Tsunami-hit countries and GM food

[Guest guest]

Pretty freaky article. You start reading it and you agree with

it. I mean, I've always been in favor of reforming trading

practices. Then....WHAM!! The 'yeah for GM food' message is

squeezed into the middle of the article. Notice the last line of

the article. Sayng that the EU needs to show more flexibility.

I've always admired how strong they are in their stance against

GM foods.

 

I'd like to see poverty wiped off the face of this Earth. I

really would. I'm just not sure that GM foods are the real

cure. Maybe just an immediate bandaid? I wonder how farmers in

developing nations will be effected as more and more people

switch over to organic or locally grown produce? then, for all

the glory of GM foods they won't have the large market they are

hoping for and their soils will be ruined.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks of the article.

Dawne

http://story.news./news?tmpl=story & u=/oneworld/20050111/wl_oneworld/453\

61011661105465044 & e=3

 

 

Agricultural Reforms Best Help for Tsunami-Hit Countries

 

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 11 (OneWorld) - With global attention

focused on relief efforts in the wake of the devastating

tsunamis that hit South Asia, two Washington-based international

agencies argue that an important key to helping poor countries

lies as much in agricultural reforms as in emergency assistance.

 

 

 

 

In a new report released here Monday, the World Bank (news - web

sites) called for both wealthy and middle-income nations to

slash tariffs that shield their farmers from international

competition as a sure way to boost incomes in poor countries,

and lift tens of millions of the world's poorest people out of

poverty.

 

 

It said that while many developing countries have reduced

tariffs to permit the import of agricultural goods from wealthy

nations, rich nations have failed to reciprocate. As a result,

key agricultural goods--particularly commodities such as sugar,

coffee, and cotton--are excluded from wealthy markets where they

should be earning their poor producers billions of dollars a

year.

 

 

" Manufacturing protection has declined worldwide following

substantial reforms of trade policies, especially in developing

countries, " said Francois Bouguignon, the World Bank's senior

vice president and chief economist, who spoke at the launch of

the report, 'Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries'

at the Bank's headquarters Monday.

 

 

" Yet many industrial and developing countries still protect

agriculture at high levels, which is hitting the world's poor

the hardest. "

 

 

At the same time, a second report released by the International

Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) called on all

countries--including wealthy donor nations--to provide more

resources for agricultural research in poor countries,

particularly in the development of genetically modified (GM)

crops which, it said, are key to reducing poverty.

 

 

Despite the general perception that multinational corporations

are using GM crops to gain control of the world's food supply

and agricultural production, the report asserts that developing

countries are conducting most of the research in that area. The

report--the first global assessment of the state of biotech crop

research by publicly funded institutes in 15 developing

countries--is published in the latest issue of 'Nature

Biotechnology.'

 

 

" Our study debunks many misconceptions about biotech crop

research, " said Joel Cohen, an IFPRI fellow and the report's

main author. " Many people assume that large multinational

corporations control the global development of genetically

modified foods, but the reality is that poor countries have

vibrant programs of public biotech research. Often this research

draws upon indigenous plant varieties to cultivate improved

crops for local use by small-scale farmers, " he said.

 

 

The crops being developed in these laboratories--whose funding

is largely coordinated by a World Bank chaired consortium--are

mainly designed to boost productivity in both key export crops,

such as cotton, bananas, and rice, as well as staple foods in

poor countries, such as sweet potatoes and maize in Africa;

cabbage, potatoes, tropical fruits, and tomatoes in Asia; and

maize, potatoes, and fruit in Latin America.

 

 

According to IFPRI, recent studies in Africa show that a ten

percent increase in agricultural productivity can reduce the

incidence of poverty by as much as 7.2 percent in the affected

community. A similar increase in India can reduce poverty by

four percent in the short run and 12 percent in the long run.

 

 

With media coverage of poverty- and development-related issues

dominated in recent years by disasters--such as the recent

tsunami and the HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS (news - web sites)

crisis--and corruption, the role of agricultural reforms in

promoting development has been largely neglected.

 

 

Yet, for most developing countries, agriculture has been the

engine of economic growth and poverty reduction.

 

 

Almost 70 percent of poor people in developing countries live in

rural areas and are thus dependent either directly or indirectly

on agriculture, according to the new Bank report.

 

 

In Africa, agriculture accounts for 70 percent of full time

employment, one third of the continent's gross domestic product,

and 40 percent of its total export earnings. In South Asia, 60

percent of the labor force is involved in agriculture, which

contributes about 25 percent to the region's GDP (news - web

sites). Even in Latin America, more than 30 percent of the labor

force works in agriculture.

 

 

In order for agriculture in poor countries to reach its full

income-earning and poverty-reducing potential, according to the

World Bank, factors that distort international agricultural

trade should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible.

 

 

These factors include subsidies provided to developed country

farmers by their governments to help their products penetrate

developing country markets, often to the detriment of local

farmers who are unable to compete.

 

 

Cotton subsidies in the U.S. and the European Union (news - web

sites), for example, have reached US$4.4 billion in what is a

$20 billion global market. These subsidies lower world cotton

prices to such an extent that small-scale African farmers, who

have grown cotton for generations, can no longer afford to do

so.

 

 

 

 

 

Conversely, high tariffs erected by wealthy and even

middle-income countries to protect their farmers, effectively

prevent farmers in poor countries from exporting their produce,

even where they have a strong competitive advantage.

 

Thus, while developing countries have been increasing their

agricultural productivity, making their goods even cheaper in

global markets, those gains cannot be fully translated into

reducing poverty unless the protected markets are opened up.

 

Indeed, the high levels of protection maintained by governments

in developed countries has the perverse effect of spurring

overproduction, resulting in lower world prices, and hence,

lower incomes for poor farmers.

 

This is fundamentally unfair, according to the Bank report,

which notes that, while developing countries have lowered their

tariffs on agricultural goods to an average of about 18 percent,

high-income nations have failed to follow suit. The average

nominal rates of agricultural protection was nearly 50 percent

in 2000-2001.

 

Poor nations' insistence that wealthy countries reduce

protection and subsidization played a key role in the breakdown

of the Doha Round of global trade negotiations in Cancun in

2003. According to the new report, it could derail the Round

altogether unless rich countries, and particularly the European

Union, show greater flexibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The all-new My - Get yours free!