Display:
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 18th, 2005 at 10:16:59 AM EST

G20 - emerging markets asking for an opening up of the markets of the developed world

Cairns Group - countries with very competitive agricultural sectors and strongly pro free trade in that sector (one third of world ag. exports)

US and EU - the traditional protectionists

G10 - highly protectionist countries - and significant importers - keen to protect what remains of their agriculture

G33 - weak ag. countries who ask for specific protections as a  total opening of the market scould devastate their economies.

The accompanying article in Le Monde flags various points:

  • the WB estimated that a full opening of ag. markets would have a net global benefit of 182 billion $ by 2015. However, this would be unevenly spread:

  • the big winners would be exporting countries like Australia, Brasil, Argentina, which subsidise the agriculture little, and are highly specialised, and competitive, in a few products (beef, milk, sugar, wheat);

  • the big markets (US and EU) would see losers amongst producers unable to cope with competition, and winners amongst consumers, who would see lower prices (or amongst the distribution chain, if lower import prices are captures there...)

  • the non competitive third world would likely be a net loser, as they would lose their preferential access to Europe. The volumes are too small to be significant in any case, except in very specific cases like cotton producers in central Africa which would benefit from an end to export subsidies form the big 2. After losing out to China on textile, these countries would now lose to Brasil or Australia on the agricultural front...


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 18th, 2005 at 10:19:26 AM EST
At least this deal does not contain anything that would actually make poor countries poorer, as previous trade deals have done.

The market access as you pointed out means little, but the export subsidies is a significant, even if largely symbolic, step.  The hitch of course is that the elimination of the export subsidies makes the real meat - elimination of production subsidies - all that much harder.

by tyronen on Mon Dec 19th, 2005 at 03:38:11 PM EST

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Recent Diaries
Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 7
5 comments

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
24 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
10 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
47 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
45 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
112 comments

Democracy in the EU
by afew - Jan 23
52 comments

Croatia to reject EU accession Sunday?
by SteelLady - Jan 21
19 comments

Surplusses and taxation
by das monde - Jan 21
7 comments

One hundred years of protests
by DoDo - Jan 20
36 comments

Chorus: Austerity doesn't work
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 20
70 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series