farmviews & opinions…

…in Southern Norway…

safeguard against global food-market failures…

I'm not against global food-trade, but I'm very much against the loss of local food-production, -distribution and -markets. Whenever and wherever there's a risk of such losses, whoever is in charge locally/nationally must be ready and able to safeguard against it, even if it means breaking socalled “free trade agreements”.

• Having access to locally produced food safeguards to a large degree against total chaos and widespread hunger if one of the larger food producing and exporting countries experience a failure caused by nature or negative market-forces. The latter is most often what causes such falures, but the former certainly can't be written off either.

  Such a failure is shaking the market and is causing hunger and death right now. It has happened before and it will happen again, so disregarding it can only be seen as signs of extreme stupidity or deliberately destructive minds.

• The global market is based as much on distribution as it is on production, and if distribution fails the whole system fails. Such failures can be the result of bad politics, changes in cost, market-manipulation, wars or conflicts, and the effects can cripple global food-distribution in no time.

  Short-range distribution will still work though, but of course only if there's something to distribute. It is too late to (re)start production when the failure is a fact, so either production is kept alive and well or it doesn't exist.

• There's a lot of talk about open competition in some circles, but there is no such thing as “open competition” in global trade. Rich countries and companies can afford production and distribution networks that span the globe – in fact they already have them in place and are ready to let them grow and kill off competition as soon as they smell money.

  Trying to play catch-up in the global market without ending up being exploited, consumed and/or destroyed by the existing players, is next to impossible for the poor in the world. They can do well on a local market though, provided they are allowed to have one and are not out-maneuvered and/or overrun there also by the rich.

• Ever heard about “dumping”? The rich distributors can afford to saturate a market vith artificially low prices long enough to kill off their poor competitors, wherafter there's no competition to worry about and the prices can be set high enough to kill off even more of the poor in the name of “free market”.

  Don't waste breath on saying such strategies are not, or won't, be used. They are and always will be, and they're as destructive and deadly as any war. At best the most clever players manages to call it something that doesn't sound like “dumping”, while they're killing off even more competitors and people who can't afford to be in on the “game”.

the right to produce, buy and eat local food…

In a world with so many hundred millions going hungry every day and wondering where the next meal should come from – if at all, the very right to produce, buy and eat local food must be strengthen, not weakened. There's no excuse for letting malnutrition and death caused by hunger go on in the names of “market economy” and “free trade”.

In the areas most likely to suffer in the future one should now focus on improving infrastructure – roads and communication-systems, access to education and information – schools, healt-institutions like local doctors and hospitals, and restrict use of cultivated land for anything but food production. Making it possible, and worthwile, to produce and get access to essential food and live reasonable good lives everywhere where nature allows, should be the primary goal.

The need for rescue-operations and that people have to move from an area to avoid severe malnutrition and hunger, because local nature simply can't sustain life for short or longer periods, will always be present – there will aways be hunger somewhere in this world of ours. However, having to move elsewhere or die because politicians, market economy and free trade agreements literally remove the foundation for basic food production in an area, doesn't sound right.

The need to “feed the people” will be limited if all people are allowed and made able to feed themselves, so the leading forces in the world should focus on making that happen before contemplating continuous series of rescue-operations and amendments to free trade agreements.

The rest of us can help a lot, but those who claim to be world leaders in politics and those who control the markets, have to move in the right direction first. Not just a few here and there, but many, everywhere.

I'm waiting…

caution – the ability to stand back and watch…

Once the basic rights and means to produce and distribute are present, working infrastructures are in place and the nature is playing along, it is time to stand back. It is human nature to become reliant on external assistance and handouts, so at the first signs that people in an area don't have or are losing the will to develop and maintain the basics for their own livelihood, the time to reduce and/or pull out assistance has come.

Which kind of assistance that should pull out first and which should stay for longer, varies greatly from case to case, so no clear answers can be given for when to pull out what. Dependency on external assistance and handouts has to be severed sooner or later though, or else it will become a way of life and most likely end in disaster.

History shows that we have gotten this wrong more often than right, so one can rightfully say that many disasters are caused, retriggered or made worse by charity and good intentions. It should not and does not have to be this way.

I think our ability to measure out the right kinds and amounts of assistance to the less fortunate in the world, is severly flawed by the way we in the industrialized and generally more fortunate parts of the world think. We tend not to accept that “survival of the fittest” will always be a fact of life, and that some will lose out no matter what.

We also tend to want to simplify complex matters so they become easier for us to handle, with the historically repeated results that our interventions end up not solving much of anything where it matters. Saying that “we did our best” isn't of much use when our actions were doomed to failure from beginning to end.

Plans and solutions must come from the individuals and groups of people in need in an area, and we as outsiders must limit our assistance to that of providing time for them to reach their goals and the few means they may need in order to reach their goals that they don't have local access to. Once a group have reached a sustainable level in accordance with their own plans, we outsiders should leave them to it and stand by and watch while they themselves grow to a level they're reasonably comfortable with.

Further interventions should be based on their progression and their plans, which of course have to be weighed up against and be coordinated with plans forwarded by other groups and interests in the wider area. Assistance through diplomacy may do more good than more visible interventions at this stage.

Our world consists of interconnected groups of people, and connections are best built by those who need them. We humans can't live in isolation, and we can't keep on solving isolated cases by sending increasingly larger bills to others – not in the long run.

finally – and more locally…

Some in my country, Norway, say we should remove import barriers so we can trade with those countries and groups that need it the most – the poor in the world, thus help them out of poverty. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Someone must have missed something important here though, because Norway have zero import barriers on food and other goods coming from the poor countries, and this has been Norwegian policy for decades. We do have import barriers in place to avoid being flooded by food and goods dumped on us from the various rich countries, but those certainly don't hurt the poor – quite the opposite in fact.

The intention behind this part of our national policy is to help the poor producers and consumers around the globe whichever way we can, while keeping our own production alive and well so we don't become totally dependent on global markets. As mentioned before: global markets tend to fail at the worst times possible, and we here in Norway don't want to add to the world-wide problems, or our own, next time that happens. Be sure, it will.

So, we're open for free trade and market economy, as long as the right to sustainable food-production and livelihood everywhere can be protected and not fall victim to narrow-minded market-forces and politicians. Better safe than sorry…

sincerely 

Hageland 10.aug.2008
last rev: 01.sep.2008