How agricultural subsidies in rich countries hurt poor nations
WOLE AKANDE, Columnist (Nigeria) / YellowTimes.org 19oct02
mindfully.org
____________________
Opponents unite to decry US farm subsidies
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON: Proponents of free trade and fair trade alike decried on 13 May legislation giving US farmers $190 billion in subsidies over the coming 10 years, saying the move would hurt poor farmers around the world.
“It is indeed a sad day for world farmers,” said a World Bank official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is surely a step backward.” The Bank has urged an end to agricultural subsidies in rich nations, saying these hinder exports from developing nations.
The legislation, signed on 13 May by US President George W. Bush, represents an 80% increase in certain farm subsidies. The new bill provides US farmers with secure proceeds by increasing price supports for wheat, corn, soybeans, rice and cotton. The bill would also bolster subsidies for mohair, honey, and wool while creating new ones for lentils, peanuts, dry pea, chickpeas and milk. Unlike other farm bills, the latest one expands subsidies to almost all US growers, not only the big producers.
“For any amount of money we put into our farmers’ hands, other world farmers become disadvantaged,” said Niel Ritchie, national organizer with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). “The US has gone beyond everything it called for in trade talks for less restrictive trade systems.”
The new injection of funds could depress world farm product prices, making imports cheaper than homegrown products in the developing world and ultimately forcing local farmers out of business, analysts said.
twnside.org.sg
______________________________
Cancun Trade Talks Fail
Everyone loses, but the world's poor are hurt most
Ronald Bailey
Cancun—Ambitious trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization's fifth ministerial conference fell apart over irreconcilable differences between the demands of rich countries and poor countries. In a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face, the trade negotiators from the poor countries are tonight celebrating what they will all too soon realize is a Pyrrhic victory over the rich WTO countries. The fact that the lobbyists for American cotton farmers, European sugar beet growers, and American textile manufacturers are also celebrating the collapse should really frighten the poor countries who forced the talks into collapse. New, liberalized trade rules could have increased world income by $230 billion annually and, according to a recent study by the Center for Global Development, could have lifted 200 million of the poor in developing countries out of poverty. Instead, the poor countries left Cancun with nothing.
Specifically, the talks collapsed over disputes about how to liberalize agricultural trade. The developing countries were essentially demanding that the European Union, the United States and other rich countries totally eliminate their domestic agriculture subsidies and export subsidies. Conversely, the poor countries—organized as a bloc called the G20 (also known as G33) that Brazil, China, India, Kenya, and South, Africa—insisted that they be allowed to "protect" their farmers by maintaining tariffs against agricultural imports from the developed countries. In other words, the G20 countries were demanding that the rich countries open their markets while they kept theirs closed...
reason.com |
