16.3.05

Subsídios agricolas

While U.S. and E.U. trade negotiators are some of the most strident defenders of free trade rhetorically, they continue to shamelessly abet a system that makes a mockery of competition. A farmer in the U.S. or the E.U. wins the global price challenge not because he is a better entrepreneur than his African equivalent, for instance, but because he has in his corner a taxpayer subsidy. The cotton farmer in Mali has no chance of competing with his counterpart from Tennessee on an equal footing.

The prognosis gets grimmer when the rich countries do not limit themselves to offering on-farm subsidies, but stretch their role in the supply chain to the export stage. In the latest case, the clincher was that the U.S. has included export credits, as part of the $3 billion support it gives to its 30,000 cotton farmers a year - as if an average of $100,000 each was not enough.


(...)

Past attempts to have rich countries reduce their payments have resulted in mere tokenism, as they look for ways to disguise the same. And this despite an August 2004, "breakthrough" that was to see these countries immediately cut their payments by 20%.

The E.U. recently changed its notorious Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), replacing its quantity-driven payout system for a flat rate. But it is a case of too little too late, as the rotten corrupt edifice remains intact. Clearly, if the U.S. and E.U. really want free trade, they should be ready to end agricultural subsidies or the deadlock will persist after the 2005 deadline. If you want to make poverty history, make trade free.