Susan Bragdon
trade and intellectual property and food security
Susan Bragdon is the Representative for Food and Sustainability at the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva. She is a lawyer and resource ecologist who has worked for the UN, academia and civil society on international governance issues related to biological diversity and food security, including issues of access, intellectual property and trade.
QUNO addresses the complex and intertwined issues of trade, investment and intellectual property rules and how they relate to poverty, hunger and food insecurity. They engage with a range of stakeholders from small-scale farmers to those negotiating relevant multilateral agreements. In partnership with others, QUNO conducts research and analysis to broaden the information base and promote understanding.
Susan Bragdon
Dear Contributors,
The interesting discussion continues. It is wonderful to be able to share thoughts and experiences regarding the relationship of trade rules to food security. I have put some questions that seem worth exploring further in italics and bold in the body of the text below.
I believe the isolation/”free” trade dichotomy is a false or at least an unhelpful one. It keeps us from having the richer, more nuanced conversation about the relationship between trade and food security, what trade can and cannot do, what role it can appropriately play in food security, and where/when/how it needs to be regulated or complemented to ensure food security. As Ann Steensland notes in her contribution, trade is not a zero sum game.
Ms. Steensland’s post seems to argue that with an appropriate enabling environment, participation in a global export market is good for food security. Can participants in this dialogue (or Ms. Steenland) provide examples:
1. Where participation in a global export market has led to an increase in food security for the exporting country, how this increase in food security was measured, and what was the impact on diets?
2. When has participation in a global export market not resulted in increased food security for the exporting country and what happened in those instances?
3. Are there complementary policies that can ensure that participation in an export market benefits those in need? And getting back to our original question 3,
4. What evidence and experience exists on the affect of a country’s participation in export markets on small-scale producers in agriculturally biodiverse systems?
Again, I want to avoid unhelpful dichotomies and this is not meant as pro-trade/anti-trade or pro-market/anti-market but to stimulate a conversation about the appropriate role for each and how they interface with one another so the result is better food security for all.
The global market may provide some tools to achieve the objectives of food security, but it cannot by itself fully satisfy the objectives related to food security and poverty alleviation. In the market, demand correlates with an ability to pay rather than to human need. Markets don’t consider access to those most in need, distribution, research direction for the neediest, inequality, or justice.
Would a human rights impact assessment of trade rules as suggested by Dr. Schuftan help us in understanding what trade and global markets can and cannot do, and hence what other measures need to be taken and be (made) allowable by trade rules?
Mr. Castrillo states that free trade agreements contradict regional policies that support bio-farmers and processes seeking sustainability. He mentions the need for better governance and land tenure rules to generate favorable conditions to achieve more equity.
Mr. Kent summarizes the division between advocates of trade liberalization and its critics in terms of two connected points: 1) global markets are beneficial mainly to the rich and powerful and 2) strategies for self-sufficiency protect the weak from potentially exploitive relationships with those who are stronger.
Professor Haberli notes that farmer security is not food security. I would certainly agree, but also have concern that farmer security seems to be the piece most often left out of the policy equation and that is not sustainable for food security. And I guess I am really talking about small-scale farmers in agrobiodiverse systems being left out of the policy equation. Small-scale farmers not only produce a great deal of the food consumed in the world, given a supportive policy environment, they capture nutritional, health and other benefits such as the maintenance of social and cultural values and increased resiliency. What seems to go unrecognized in international public policy is the global public benefit, equally crucial to food security, that is provided by these small-scale farmers. They maintain, and many develop, genetic diversity in a dynamic, evolutionary setting responding to change providing the foundation to adapt crops to changing circumstances (and this cannot be replaced by the static system of gene banks though they are important complementary measures to on farm and in situ development and conservation). The management practices of these farmers are similarly evolving and responding to changing circumstances. They are, in reality, millions of experimenters/entrepreneurs at the frontlines of responding to new pests and diseases, changing water availability, climate variation etc.
Mr. Kent suggests that trade agreements include elements to protect the vulnerable rather than relying on markets alone. He mentions non-trade measures such as safety nets as part of a packaging of trade proposals with protection programs.
A few questions arise from this:
1. What are some of the non-trade measures needed?
2. Is there sufficient policy space in current trade rules for these measures?
3. Is policy space enough, and if not, what more is needed?
Susan Bragdon
Dear Contributors,
Thank you for the thoughtful contributions to this dialogue. With a couple of exceptions, it seems that most of the contributors are skeptical that a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, can be made compatible with a global market-based approach to food security (Question 3 of the Topic Note.)
One contributor indicated there is a danger of crop diversity loss if farmers grow crops that are in international demand in order to gain profits. Another contributor described a food security strategy as described in question 3 and trade rule compatibility as an “oxymoron.” Another answered the question by stating “It is simply not possible.”
I am wondering if we can dig a bit deeper with some of the suggestions for how a food security strategy that supports small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems can be made compatible with a global market-based approach to food security.
Dr. Claudio Schuftan suggested the need for research that “points towards the provisions that should be included in [trade and investment] agreements to guarantee food security and food sovereignty.”
The question is, what would these provisions need to look like? How in particular would the biologically diverse systems piece be supported and still be compatible with global market based approach?
Dennis Bennett notes that what is often missing from the trade/food security debates is an understanding of what motivates farmers, including small-scale farmers, to grow specific quantities and types of food.
Can we explore this a bit more? Mr. Bennett seems to be focusing on producing a surplus that can then be traded. He stressed the need to work bottom-up, starting by looking at the local Food Security Value Chain (FSVC), and treating all actors along the value chain with dignity and respect, valuing human rights.
A few of questions arise from Mr. Bennett’s thoughtful presentation.
How can the FSVC approach address what is grown from a bottom-up perspective (rather than a market demand perspective)?
How is what is grown determined so that diversity, including dietary diversity, is encouraged and how does this approach ensure that food gets to the hungriest regions?
How does the FSVC approach encourage the continuous process of developing and maintaining agriculturally biodiverse systems (one of the components mentioned in question 3)?
Mr. Bennett’s mentions the example of the transformation of agriculture in the mid-west of the United States from 1825-75. Changes that contributed to the transformation from subsistence to food surplus farming included things like the John Deere plow, the McCormick harvester, the steam-powered grain elevator, the Erie Canal amongst others. But this transformation also led to a huge decrease in the diversity of what is grown in this same area.
The market-based, traded system created in the US is also resource intensive with negative environmental externalities beyond the loss of biological diversity.
Can one use the FSVC approach and support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems? How is specifically does it do this?
I look forward to our continuing dialogue.
Susan
Susan Bragdon
Greetings to everybody, I wanted to add my welcome to my co-facilitator Ekaterina. I feel very lucky that Ekaterina has joined as a facilitator -- though it means you all are now in the hands of an economist and a lawyer!
As Ektaterina points out, the relationship between food security and trade rules is complex. We welcome input from all disciplines and from all stakeholders to help us gain a better understanding of how these two broad areas relate to one another. Given the diversity of situations amongst and within countries we want to hear your experience with how trade rules have helped, challenged, hindered your quest for food security and a sustainable food system.
Let us know if there are particular ways in which we can help facilitate the conversation. In the meantime, we look forward to your contributions and will jump in with our comments and questions as well.
Best,
Susan