The industrialization of agriculture began first in the North and the consequences were the reduction in the number of farmers, the degradation of natural resources, the development of the agri-food industry for the processing of agricultural products, the standardization of food and the appearance of surplus production that had to be sold outside the countries.
Agricultural intensification and a policy of food self-sufficiency in the North led to the appearance of surpluses in various sectors (cereals, meat, milk, sugar) already in the 1970s.
The disposal of surpluses also took the form of food aid. When they were granted systematically outside of any emergency, they also provided a significant boost to commercial exports.
A first perverse mechanism for the disposal of surpluses is based on the supply of cities with products from the North, dangerously competing with local peasant production, which is entering into crisis, which is itself spreading to sectors linked to agricultural production. The resulting unemployment and impoverishment led to a rural exodus and the strengthening of imports, thus maintaining the mechanism described. But this is not the case at all, since this situation leads to increased needs for foreign exchange, which divert food production to cash crops, whose influx at the global level causes prices to fall. This is followed by a new impoverishment that reinforces the rural exodus and urban population growth, deepening the entire mechanism.
Both the food and export sectors are experiencing a deep crisis. The latter is above all a victim of the incessant reduction in prices and in reality only survives thanks to the overexploitation of natural resources.
The analysis of the dependencies thus created between the economies of the North and the South must be more detailed, but it can be seen overall that agricultural dependence on the North is based on basic necessities, while dependence on the South is based on luxury goods and animal feed (the latter coming mainly from Asia and Latin America).
- Globalization of agricultural intensification
The process began in the North with mechanization, the use of chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides), biotechnologies (a process that began with selected seeds) and organizational models. It tends to gradually impose itself in the South under the impetus of agricultural cooperation. As an importer of factors of production not controlled by farmers, an agricultural sector that claims to be modern is gradually gaining ground, especially with a view to export. The consequences are the inadequacy of production methods to the ecological and social context of developing countries, the exclusion of peasants and the entry into crisis of peasant agriculture, which is more focused on food crops. This agriculture, although well adapted to the local context (because it respects the carrying capacity of the environment), is thus deprived of the opportunities for improvement and development that it needs through agricultural research and agricultural advice to ensure food security and balanced and sustainable development.
Because, don’t farmers need to arrive at scalable agricultural production systems, self-perpetuation of plant and animal species, allowing them to put on the market at each period of the year, production at remunerative prices, and this in an economical approach (using all the renewable energies available in the environment by limiting external inputs) while safeguarding natural resources?
- Globalization, agricultural subsidies and poverty
The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development told us that in 2001, rich countries gave six times more subsidies to their agriculture than development aid, i.e. 311 and 55 billion US dollars respectively. This situation gives the agricultural sector of these countries a clear competitive advantage over poor countries. Thus, agricultural products from rich countries arrive at (very low) dumping prices in the already open markets of developing countries where poor consumers buy them to the detriment of local agricultural products from small family farms whose incomes are falling day by day.
This is the case of European beef, which has destroyed the livelihoods of pastoralists in the Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger) who exported their meat to the major cities of West Africa (Ivory Coast, Togo, Benin) where European meat was sold 40% cheaper than local meat. This is also the case for turkey wings or chicken thighs in Senegal from Europe which cost 1100 FCFA per kilogram while that of locally produced chicken costs 2000 FCFA.
In addition, the markets of developed countries account for the bulk of African agricultural export outlets, which face difficulties in accessing these markets, which apply tariff peaks for several products (sugar, meat and horticultural products) and tariff escalation continues to prevail in several important product chains (coffee, cocoa, oilseeds, vegetables, etc.). fruits, leathers and skins in particular). In addition, sanitary and phytosanitary measures are real non-tariff barriers to the entry of African agricultural products into these markets.
In addition, the Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPA) currently being negotiated between the European Union and the ACP countries, which were due to start on 1 January 2008, are worrying, since liberalisation must be extended to all sectors, i.e. to agriculture, and cover at least 90% of trade. We will thus put the Senegalese or Malian millet producer who produces an average of one ton of millet per hectare on about one to three hectares in competition with the European producer who produces 7 tons per hectare on an area of 130 hectares, knowing that the second receives about 60,000 Euros in direct aid and the first receives nothing. In addition, the Common External Tariff (CET) of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) imposes only a very low customs duty of 5% on the import of cereals, while the WTO authorizes WAEMU countries to impose higher customs duties. For market access for agricultural products according to Senegal’s Schedule, the bound ceiling rate is 30% plus additional duties of up to 150%.
As a result, the gap between the world price and the domestic market price can be up to 180%, which in theory allows for significant potential protection of local agricultural products. Côte d’Ivoire could go up to 230% if it were not for compliance with the WAEMU CET. The ECOWAS, which defined its Common Agricultural Policy, repeated the same mistakes, instead of instituting a “Protected Sub-Regional Market”.
The framework agreement on agriculture concluded at the WTO on 31 July 2004 for the rebalancing of North-South relations in agricultural trade, in which Western countries commit themselves to eliminating their export subsidies and trade-distorting domestic subsidies, is very complex and will not provide any solution to the enormous agricultural subsidies granted by the countries of the North to their agriculture. Indeed, the framework agreement negotiated by the “Group of 5” (the trade ministers of Brazil and India representing developing countries, in front of those of the EU, the USA and Australia, has only provided a carte blanche to the European Union and the United States of America to significantly increase their trade-distorting domestic support, simply by the use of sophisticated negotiation techniques.
Finally, in July 2008 in Geneva, the trade negotiations on the Doha Round of 2001 began in 2001 failed because of significant differences between countries and groups of countries on the “Agricultural Question”.
- Damage to the environment, natural resources and biodiversity
The agro-industrial production model has finished causing incalculable damage to the environment, natural resources and biodiversity. Its production costs have never incorporated environmental damage into the pricing of agricultural products. The use of fossil fuels and the greenhouse gas emissions produced by this production model, combined with those from factories, should encourage all developed countries to ratify and implement the Kyoto Protocol.
- Structural Adjustment Measures and the Debt Burden
In the 1980s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank forced most developing countries to adopt structural adjustment measures in order to benefit from their financial support. These measures have forced governments to liberalize the economy, privatize public companies, thus eliminating a large part of public services such as health, education, and access to drinking water, reduce public investment budgets, devalue the currency, scrupulously respect the repayment of the very heavy debt, the end of agricultural subsidies and the disengagement of the State, among others. The consequences for the population are the deterioration of living conditions, especially for women and children, and the forced mass exodus to more clement places. This phenomenon has been a determining factor in immigration to cities in developing countries such as those in Africa. This immigration also took place towards Europe and the United States of America. In passing, we must salute the decisive contribution of immigrants to the economy of their countries through large remittances of foreign currency, thus compensating for the decrease in official development assistance.
- Poor people’s lack of access to financial resources
In general, poor people do not have access to credit and various financial resources in their countries. Rural households suffer the most from this phenomenon. A study by the Network of Farmers’ Organizations and Producers of West Africa (ROPPA) on the financing of the agricultural sector in West Africa reveals that family farms receive only 3% of the financial resources available in the Sub-region, and that a West African farmer receives on average only 3000 FCFA (about 5 Euros) per year for the financing of his production. and the funding available is only short-term (6 to 7 months). There are practically no investment loans (medium and long term).
