Højere madpriser har bragt omstridte spørgsmål på banen igen såsom støtte til landbruget og génsplejsede afgrøder – Malawi kritiseres af bistandsdonorer for at støtte sine småbønder – “skandaløst” siger ekspert, når de samme donorer hælder milliarder i deres landbrug.
JOHANNESBURG, 9 April 2013 (IRIN): Food has become expensive and seems set to stay that way, so growing more of it has become both a necessity and an attractive investment.
But the trend has also put contentious (omstridte) issues like agricultural subsidies and genetically modified (GM) crops on the menu once again.
IRIN talked to some of the leading food security experts on the emerging issues highlighted in, among other new reports, the 2012 Global Food Policy Report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) – se http://www.ifpri.org/gfpr/2012/food-policy-2012
Subsidies are back
Countries like Malawi, caught in a trap of cyclical droughts, have provided subsidized fertilizer (tilskud for holde prisen på kunstgødning nede, red.) to boost food production but have come under attack for promoting unsustainable support to their farmers.
“The position of donors on fertilizer subsidies is quite scandalous, given what is happening in their own countries,” says Peter Hazell, a leading agriculture expert who has worked with the World Bank and IFPRI.
A drought in the US and fluctuating food prices have led policy-makers there and in the European Union (EU) to rethink protection and support for their farmers.
The US Farm Bill governs agriculture policy and is updated every four years, but the 2008 legislation was extended to September 2013.
The proposed bill recommends an expanded insurances programme with new crop insurance subsidies so farmers receive money when income from certain crops falls below a targeted level, and sets target prices for crops that trigger payments when revenues fall for several consecutive years (i række) at much higher levels than before.
The EU has done away with export subsidies that supported the disposal of surplus production abroad, but its EU Common Agriculture Policy ensures high levels of direct support to farmers and protects its own markets.
“Do not copy a bad example”
Jim French, policy advisor to Oxfam America, says the organization “does not object to a nation’s right to invest in and protect its agricultural interests”.
But subsidies can “sometimes distort (forvriide) both the market and production in ways that impact global hunger and poverty rates”, and notes that some of the proposals in the new US Farm Bill “included moving back to subsidies“.
Agriculture expert Steve Wiggins, of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), says if rich countries are providing subsidies, it does not mean poor countries should emulate (kopiere) their bad example.
He argues that subsidies in rich countries “do not prevent any African government from providing decent rural access roads, from funding research and extension (konsulenttjeneste), maintaining competitive exchange rates, and so on”.
It is export subsidies that affect farmers in Africa, but poor countries can protect themselves from cheap imports by imposing tariffs.
Hazell points out that subsidies have helped countries like Malawi:
“Perhaps the right lesson for Africa is not that subsidies are always bad, but that they need to be designed and implemented in more targeted ways that include a built-in exit strategy,” and address financial viability.
These developments have prompted experts and activists to call for reviving the stalled Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was to consider subsidies, tariffs and trade distortion in agriculture.
The GM debate
Læs videre på
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/97809/Subsidies-and-GM-crops-back-on-food-policy-menu
