Rate:
Share
Views: 1412
Text Size:

Food, Energy & the WTO

Doha Round Leaves Food and Fuel Unsolved

By Sam Hopkins
Friday, August 1st, 2008

You may have heard that the latest round of World Trade Organization talks just collapsed. The main sticking point was agriculture. Yet energy is easily on par with farm goods at the top of everyone's economic worries.

So what's the WTO doing on energy, and biofuels in particular?

China and India helped scuttle this round of WTO talks, dubbed the Doha round after the capital of Qatar where it originated back in 2001. The Middle Kingdom wants to keep up its Great Wall of tariffs to fortify domestic agriculture and avoid shortfalls in staples like rice and wheat. That's the same tune we've heard from developed countries and other emerging markets like India and Brazil.

But the flipside of one country gaining market access is, well, that country allowing market access. In 2001, China gained admission to the WTO by lowering major trade barriers, and in return it got to unload its cheap goods on the West.

Now, domestic protectionism and rising food prices are pushing China, India, and Brazil to demand less free flow in agricultural goods, even while they want trinkets and cars to move without obstacles. Of course, it takes more than one party to cause an impasse, and the U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab told reporters that China's desired increases could have put new tariffs on soybeans in 8 out of the next 10 years.

Too bad, because agreements on farm goods were a necessary first step in getting to real debate on the food-fuel question.

Brazil is even threatening a "blockbuster" WTO case against the United States over our propping-up of corn ethanol against superior Brazilian sugarcane fuel. The U.S. is the world's largest ethanol producer, but Brazil is the largest exporter even with American resistance. Under the framework of the Doha round, this dispute was supposed to be settled. Now all bets are off, and all grievances are back out in the open.

You see, the interplay between food and fuel isn't just about riots when tortillas get too expensive (Mexico) or petrol is so dear that truckers block highways in protest (Spain).

A breakthrough on the U.S. corn subsidy would net billions for Brazilian ethanol market movers like national oil company Petrobras (NYSE:PBR), and it's not accidental that the government-backed company is being supported in international trade talks by friendly federal negotiators.

Brazilian trade hawks also have nature on their side.

Brazilian Ethanol for the U.S.? Better, Not the Best

Floods in the Midwest this summer caused bottlenecks in ethanol shipments to the coasts, prompting calls to remove the 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff for the sake of our own energy security.

The U.S. already lost a 2005 WTO case brought by Brazil which charged that American cotton subsidies hurt producers in other countries by depressing prices. As important as cotton is to the world economy, trade distortions in fuel markets have more impact mentally and at market. The U.S. will have to acknowledge its domestic crutch as a major point of inefficiency in global trade.

Trade chiefs all around the world are scrambling to rescue the Doha round now, and the world press is touting the stand of China, India and Brazil as the dawn of a new era where the U.S. and European Union can't simply impose their will on meeker members of the WTO.

I'm personally fine with a new world order emerging, but it has to be a real world where global problems can be addressed with minimal bellyaching and much more political maturity than we've seen. Rioters don't know about hushed trade discussions in their capitals, and ministers are often too far removed from the man on the street to notice anything but demonstrations. By the time sparks fly, it's too late.

And without ongoing dialogue about food and fuel issues in the WTO, a real worldwide solution will only come piecemeal and slowly.

Regards,

sig
Sam Hopkins

P.S. - We're not waiting around for trade czars to get it together at the WTO. There are bilateral and internal measures already in place that push winning solutions to food and fuel crises—often both at the same time through seed science. The Green Chip International portfolio is doing biofuels right, and profiting. Learn more today. http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/7135






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (3 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by John Hunter on 2008-08-04
Your statement that the most and best green energy developments are coming from offshore is ridiculous. What country has the capability of producing solar energy at a production cost of $0.30 per watt? What country can reduce used vehicle tires to petroleum and carbon black without a government subsidy and be competitive in the marketplace? What country can produce oil from shale without government subsidies and be competitive in the marketplace? What country can reduce the acreage of land required to grow vegetables by a factor of 10++ without government subsidies? What country developed 3-D seismic technology to search for and define oil fields? What country developed the technology of horizontal drilling to increase the output of oil fields? What country has programs in place to maximize the use of geothermal energy to provide electricity to millions of people?

Maybe you don't consider oil as a source of green energy, but how do you produce the means of producing green energy today! without the use of oil based energy?
Comment by Para on 2008-08-03
It is clear to any level headed person that exorbitant subsidies and protection given to agriculture and its produce in US and Eurobloc are counter productive. If they expect that the BIC group is going to open up their own local markets to subsidised agricultural commodities from the west then they have another think coming. Do not forget, the vast majority of farmers in the BIC countries are marginal ones who depend on a certain minimum price in the local market for their survival. Free imports of subsidised grain and cereals will simply deprive them of even their marginal existence. These countries are well adviced in sticking to their stand.
Comment by Para on 2008-08-03
It is clear to any level headed person that exorbitant subsidies and protection given to agriculture and its produce in US and Eurobloc are counter productive. If they expect that the BIC group is going to open up their own local markets to subsidised agricultural commodities from the west then they have another think coming. Do not forget, the vast majority of farmers in the BIC countries are marginal ones who depend on a certain minimum price in the local market for their survival. Free imports of subsidised grain and cereals will simply deprive them of even their marginal existence. These countries are well adviced in sticking to their stand.
Comment by R Cook on 2008-08-01
China has imposed high tariffs in the form of local content rules, now 70% on wind turbines, on most products where others have superior technology. Our trade reps conveniently let these stand. Japanese did the same under Reagan under the guise of changing specifications every 6 months on tech products. Fiber optic cable was one example. If anyone wants to know what happened to our balance of trade, need look no further than our weak knee trade reps.... taking their instructions from the White House.