Doing the aftermath of world summits
By Robert Gronski
NCRLC policy coordinator
ncrlcg@mchsi.com

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference has been a witness to the changes in the American agricultural landscape since its beginnings in the 1920s. Over the past couple of decades, NCRLC has been increasingly involved in world agriculture and the global food system. This only makes sense, because U.S. agriculture has always been tied to international markets. Economic growth is dependent on trade exports, or so the economistic mantra goes. Without dispute, our available resources and applied technologies have allowed vast surpluses of food to be grown and transported overseas. Furthermore, the U.S. has exported its food-producing system – agricultural machinery, agro-chemicals, industrial practices – so that other nations can be enfolded into the global food system.

In one sense, a global food system allows a variety of foods to be traded around the world and enjoyed by many. But in the shadows of this enlightened idea, national governments force their farmers to compete against other farmers around the world. Do they do this to generate income opportunities for rural communities, or more for the necessity of capturing foreign exchange earnings? This latter situation has caused many farmers to exploit the land and themselves in order to grow foods at the lowest cost, often selling their harvest below the cost of production. At every turn of the crank, transnational corporations swell on this exploitative system. They legitimatize its awful design by influencing international trade agreements, despite the painful cries from the land and the people.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference has been trying to comprehend this dilemma, one that is repeated every growing season in this country and around the world. Besides trying to comprehend, we are working with others to find a sustainable solution to highly industrialized agriculture. Many are familiar with our efforts to work with an inspired collaboration of farm, faith and environmental groups around the 2002 Farm Bill. Given the bankruptcy of commodity farm production, why not build a "new agriculture" based on sustainable practices? We continue these efforts in implementing those appropriate programs in the Farm Bill that seek to sustain rural communities and the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. NCRLC staff is also engaged in international collaborations, and we took the opportunity during 2002 to attend both the World Food Summit in Rome and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. These events helped us to prepare for the 5th Ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization in Cancun, Mexico (September 2003).

Global community of communities

These UN-sponsored and WTO events are significant for us, even if the initiatives agreed upon by the governmental delegations wither on the vine. How can this be? NCRLC has connected with many like-minded – and strong-hearted – groups that work at the local level and strive for an energetic "global community of communities." This is in stark contrast to the static and soulless "global economic system" that government leaders are told will lead to a prosperous future for all. If they took a historical look, they would find no working and sustainable model of such a system, certainly not one that is democratic and enabling for all people. On the other hand, each country of the world seems able to point to communities that have thrived for generations – until, of course, they come face to face with economic globalization.

At least that was the sense of many we met in Rome, Johannesburg and Cancun. Their interest to meet and talk with others was genuine, so it was clear that they did not want to turn inward and shut themselves off from the rest of the world. We sensed a yearning for a type of globalization that is perhaps expressed by the Teilhardian word planetization, one that allows differentiation in unity. In other words, a global community of communities. For our interest in agricultural and social justice issues, NCRLC staff spoke with many who are trying to establish sustainable practices of local food production while taking care of soil, water and the web of life.

The US government and corporate elite, in stark contrast, are seen as only interested in fighting for a "level playing field". Tear down trade barriers, they say, and let everyone compete in an open marketplace. What happened to the old organizing principle of "special and preferential treatment" for developing nations established in the 1960s? The United States was ready to help nations struggling to emerge from colonial strictures (even if our motives were tainted by Cold War machinations). When more than half the world lives in poverty or marginal conditions, an affluent and technologically advanced nation like the United States cannot expect to be taken respectfully in their notions of a "level playing field" in trade and development.

What Development?

When it comes to agriculture and trade liberalization, the affluent North may not always understand why people in the South do not readily accept "modern" principles of industrial agriculture and economic globalization. People of the South are perplexed that no one sees that their current dilemmas are caused by these very same principles. They are impoverished and downtrodden by what has occurred over the past half-century of "development", not by their traditional practices of the last one thousand years.

The challenges confronting the North and South after the various global summits are deeply political, economic and distributional. By their very nature, these are highly controversial. Does this mean more summits, more world forums, more global negotiations? Yes, of course. However, our new-found friends in communities around the world reminded us that when partners of widely different power are involved, no fair change can occur. Certainly not when the dominant party strives to maintain the status quo. This concerns NCRLC greatly because the essence of these otherwise tangled summits is the future of human society. It is the possibility of planetary peace and order, and ultimately of moral and sustainable living. Is there a way for faith-based organization like NCRLC, and other civil society organizations struggling with these questions, to remain involved in governmental negotiations yet offer a distinct path for agricultural sovereignty and social justice?

In order to answer this question and develop a plan of action, it is important to realize that international negotiations are a continuous stream. Summit follows summit, and in between are continental gatherings and special group meetings, like G8 and G77+. The Johannesburg Summit was one in a line of official meetings to deal with issues of sustainable development on a global scope. Heads of States made promises to each other, but it was difficult for their ministers to set targets and deadlines, not to mention enacting enforcement procedures. In comparison, the World Trade Organization (WTO) appears to be a uniquely powerful body; its ongoing negotiations are creating significant national obligations. Trade agreements can be readily enforced and nations can be penalized. Trade agreements can be used as battering rams to destroy local economies, and countries with small economies are particularly vulnerable.

Opposing the globalization of agriculture

The domination of trade above all other concerns – human rights, environmental concerns, access to resources, cultural integrity – is one problem. Another problem is how globalized trade promotes an unsustainable world agricultural system. Such a system imposes a uniform and industrially driven agricultural production process and limits local control. In a sense, it takes the farmer out of farming and leaves agriculture in the hands of CEOs. This is detrimental to food security and food sovereignty, two ideas that many in the United States fail to appreciate.

A return to locally controlled, sustainable agriculture is made difficult by the fact that it will likely require some government subsidization of farmers, especially small-scale and family farmers. Which nations are able to subsidize their farmers? The US and the EU spring to mind. If that leads to artificially cheap foods flooding world markets, what does that mean to the ability of farmers in other countries to produce food? The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is grappling with that question right now. Wealthier countries with greater resources will surely end up dominating food production. But to stop agricultural subsidies altogether may serve to consolidate the power of transnational agribusinesses that have the market power to survive without government supports to primary producers. Is it possible to target subsidies to farmers who practice sustainable agriculture and conserve their soil and water? Is it possible to override the forces of global corporate trade?

A Civil Society Response

Three strategies can be imagined. First, non-governmental and civil society organizations can try to influence the official position of their home governments. Government officials in turn can try to influence their counterparts at world summits and shape international agreements. In principle, this is the democratic ethos at work; in reality, this grassroots strategy must also counter the powerful lobbying capabilities of the corporate elite. We must find creative ways to hold government officials accountable to their public promises.

Second, civil society organizations could participate in the official NGO forum encouraged by the United Nations and work with interest groups around the world to develop alternative positions to those of the official government process. NCRLC, for instance, was an accredited NGO to the Johannesburg Summit and participated in special meetings for sustainable agriculture and rural development. To be effective, however, alternative positions must lead to a common plan of action. The culturally diverse and multi-language groups of the NGO forum have only taken their first steps to developing such a plan. Only afterwards can we begin to press for coherent policies of local food production over global trade preferences.

A third strategy, and a bold one, is to work outside the official framework altogether and use global summits as opportunities to mobilize world opinion around key issues confronting people everywhere. The main thrust of this strategy is to build a strong movement for an alternative framework to the current form of economic globalization. Regarding agriculture and food, this strategy means involving all those who work the fields, harvest the crops, manually handle production and processing, and bring the food to our tables. It also includes all who eat, because we are learning that how and what we eat shapes the countryside. The "right to food" will be just as important as the "right to market food". This bold movement will mean a new social contract for agriculture, and NCRLC looks forward to working with all those who believe in the dignity of farmers and the integrity of Creation.

What next?

Non-governmental organizations and civil society groups will continue to gather and continue to hold their parallel meetings in the shadow of official forums. Unrest in the streets will draw more coverage and comment than the earnest deliberations among those who would create society anew. Will civil society gatherings become the shining light for a new world? That is the hope of many who fear the corporate influence over our elected governments. Something is rising in the world that counters the lengthening shadows of transnational corporations over all that impacts our lives – goods, services, human rights, food. Globalization as participation will redeem the true meaning of freedom and allow everyone to rise to their full stature. Human dignity and the common good will once again emerge, drawn eternally to the Light of the World.

April 2004