The WTO's Agreement on Agriculture is meant to govern the trade of agricultural goods between member countries. This is meant to be done through lowering barriers to the trade of such goods, particularly through targetting domestic subsidies and tariffs on imports.

There is still great imbalance in the food trade. Rich countries still subsidies their domestic growers whilst demandingpoor countries remove tariffs on imports and cut subsidies for their farmers. This has undermined domestic production or crops in developing countries, forcing them to shift to more export oriented approaches, so called 'cash crops'.

The current food crisis has shown that existing free market policies in the trade of food is placing many countries at risk. Over the years the continued pressure on developing countries to dismantle supports for farmers have made many reliant on imports for products that once were abundantly produced domestically. With domestic production undermined, the rise in food prices leaves many citizens unable to afford basic staples, resulting in the protests and riots experience in 37 countries.

Protecting Food Security

Within such a scenario developing countries have refused to agree to a WTO agreement that would remove their ability to respond to major changes in food prices. The Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) is the mechanism being negotiated at the WTO to allow countries to respond to major increases in prices or import volumes by increasing tariffs before domestic producers are wiped out.

The SSM is what regarded by many as the issue that sunk the July 2008 talks (although many critics have highlight that many other senstitive issues like cotton, US subsidies and special products are yet to be decided). India and China refused to accept a mechanism that, according to US, EU, and Australian demands, would have been rendered effectively useless.

Special Products (SP) are another area of high importance to food security as well as controversy at the WTO. Special Products are a range of goods that are deemed by developing countries to be important to food security and as such available for lower reductions in tariff levels. Once again rich countries are challenging the method and number of foods that developing countries can be designated as SPs, furthering the push for a Doha round that contains nothing of its 'development' namesake.

For more information on the SSM, SPs and food security see our resources page.

Not only about subsidies

In order to see trade addressing the needs of the people of the world we need to step back from the free market logic that has been prominent. The removal of subsidies in rich countries will indeed be of benefit for developing countries, but this is more about historical imbalance and the simple removal of tariffs wont solve the problems of food security that easily. Countries need to be free to be able to undertake the measures necessary to ensure that their food sources are secure. This involves parting with the current ideology that pervades the WTOs Agreement on Agriculture and undertaking a new method of trade that has the feeding of all people at its core.