Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05ROME4001
2005-12-06 11:58:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Rome
Cable title:  

AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND POVERTY HIGHLIGHED IN

Tags:  EAGR ETRD EAID AORC FAO WTRO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS ROME 004001 

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/TPP, EB/EPPD, IO/EDA
USTR FOR JOHNSON, DWOSKIN
USAID FOR A-AA/DCHA GARVELINK, DCHA/OFDA, DCHA/FFP
USDA FOR OSEC/JBPENN,
FAS FOR OA/TERPSTRA AND KROBERTS, IPT/SHEIKH AND GYOUNG
ICD/WBRANT, LREICH, RHUGHES

FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID AORC FAO WTRO
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND POVERTY HIGHLIGHED IN
FAO'S 2005 STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE REPORT


UNCLAS ROME 004001

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/TPP, EB/EPPD, IO/EDA
USTR FOR JOHNSON, DWOSKIN
USAID FOR A-AA/DCHA GARVELINK, DCHA/OFDA, DCHA/FFP
USDA FOR OSEC/JBPENN,
FAS FOR OA/TERPSTRA AND KROBERTS, IPT/SHEIKH AND GYOUNG
ICD/WBRANT, LREICH, RHUGHES

FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID AORC FAO WTRO
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND POVERTY HIGHLIGHED IN
FAO'S 2005 STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE REPORT



1. Summary: FAO will release the 2005 State of Food and
Agriculture (SOFA) Report on December 7 at 11:00 am in
Geneva. It will be available at www.fao.org shortly
afterwards. The special focus of this year's report is
Agricultural Trade and Poverty: Can Trade Work for the
Poor? The report concludes that multilateral trade
liberalization can benefit the poor and food-insecure by
acting as a catalyst for change and promoting economic
growth. It also recognizes that trade liberalization
will have adverse effects in some countries, which FAO
proposes should be addressed through a twin-track
approach of "(i) creating opportunities for the hungry to
improve their livelihoods and (ii) ensuring access to
food for the most needy through safety nets and other
direct assistance." End summary.


2. The release of the 2005 SOFA report was
intentionally timed to make a splash immediately prior to
the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial meeting. The seven
chapters in the report review agricultural production and
trade patterns, the trade policy landscape, macroeconomic
impacts of agricultural trade reform, impacts of trade
reform on poverty reduction, impacts of trade reform on
food security, and a twin-track approach to ensuring that
developing countries are able to capture the benefits of
trade reform. The report largely draws on previous
analytical work done by FAO as well as UNCTAD, UNDP, WTO,
and the World Bank.


3. The 2005 SOFA report makes a useful contribution to
the global debate on agricultural trade liberalization by
focusing on the policies and programs needed to ensure
that the poor and food insecure are able to take
advantage of trade liberalization. In this regard, the
report notes that the domestic policy environment is just
as important as the trade policy environment. Countries
need well-functioning markets and good infrastructure to
participate in international markets. They also need
safety-net policies to assist with the adjustment and
transition process.


4. One interesting conclusion from the studies reviewed
in the report is that for many developing countries the
greatest positive impacts from trade liberalization will
come through more jobs and higher wages in non-
agricultural sectors. Therefore, the short-term negative
impacts of higher commodity prices on net-food importing
developing countries should be offset in the longer run
by higher non-agricultural incomes. This suggests that
temporary safety nets may be important policy tools for
neutralizing the short-run negative effects. The report
also notes that removing import tariffs on agricultural
inputs will promote pro-poor growth by improving the
competitiveness of agricultural producers in developing
countries.


5. Demonstrating that it can learn from experience, in
this case the experience of a blistering attack from the
NGO community in response to the 2004 SOFA report on
biotechnology, FAO has included a special contribution in
the 2005 SOFA, Can Trade Work for the Poor: A View from
Civil Society. The contributions, drawn from previously
published statements by the respective NGOs, are
diatribes against globalization and liberalization and in
favor of food sovereignty. In contrast to the body of
the 2005 SOFA report, this section is most notable for
the complete absence of any analytical support for the
positions taken.

Cleverley