The Great Debate on Agriculture Continues
Agricultural reform is at the heart of the continuing Doha round of trade negotiations. Talks on trade liberalization resume on December 13.
The disputes between the US, EU and a collection of several developing countries focus on whether or not the EU and the US will reduce agriculture subsidies to domestic farmers. Both the United States and the European Union have vocal farmers’ lobbies, which support the continuance of agriculture subsidies. These domestic powers have applied pressure on their governments to resist these movements to reduce domestic subsidies.
Representatives and advocates for the developing world have argued that the continuance of agricultural subsidies in the developed world keeps world agricultural prices artificially low. Since many developing countries specialize in agricultural exports, they generally support a rise in world food prices, which would result in an increase in export revenue.
Arguments have been made against this assumption, notably voices for individual food security. The argument is that since many countries export the bulk of their agricultural crops, agriculture has become centered on the crop of export and less emphasis has been given to domestic food production for domestic needs. These countries import many of their foodstuffs in this move towards agricultural specialization. An increase in world food prices would make these imports more expensive, and possibly force the most marginal of the developing world’s poor into famine.
Never the less, the focus of the Doha round has been towards a greater liberalization of agriculture by removing agricultural subsidies which distort the market. The push in this direction has been supported by non-governmental organizations (NGO) activists, mainly from the developed world. But a new twist has emerged; some NGO activists have come out against the deal to be discussed in the next round of talks.
According to a report by the BBC’s Steve Schifferes, the development lobby is concerned about two points of the negotiations: one, that the developed countries will push too hard to gain full access to the markets of the developing countries for goods produced by the developed world, especially telecommunications, finance and other service sector industries. Two, that the poorest countries will loose the preferential access to western markets that they now enjoy as former colonies.
Activists want the developed counties to compensate these countries for loss of preferential treatment and the right to “designate ‘special products’ which would be exempt from trade liberalization rules.” The belief being that the gains for small counties in agriculture could be out weighed by losses in services and industrial goods.
BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4510194.stm
The disputes between the US, EU and a collection of several developing countries focus on whether or not the EU and the US will reduce agriculture subsidies to domestic farmers. Both the United States and the European Union have vocal farmers’ lobbies, which support the continuance of agriculture subsidies. These domestic powers have applied pressure on their governments to resist these movements to reduce domestic subsidies.
Representatives and advocates for the developing world have argued that the continuance of agricultural subsidies in the developed world keeps world agricultural prices artificially low. Since many developing countries specialize in agricultural exports, they generally support a rise in world food prices, which would result in an increase in export revenue.
Arguments have been made against this assumption, notably voices for individual food security. The argument is that since many countries export the bulk of their agricultural crops, agriculture has become centered on the crop of export and less emphasis has been given to domestic food production for domestic needs. These countries import many of their foodstuffs in this move towards agricultural specialization. An increase in world food prices would make these imports more expensive, and possibly force the most marginal of the developing world’s poor into famine.
Never the less, the focus of the Doha round has been towards a greater liberalization of agriculture by removing agricultural subsidies which distort the market. The push in this direction has been supported by non-governmental organizations (NGO) activists, mainly from the developed world. But a new twist has emerged; some NGO activists have come out against the deal to be discussed in the next round of talks.
According to a report by the BBC’s Steve Schifferes, the development lobby is concerned about two points of the negotiations: one, that the developed countries will push too hard to gain full access to the markets of the developing countries for goods produced by the developed world, especially telecommunications, finance and other service sector industries. Two, that the poorest countries will loose the preferential access to western markets that they now enjoy as former colonies.
Activists want the developed counties to compensate these countries for loss of preferential treatment and the right to “designate ‘special products’ which would be exempt from trade liberalization rules.” The belief being that the gains for small counties in agriculture could be out weighed by losses in services and industrial goods.
BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4510194.stm
posted by tallcat601 at 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home