At the conclusion to an article on the global food crisis, Walden Bello discusses an idea put forward by an international farmer's group, Via Campesina:
Food sovereignty means, first of all, the right of a country to determine its production and consumption of food and the exemption of agriculture from global trade regimes like that of the WTO. It also means consolidation of a smallholder-centered agriculture via protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports; remunerative prices for farmers and fisherfolk; abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies; and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture. Via's platform also calls for an end to the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, or TRIPs, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds; opposes agro-technology based on genetic engineering; and demands land reform. In contrast to an integrated global monoculture, Via offers the vision of an international agricultural economy composed of diverse national agricultural economies trading with one another but focused primarily on domestic production.
Sounds like a good concept for the United States, too.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 2:51 pm
18 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:26 pm
18 May 2008
Meanwhile, the Bush-appointed President of the World Bank still doesn't appeared to have seen the light:Mr. Zoellick tied the new deal for agriculture with a passionate call for agreement on a world trade deal that would cut agricultural tariffs and subsidies in the developed world. "If not now, when?" he asked
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:12 pm
18 May 2008
And while subsidized U.S. corn decimated Mexican farmers, there can sometimes be benefits to the South from U.S. agricultural subsidies. For instance, the Center for Economic and Policy Research in a critique of trade liberalization give the example of subsidized wheat [p.11]:A third way that countries could end up with net loss as a result of trade liberalization is that they may be large consumers of subsidized exports. If a country eliminated its subsidies on these exports, then in standard models the importing country could lead to a loss to the importing nation. For example, if a country is a major consumer of subsidized wheat exports from the United States, and the United States then removes these subsidies, the importing country would be in a situation where it now has to pay more for the wheat it purchases.
Permalink