It is hardly a secret that the approaches of WTO Members differ in pursuing, or arguing for, food security. I do not intend to speak for them: what follows are my personal views.

Let me begin by underlining the obvious: food security is of fundamental importance to the viability and functioning of any society. Food security is therefore an important policy objective in all countries. However, it is of particular concern to many developing countries where food security has remained a daily problem for parts of the population.

The question is: What can be done to enhance food security?

This question, as I see it, raises at least six policy-related challenges:

1. We need peace.
2. We need to strengthen the purchasing power of individuals and households, particularly the purchasing power of the poor.
3. We need to increase the efficiency of food production and distribution.
4. We need an adequate growth and stability of the food supply.
5. We need better and more secure access to the food supply.
6. We need appropriate availability of food aid, especially in emergency situations.

Taken together, these six challenges amount to a formidable task by any standard, and addressing them properly requires action at both the national and the international level.

In my remarks, I wish to focus only on one of the complex aspects at issue, notably the relationship between food security and trade. More specifically, the point I want to make is that moving ahead the trade agenda in the future WTO negotiations is part of the solution because it can positively contribute to progress on all six fronts.

Peace: The importance of peace among and within countries for ensuring food security requires little elaboration. In this regard, the multilateral trading system has helped to contain what historically was a frequent source of war, notably international trade conflicts. The changeover from the GATT to the WTO was another major step in putting international economic relations on a firmer footing. Clearer and stronger rules now govern all areas of trade, from agriculture to services. The new dispute settlement system has established its credibility and is functioning rather smoothly. The trading system is expanding geographically through an ongoing stream of accessions of new Members.

By ensuring that the rule of law rather than the rule of power governs international trade relations, the multilateral trading system has developed into an essential pillar of the global political security system. Economic integration is a powerful glue for political co-operation. The future WTO negotiations provide an opportunity to further strengthen the system and thus also the peace-keeping function of the WTO. In turn, this would add to food security.

Strengthening the purchasing power of people: War and civil strife aside, poverty is a root cause for the lack of food security. Here as well, further trade liberalization can make a difference. There is plenty of empirical evidence that trade-induced economic growth and job creation has greatly enhanced the power of people around the world to purchase food. The trading system has done this by progressively widening trade channels through the results of successive rounds of trade negotiations and by keeping them open. Trade liberalization has also been an important stimulus for the international transfer and diffusion of knowledge and capital which, in turn, has helped to spread economic growth and development around.

The leading role of trade in income growth and job creation is highlighted by two figures: over the last five decades the volume of international trade in merchandise multiplied by a factor of seventeen, while global production increased by a factor of six.

Further trade liberalization can thus be a forceful weapon in the fight against poverty. In this regard the dismantling of any excessive trade barriers at home is as of much importance as improvements in market access opportunities abroad. New WTO negotiations on agriculture and services are already mandated under the Uruguay Agreements. Whether the scope of the negotiations will be extended to include other elements remains to be agreed.

From a food security perspective, substantial results in the future WTO negotiations on products of particular export interest to developing countries, whether agricultural products, other commodities, labour-intensive and other manufactures or services, would be particularly welcome, of course. The rich countries could do a lot to contribute to this end. However, to see this matter exclusively in a North-South perspective would leave out other important opportunities for trade expansion: food trade among developing countries, for example, has grown rapidly in recent years. In 1997, as much as 43.5 per cent of the agricultural exports of developing countries were sold in the markets of other developing countries, up from 39.5 per cent in 1990. The fact that similar developments have occurred in other areas of trade further underlines the importance of truly multilateral trade liberalization.

A broadly-based market access approach in the future negotiations, and one which would include addressing tariff peaks and tariff escalation, could go quite some way in helping developing countries to broaden and deepen their economic bases by way of horizontal, vertical and geographic diversification of production and exports. In turn, such a development would make the economies more resilient against fluctuations of commodity prices. It would also be conducive for trade-induced economic growth and job creation to progressively reach the poorer parts of the population – that is the people which in terms of food security are most in need.

Increasing the efficiency of food production and distribution: The cost of food is, of course, another important element of the food security equation. It depends a great deal on the efficiency of food production and distribution. In this regard, a further dismantling of trade barriers and trade-distorting subsidies in the context of the future WTO negotiations will help to boost food production in countries and regions where it can be produced at lowest cost, including the many developing countries whose agricultural development is currently adversely affected by subsidy practices abroad. At the same time, trade-induced economic growth would add to the resources available for investments aimed at improving education as well as agricultural infrastructure and productivity. Enhanced technical assistance could, of course, also significantly help in this regard.

The competition that goes along with more open markets is also a factor in stimulating innovation, the diffusion of cost-effective agricultural production technologies, and advances in farm management practices at both the national and the international level. Moreover, to the extent that the future WTO negotiations were to cover all goods and services, their results would help to reduce transport, distribution and marketing costs for food and its inputs. While not directly relevant to the issue at hand, the potential for competition to generate efficiency gains is currently illustrated in a spectacular way by the developments following the dismantling of the telecommunication monopolies in Europe.

The bottom line is that all these factors combined are likely to translate into lower food prices than otherwise, thus making food more affordable, particularly for the poor.

Adequate growth and stability of, and access to, food supply: A more efficient use of the global resources available for the production of food strengthens, almost by definition, the capacity to feed a growing world population. Policy changes to this effect are therefore one of the responses to the Malthusian threat – with technological progress being another powerful tool. However, from a food security perspective the issue is not only whether world food supply keeps pace with world food demand. The stability of food supply and access to that supply are of similar concern.

Individual countries and regions will always be vulnerable to exceptional fluctuations in food production because of factors such as the vagaries of the weather, natural disasters or ecological crises. The difference in an integrated and interdependent world economy is that these risks are spread globally. Recent developments in North Korea provide a sad example of what can happen to food security if a country de-links itself from the world economy. In an open food system, the scourge of drought in one part of the world can be mitigated by better weather conditions and the resulting production surpluses in another part of the world. In an open world, there are simply more sources of supply than in a highly protected food market: instead of one shop in the village there are many shops which offer a broader range of food and compete with each other for clients.

What needs to be ensured, however, is security of access to these shops at all times. In other words, in order to play its proper role with respect to food security the world market must be a reliable source in good as well as in bad times. This point has already been brought up in the Uruguay Round and resulted in new disciplines, notably notification and consultation obligations, in the event of the institution of new export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs. However, not least reflecting the experience during the 1996/97 cereals price hike, in the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial there are calls for reinforcing these disciplines. Basically, the argument boils down to the point that security of access to international food supply is simply the counterpart of security of access to food markets through the market access concessions bound in the WTO. It is evident that there is scope for improvements in this regard.

Food aid: Even in the best of circumstances food aid will have to remain an important tool in the context of food security. This is most obvious in case of emergency situations, whether brought about by natural disasters or wars. It is also an important instrument in regions where famine is endemic. One challenge in this area is, however, to minimize any adverse impacts of food aid on agricultural development in the country or region concerned. It is therefore for good reasons that under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture food aid is exempted from the export subsidy reduction commitments, but that this exemption is subject to certain conditions, including the requirement for food-aid transactions to be in accordance with the FAO Principles of Surplus Disposal and Consultative Obligations.

Food aid has also been one of the items addressed in the Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries. In accordance with this Decision and the related recommendations adopted at the Singapore Ministerial Conference, the Food Aid Committee in London has re-negotiated the Food Aid Convention 1995, with the new Convention having come into effect on 1 July 1999. Let me note in passing that the WTO Secretariat has just circulated an up-dated version of a paper on the state of play concerning the implementation of this and all other elements of that Decision (G/AG/W/42/Rev.1, dated 25 August 1999 refers).

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture also contains provisions related to domestic food security programmes, particularly the Green Box cover of domestic food aid and public stockholding for food security purposes. The related provisions include special and differential treatment for developing countries. Thus, subject to complying with the relevant criteria, WTO Members can run such programmes as they see fit.

Conclusions: Food security is as important as it is a complex issue. Enhancing food security is an up-hill battle and requires a very long breath. It requires initiatives and policy actions on many fronts, with trade being only one element among others.

Food security at the international as well as the national level could benefit from a further strengthening of the multilateral trading system, including through further trade liberalization. The importance of a strong trading system in keeping the world economy on track, including by helping countries that have slipped into deep recession to recover, has been dramatically illustrated by the recent financial crises in Asia and elsewhere. It does not require much imagination to figure out what would have happened to world economic development in general, and food security more specifically, if, as happened once ago, these financial crises would have triggered a wave of protectionism in the trade area.

The future WTO negotiations are to move ahead further. Their contribution to enhancing food security will significantly depend on what they will eventually deliver in terms of economic growth and job creation, particularly in developing countries. In turn, this will depend on the scope of the negotiations and the depths of their results.

Trade liberalization and food security are not intrinsically in conflict, quite the contrary. This does not necessarily imply that the trading system as it stands is in all respects perfect as far as food security aspects are concerned. The future negotiations also provide an opportunity to address any deficiencies.