We hear a lot about globalization these days. What exactly does it mean and how does it affect the hungry and poor?

For a lot of people, globalization has meant a revolutionary increase in the flow of information all over the world. Thanks to new technologies, such as the Internet, PCs and cell phones, we are more connected than ever before. We can chat, blog and share ideas, music and pictures with people everywhere, easily, immediately and relatively cheaply.

This new feeling of connectedness is important in the fight against hunger. The more we sense that we all belong to a single global village, the less willing we are to tolerate the fact that more than 800 million of our fellow villagers are desperately poor and hungry. Internet sites like this one have become one of the best tools for informing people about social injustices – such as chronic hunger – and getting people involved and taking action.

What about global trade?

Most of us have welcomed this revolution in global communications, but when it comes to economic globalisation many have also stood up and shouted “No Global!”

Economic globalization is about the increasing the flow of trade among countries. This process is related to “trade liberalization” which involves breaking down trade barriers that countries have set up to protect certain sectors of their economies.

Many economists feel that trade liberalization is a good thing. They argue that more international trade equals more economic growth for all. The World Trade Organization, an organization made up of 148 member countries and the European Community, is working to establish a set of rules that would make international trade more free and more fair.

Many people have been very critical of the WTO. They believe that the entire liberalization process will create a system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Where does FAO stand?

Using trade negotiations to help the hungry

FAO recognizes that in trade negotiations there may be winners and losers. So far, the losers have been the small producers. But that doesn’t mean that developing countries have nothing to gain from multilateral trade negotiations. In fact, they have a lot to lose if the WTO negotiations break down.

As it stands, many industrialized countries have adopted trade practices that give their farmers an advantage on the world markets. These practices protect their own farmers but represent a barrier to trade for developing countries.

FAO, along with other UN agencies and many large nongovernmental organizations, consider that breaking down barriers to agricultural trade would have a major impact on poverty and hunger. If poor countries could sell their produce and processed goods in rich countries, it would help them develop their agricultural sector and feed their people. During WTO negotiations, developed countries have vowed to reduce trade barriers, but so far they have done little about it.

FAO also recognizes that there are legitimate arguments in favour of certain forms of agricultural protectionism. The value of agriculture to a country is measured by more than its trade value. This is true for developing and developed countries alike. Farming is an activity that holds communities together. It preserves traditions and cultures. It shapes the landscape and the environment. Understandably, governments, particularly in Europe and North America, feel they have a responsibility to protect this aspect of their national culture.

Also, many of the least developed countries will not be able to take advantage of increased access to global markets. Unless certain allowances are made so that they can protect and strengthen their own agricultural sectors, they will fall farther behind.

FAO attends the WTO negotiations and works to ensure that the demands of the poor and hungry are heard loud and clear. It helps developing countries prepare for the negotiations by offering training sessions, designing serious trade simulation games and providing many other resources.