**6. Conclusion**

This paper demonstrated that WTO's trade liberalization policy on agriculture has not improved food security in West Africa. Rather, it has undermined food security in the subregion. This conclusion is based on the results of empirical evidence and data analysis which indicated that local food production has been on the decrease while food importation and dumping are on the increase. These are direct effects of trade liberalization. More so, the subregion's self-sufficiency ratios have been dwindling, which gives more impetus for food importation. This negative

*Regional Development in Africa*

and exporting to poor countries at low costs. These poultry products exported to developing countries are usually not hygienically produced, with high negative impact on food security [28]. Often, chickens are fed with antibiotics daily, not as medicines, but as growth hormones. This results in low quality of meat both in terms of taste and sanitary standards, with dire consequences on the food-quality aspect of food security. The costs of all these damages are carried by the importing

*The dumping of agricultural commodities on world markets increased food insecurity in developing countries by undercutting domestic production. The availability of cheap imported food depressed domestic food prices in developing countries, lowered the income of local farmers, and reduced incentives to invest in agriculture. Export dumping also reduced the export earnings of developing country producers* 

A good example of the effect of dumping on food security is illustrated by the impact of trade liberalization in tomato concentrate on Senegal's domestic production capacity. Tomato processing industries in Senegal have been affected adversely by the influx of cheap food products that were previously produced domestically [33]. Those industries cannot compete with mass production from the developed countries especially the EU due to lacking economies of scale. So in Senegal, the promotion of a viable agro-industry has been exposed even further to subsidized competition. Before liberalization, Senegal was a noticeable exporter of processed tomatoes—especially into other West African countries, but increasing imports of EU subsidized tomato concentrate has undermined the domestic infant industry. Within a year of WTO's existence, exports of tomato concentrate from the EU into Senegal jumped from 64 tons to 5348 tons, following trade liberalization as dictated by the WTO. On poultry meat, by 1992, before WTO and its trade liberalization policy came into place, Ghana's domestic market supplied 95% of Ghana's poultry requirements [33]. However, a decade later, the domestic market supplied only 11% of the country's poultry requirements. The rest were supplied by foreign competitors which was made possible by trade liberalization. The issue was that local producers could not compete with the obviously subsidized imports from developed countries' markets. The resultant effect was that this undermined the

The irony of the situation is that the trade liberalization narrative ignores the historical precedent in most developed countries of how agricultural trade protections facilitated development of agricultural sectors and industrialization. Details of the extensive use of subsidies, policy supports, and market protections by nearly all industrialized countries as part of their own economic development have been provided in [34]. Liberalization of agricultural sectors was never the trajectory taken by developed countries in achieving agricultural development. Indeed, liberalization policies only arrived well after industrialization. Even then, trade liberalization is arguably more illusionary than existent because even in this era of WTO, industrialized countries still employ the use of subsidies, domestic support and other restrictive measures in their trade relations with the rest of the world. For instance, In OECD countries, support to the agricultural sector has been increasing rather than decreasing. While the total support amounted to US\$ 298 billion in 1986–1988 (before WTO), it amounted to US\$ 311 billion in 2001 (even with the

WTO in place), with three quarters of this support going to farmers [27].

However, there is no gainsaying the fact that in some ways, trade liberalization influences food security positively. First, it expands markets. For consumers, it opens access to additional sources that can supplement domestic production to

country, and not by producers. This has been summarized thus:

*by depressing world market prices for agricultural commodities [8].*

domestic industry with its consequences on food security.

**138**

trend is made possible partly because of disincentive to continue production which is linked to the WTO's policy of discouraging government's supports and incentives to food producers in developing countries. The resultant effect is dumping of food products by the industrialized countries on West African markets which undermines local food industries and drives them out of production because of uncompetitive prices these foreign products offer. This has serious implications for food security in the subregion. On the basis of the foregoing, the paper concludes that the WTO's trade liberalization policy on agriculture has not improved food security in the West African subregion. In fact, the policy has actually undermined food security in West Africa.

Thus, the paper established that the WTO trade liberalization policy on agriculture encourages food self-reliance/food importation as against food selfsufficiency/domestic production. As a result of this, most West African countries that have acceded to the WTO agreement tend to pursue food self-reliance strategies as against food self-sufficiency strategies, thereby relying on food imports that expose them to the vagaries of international food price hikes. Finally, the paper also established that against WTO rules, developed countries, especially the United States and European Union, still give export subsidies and domestic supports to their farmers. These encourage dumping of the excess products on developing countries at relatively cheaper prices. It also harms domestic production and reduces the income of domestic farmers and other investors in the food production chain.
