| At the initiative of the FAO, representatives of 96 states met in Porto Alegre , Brazil , for the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. More than 70 farmer organisations and civil society associations attended. In the plenary sessions and technical workshops they had an opportunity to present their vision of the future to an audience of Government representatives. During the debates the European perspective, which places great value on the opening up of markets (in particular through Economic Partnership Agreements – EPAs – between the ACP countries and the European Union) as an avenue to food security, appears to have met with strong criticism from the African farmer organisations. They instead called for food sovereignty (which stands for the capacity of a country to determine its food supply policy, notably by giving preference to domestic and local production and the right to protect itself from cheap imports). See also the weekly newsletter 112 from AFDI, Agriculteurs français et développement international (French Farmers and International Development). As a keen observer for over 30 years of the rural world of Burkina Faso , I am in total agreement with the views put forward by the African farmer organisations. And I cannot understand the lack of perception of E.U. politicians. Pay a visit to the E.U. mission in Ouagadougou and you will find that it has a specialist on food security. The same goes for the Embassy of France in Ouagadougou and probably also for the French embassies in Bamako ( Mali ) and Niamey ( Niger )… In spite of this, food security does not make any progress. Why? Because of a refusal to see the obvious: Food insecurity is linked to poverty. It is not because there is free circulation of foodstuffs that the poor can buy food. Even when it comes at a low price, it has to be paid for in cash. On the other hand, the rich will not starve, even when living in a hostile economic environment. But the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. If a country opens its gates to an influx of cheap imports (of for example rice, which may be 5 to 10 years’ old, or subsidised products, such as wheat or milk from Europe ), domestic production and prices will be drowned. The country’s own grain and livestock farmers can no longer sell their products and therefore sink into misery. They are vulnerable. A year of drought or insect pests is enough to deprive a population of its livelihood. There is still the financial burden of loans and charges to be paid. There is no cash left to buy any freely circulating foodstuffs! This explains why a majority of the world’s poor are to be found in rural areas. The vicious circle must be broken and reverted to a virtuous one! It is necessary to come to grips with the roots of poverty. To achieve this, farmers and breeders must have a chance to get a remunerative price for their products. In a world where global prices do not have much to do with production costs, it is necessary to resort to the protection of domestic markets. Therefore, in addition to rural development programmes, relevant agricultural policies must be worked out, with the aim of achieving food sovereignty. But what I especially wish to add is this: If we have confidence in the farmers, if we allow them to work in a healthy economic environment, instead of exploiting and crushing them, they will be altogether capable of providing the endeavoured food security. This would also lay the basis that would trigger economic development for West African countries. I make this affirmation on the strength of an analysis of data (too long for this brief weekly bulletin) that I have assembled under the heading “Which strategy should be adopted to fight poverty?” How could anyone imagine bringing development to a country where 80% of the population live on farming and animal husbandry, as long as all the political decisions are favouring the urban dwellers? Koudougou, March 23 2006
Maurice Oudet | 
View from the South