at stake. Food speculation must now end to make possible a world where food security is a reality, also in the countries of the South. The stability of these countries depends on it.

My group will also abstain when voting on this proposal.

Of course, we recognize the pressing problem. However, what we find is that, on the one hand, urgent investment is needed in agriculture in developing countries, especially to boost productivity. On the other hand, the resolution proposal does not sufficiently recognise that the market and free trade are the most powerful engines for achieving that higher productivity and for bringing about the necessary technological innovation.

The draft resolution also expects almost everything from the government to ensure productivity growth. It approaches, as I already mentioned, the market and trade quite negatively. The proposal also includes a number of proposals for stricter regulation.

In other words, because we naturally recognize the problem, which is often very overwhelming, we will not vote no. However, the draft resolution did not convince us. We will abstain for that reason.