The Activity Report published in November 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has provoked a strong response from the WTO Secretariat. The Secretariat’s principal concerns were the report’s contention that ‘existing WTO rules do not offer a favourable policy framework for the realization of the right to food’, and that the Doha Round of negotiations is not going far enough to rectify this situation. The WTO Secretariat rejected the contention that ‘there is not enough room for developing countries to deal with food security issues’ and took issue with a range of specific points raised by the Special Rapporteur dealing with the use of trade policy tools and domestic support measures.

Specifically, in terms of market management measures designed to deal with food price volatility, the WTO Secretariat expressed reservations about the ‘efficiency of agricultural marketing boards’, but maintained that WTO rules did not dictate to members on this issue, leaving them considerable flexibility. However, it noted that ‘aiming at insulating a market from the rest of the world through quantitative restrictions on imports is not only WTO-inconsistent in most cases (article XI GATT), but also economically inefficient for the country in question’. It pointed out that WTO provisions do not prevent the use of TRQs, but rather regulate the circumstances under which they can be used, with developing countries receiving special treatment.

The WTO Secretariat describes ‘the suggestion that developing countries should take measures to restrict trade for food’ in the face of rising food import bills as ‘a dangerous one’. This issue was taken up in WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy’s open letter to the Special Rapporteur. While acknowledging the need to strengthen investment in agriculture and establish proper safety nets for the poor, Mr Lamy questioned ‘the report’s recommendations on interventions aimed at insulating domestic from international markets’. He argued that while ‘policy tools like public stockholding for food security purposes, tariff rate quotas, safeguard measures or the use of marketing boards can indeed be legitimate tools, under some circumstances … if used improperly, these actions can introduce distortions and undermine economic efficiency, exacerbating the negative impacts on poor consumers of high food prices’. He cited the 2008 and 2010 food price spikes as evidence of the negative effects which can follow from the inappropriate use of such policy tools.

Mr Lamy maintained that there was an emerging consensus ‘among most UN-led experts that international trade is part of the package of solutions to achieve food security’, with more liberalised international markets contributing to global food security through increased access to diverse sources of food imports. He supported the contention of the G20 inter-agency report that ‘policies that distort production and trade in agricultural commodities potentially impede the achievement of long-run food security’.

Director-General Lamy maintained that current WTO rules and the direction of negotiations in the Doha Round ‘allow policy space and flexibility’ for developing countries to address food security concerns, and reiterated the WTO’s commitment to eliminating trade-distorting practices. He argued that governments have the sovereign right to pursue food security policies ‘within their international obligations’ and maintained that WTO-compatible trade policies should form an integral part of broader strategies to exploit comparative advantage, limit inefficiencies and enhance food security.