An agreement that may change the world
For the developing world, farm subsidies are slow-motion weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday's WTO agreement is the first multilateral deal in a decade that pledges reductions. If it holds, much could change -- but it could also mean new pressures for adherence to international IP laws.
In 1994 developing countries made a deal at the WTO. In exchange for TRIPS (the Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreement), they were supposed to get major reductions in agricultural and textile subsidies.
It was a bad deal. The world got TRIPS, but it didn't get much of the agricultural reform that was promised. Europe, the United States, and Japan have mostly moved backward on agriculture since 1994. The average European cow lives on $2.50 a day subsidy when 3 billion people live under $2 a day. The average Japanese cow, meanwhile, lives on a healthy $7.50 a day, rather like a college student.
But yesterday's deal is a new hope. It agrees most prominently to reductions in cotton subsidies. We in the U.S. pay out $4 billion a year to 25,000 cotton farmers who then produce $3 billion a year in cotton. That's $160,000 per farmer -- we'd save alot of money by just opening a federal amusment park that employs everyone in the cotton industry.
But the question remains: this time, will the U.S., Europe and Japan have the political will to make the reductions we have agreed to?
Here's the actual agreement, heavy in trade lingo.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (3)
This sounds very good for us Aussies. Less foreign government competition for our primary producers. Woo!
I wish I could share your optimism. In fact, agricultural subsidies are necessary. Right now the US gives them to large grain corporations to dump US grains on Third World countries who have been forced to 'open their markets' by WTO, NAFTA and such. US, EU and Japan will never stop subsidizing their agriculture. And they shouldn't. m What they need to do is subsidize their organic farmers and local markets instead of agribusiness and fast food. And Third World needs to reclaim their sovereignty and return to protecting their food system from subsidied First World dumping. WTO has nothing to offer. Brasil scored a goal by winning on the cotton issue in the WTO grievance prcoess, that's why US was willing to give this apparent 'concession' in return for more IP. But it won't last, we'll find some other way of subsidizing cotton exporters (not the farmers, of course).
An article at indiatogether.com claims that US and European negotiators hoodwinked the third world in this latest agreement by setting the ceilings on their subsidies higher than what they are actually giving out today. I wish I could get serious analysis of these agreements that analyses such loopholes.