Nowhere is there a word about protection against imports. And that is precisely the Achilles heel !

Worst of all is that this also applies to the farm policies of other countries, like Senegal and Mali and even the ECOWAS (See http://www.abcburkina.net/content/view/194/45/lang,fr/).

However, when farmers world-wide agreed on a definition of the term

“ food sovereignty”, they did so to defend the right of protecting themselves against cheap imports (sold at prices below the production cost), which  are a deadly blow to their home markets. They also claimed the right to protect themselves against world market fluctuations in farm prices. And this for the simple reason that the prices of farm products on the world market are not linked to their cost of production. Some countries heave off their surplus production in this way, others their second rate quality goods at prices with which local markets cannot compete.

The case of Mexican maize/corn is an object lesson. Since the free trade agreement with North America (NAFTA) was signed in 1996, Mexico has become dependent on imports of subsidised North American maize, which now arrives in large quantities on the Mexican market, making home farmers redundant. This is at the root of the massive rural exodus. And those who have stayed on at their farms are abandoning maize. At present the increase in ethanol production on US farm land has substantially reduced the supply of maize, pushing up its price,  in Mexico as well as internationally. But Mexico no longer produces enough maize! And the price of the national staple fare of Mexicans, the tortilla (a “maize pancake”) is steadily rising, so much that there is now talk of “a national tortilla crisis”.

This seems to be a perfect case in point. It is to prevent a scenario of this kind that there is a widespread demand to have food sovereignty recognised by the international community as the right of a population, or a state (or a number of states acting in unison, such as the ECOWAS), to pursue their own food and farm policy, accompanied by the right to protect it, when necessary, by taxing imports. It is no good to tell farmers “Work harder, produce more” to ensure a nation’s food security. If production is to be increased, farmers’ revenues must first be secured. Then they will work harder and produce more. But if a farmer cannot sell his rice at a profit, he will switch to other crops, or he may leave his land altogether and look for a living in the city …

It would be irresponsible to make vast investments to cultivate large rice fields, without first making sure that there is a fire-wall against cheap Asian rice imports sold at cut-throat prices.  It only takes a trip to the abandoned rice fields on the irrigated plains of Sourou in Burkina Faso to understand this.

It is for this reason that we incessantly keep repeating that the only way to guarantee food security for West Africa is the recognition of food sovereignty and therefore also of the right to put up protective barriers around domestic agriculture. It is therefore urgent that the ECOWAS define its new Common External Customs Tariff, which establishes the level of import tax on various products, at the same time reviewing the CET of the West African Economic and Monetary Union upwards. In practice this would mean the introduction of a 50% tariff band (today there are only four, ranging from 0%, 5%, 10% to 20%) accompanied by ways and means to compensate for the falling dollar. When such a new tariff band is established, it should encompass all farm products requiring protection, such as rice, milk, tomato …

Finally, in order to send out a strong signal to the EU, the higher CET should be put in place before a return to the negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements, with which the EU wishes to force-feed West Africa. Only then can farmers hope to have their voice heard when they claim: “No partnership agreements without food sovereignty”.

Koudougou, 7 November 2007

Maurice Oudet

Director, SEDELAN