NEPAD does contain scattered references to the importance of environmental and natural resources. These are the clichés one is bound to find in political documents such as NEPAD. They do not signify much; if anything, they reflect South Africa’s disproportionate influence on the continent. Programme areas in respect of the environment speak to the protection of wetlands, biodiversity, the removal of alien invasives, and the combating of desertification. Very little is said about urban areas and the importance of environmental justice issues that are not only relevant to South Africa but also countries such as Nigeria. This relates to the fact that large segments of these communities suffer the burden of pollution from oil, mining, and chemical industries, let alone that some governments are eager to import toxic waste from developed countries. Perhaps we should await a more robust and comprehensive fleshing out of a broader spectrum of environmental issues that adequately embrace ‘green’ and ‘brown’ problems facing Africa.

The most important difference between the GD and NEPAD is that the latter is strongly focused on shifting the balance of power. It recognises the importance of ensuring that economic power needs to be harnessed in different ways if Africa is to be fully integrated into the world economy. It speaks to the realities of unequal political power and social exclusion, and how they contribute to political instability as well as increased disparities and distortions in the global economy. NEPAD emphasises that empowerment and self-reliance can only be achieved by linking different elements such as trade, governance, security, infrastructure development, capital flows, human resource development, and stimulating growth by improving the marketing and productive capacity of the agricultural sector.
The GD, on the other hand, falls short in bringing to the fore the intricacies of development, so that even if it were to have a narrow development assistance focus it should still be clearer on how ODA should be channelled, or trade used as a vehicle for economic upliftment. The notion that trade is just about market access is simplistic, as trade should be seen as a strategic element in the overall economic development plan for any country or region. Thus the GD’s approach to trade is still fairly narrow, and needs to be expanded to reflect broader debates on the needs of developing countries and the economic development paths they wish to pursue.

This lack of a more holistic insight into the development issues faced by developing countries or regions is the GD’s greatest weakness. What is more important, though, and distinguishes the GD from NEPAD, is that while the former speaks at a more universal and global level, the latter is specifically located in an African context, and tries to capture the different strands of the debate on development in Africa. NEPAD may not find favour with all the ideological stalwarts, but it is certainly not a document or process run by international development agencies or other forms of political influence originating in Europe or North America. While NEPAD talks about the involvement of the private sector - in positivistic terms - the GD never quite comes to grips with the role of the private sector, ie the need for recognising that some private multinationals are more powerful than many states.

Their power and ability to influence global governance and the global economy is a cause for concern, and needs to be addressed within the framework of the GD if the latter is to find ways of promoting the idea of ‘fair’ -- or what Greenpeace has dubbed ‘safe’ -- trade for the 21st century. Perhaps this blind spot in respect of multi- and transnationals has resulted from an assumption that trade occurs among states, when in fact states are also vehicles for negotiating trade agreements that improve the commercial position of their transnational companies. There is also a general tendency to ignore the role of local/domestic private capital and entrepreneurship, as big capital is thought to be better, and we are often falsely led to assume that big corporations have the national interest at heart.

Cynics would retort that NEPAD and the GD alone will not change the world, but actions would. Both the GD and NEPAD may have the last word if they implement their goals effectively. However, wider and more critical debate is necessary if the documents are to gain greater public support, as discussions so far have only been limited to government officials and other specialists.
The importance of CAP Reform

CAP was introduced in 1957 under the auspices of the Treaty of Rome. Besides ensuring food security – which to all intents and purposes it has enabled Europe to achieve -- price stability and the increased flow of income to European farmers are the most important of its four basic pillars. CAP was also designed to ensure that agriculture provides a base for economic development, the creation of employment, and linkages with other sectors of the economy.

However, the resultant mountains of food and lakes of wine introduced distortions in global trade in agricultural commodities by placing downward pressure on global commodity prices; often, surplus commodities were dumped on the international market, thus affecting production outside Europe. These trends, coupled with tariff barriers, have resulted in the creation of a ‘double exclusion’ system - with prices being affected as a result of subsidisation on the one hand, and tariff protection on the other. Developing countries with a strong agricultural export potential have been negatively affected.

Factors with a bearing on CAP reform are many. CAP currently comprises about 50% of the EU budget, compared to 70% when it was first introduced. This constitutes a significant degree of ‘aid’ to European farmers. As an Oxfam report once noted, the subsidies are so large that one is able to transport a European cow several times around the earth. From an environmental perspective, the importance of CAP lies in the fact that it has enabled, directly or indirectly, almost half of European land to be transformed by agriculture. Besides the negative impacts that CAP subsidies have had on the environment, consumer groups have been protesting against high prices and the tax burden on European citizens. This is likely to increase as the programme of European enlargement takes off. CAP also benefits 20% of privileged farmers, bringing into question the equity of the scheme and the damage it has done to family farms in favour of large-scale agro-industries.

The CAP mechanisms of border price support and direct payments to farmers have heavily influenced the nature of farming in Europe. European consumer resistance to CAP is largely based on the fear - demonstrated in respect of ‘mad cow disease’ and the introduction of GMOs - that CAP is undermining quality. Besides this, CAP has been criticised by trade unions as it supports 2-3% of the European labour force while other sectors have suffered persistent unemployment (about 12%). This raises the political issue of whether CAP funds should not be diverted to other sectors in order to combat unemployment.

Besides this, the process of CAP reform will have to take into account the issue of enlargement, which involves the incorporation of east European countries into the EU, thus placing considerably more agricultural land and farmers under the CAP system. Such expansionism may well lead to the consolidation of smaller farms into large agro-industries dominated by capital from the prosperous west. This may increase income disparities while expanding Europe’s ability to generate even greater surpluses of feedstock and food that will glut the world market.

CAP reform has been initiated because its original rationale has become lost over the last 40 years or so. The principles behind it are reflected in the introduction of the Common Agricultural and Rural policy for Europe (CARPE), which is a response to shortcomings in CAP policy. One of its major objectives is to ‘ensure an economically efficient and environmentally sustainable agriculture, and to stimulate the integrated development of the Union’s rural areas.’ Another is to find ways of ensuring that European agriculture becomes more internationally competitive by removing price distortions and other structural imbalances that have led some farmers to produce low-value and low-quality agricultural products. CARPE marks a shift from price support to a system of direct payment to farmers, with an emphasis on rural investment (as a way of ensuring that EU farmers become more adaptable to changing global markets), and land rehabilitation and management.

Following Doha, and the agreement on a new round in 2003, agricultural reform under the WTO will once again put CAP under the spotlight. The persistence of the doctrine of ‘multifunctionality’ within the EU is still a bone of contention. While the EU may recognise the need to remove perverse subsidies, ‘multifunctionality’ -- or what is now euphemistically referred to as ‘non-trade concerns’ -- may turn out to be ‘back-handed’ subsidies couched in the language of food security, rural development, and environmental protection. Nonetheless, as part of the programme of action before the Fifth WTO Ministerial in 2003, the WTO committee for trade and the environment (CTE) has been asked to closely examine positive spin-offs from the ‘elimination or reduction of trade restrictions and distortions’ which would result in benefits for the environment, development, and trade. While many environmentalists would agree that the removal of production and export subsidies will have a positive dividend for the environment, the political battle in the WTO needed to shift these subsidies towards real environmental improvements still needs to be fought and won. The danger here is that the same skewed situation could be perpetuated in a new guise.

Conclusion

These remarks should provide ample proof of the importance of CAP reform, which is recognised within the EU as a priority in terms of its Agenda 2000 initiative1. However, sustainable agriculture should also be an intrinsic part of the GD’s positioning around reform of trade. As regards NEPAD, the importance of agriculture for Africa is a central feature of the document. It has to be emphasised, though, that the importance of agriculture in Africa has more to do with achieving food security than the ability to export agricultural commodities. Should sound basic production be combined with value-added activities, increased benefits in terms of job creation and export-led growth could be attained via backward and forward economic linkages.

Global trade in agricultural commodities is not as significant as trade in other sectors; however, improvements in trade of even 1--2% would be significant. It is rather at the value-added end -- the production of high-value exports -- that greater returns can be generated under more equitable terms of trade. However, focusing on international trade and market access is obscuring the need for domestic agricultural development and reform, and this is something the GD should encapsulate.

Given the structural distortions CAP has helped to shape over the past 40 years or so, CAP reform and its ramifications should not only be discussed by Europeans but by the international community as a whole. Thus the GD needs to incorporate the issue of CAP reform, but do so more broadly; it could be dealt with under issues of trade, and specifically the issue of subsidies, which is being highlighted in discussions of the agreement on agriculture (AoA) under the WTO. During the Uruguay Round it was generally agreed that AoA reform should specifically examine the issues of market access, domestic support, and export subsidies so as to make policies for global trade in the sector more market-oriented.

Thus the GD is a good start, but can be enriched if it can widen the scope of these discussions beyond Europe. Proponents of the GD are advised to study the NEPAD process, and the discussions ensuing from it. NEPAD has already been presented to the last G-8 meeting in Genoa, as well as the World Economic Forum and others. European leaders are interested in NEPAD, and the WSSD provides role players with a good opportunity to link the GD with NEPAD. As they stand, however, both these documents and processes are incomplete, and need to be intensively discussed and debated by different groupings in our society.