Fair Trade Vs CAP
vngelis | 22.06.2002 16:04
The argument as I see it so far is that European agriculture is subsidezed to the tune of $16,000 dollars per farmer whilst US agriculture is subsidised to the tune of $20,000 per farmer.
Those arguing for Fair trade argue that poor countries do nat have equal access to the rich markets of the developed North unless subsidies are cut and the CAP is abolished.
This arguement obviously goes a long way in the UK which has 0.5% of people involved in agricultural production and where agriculture belongs to agri-business. But the main thrust of the argument is to destroy European agriculture for the purpose of destroying all the small and minor holdings for the benefit of the large transnational corporations who are at this present minute buying up whole swathes of Africa in order to then re-import the produce into a future deregulated Europe.
The deregulation of CAP goes hand in hand with the re-regulation for and on behalf of Agri-Business. For Fair Trade to exist community ownership of agriculture has to be pursued based on need not profit.
The arrival of Poland into the EU, a land of 10 million small landholdings, implies that agriculture in Europe has to be closed down and re-located into low cost areas such as Poland or parts of Africa. Hence the demand 'allow more imports' 'abolish CAP' in this present juncture serves only Agri-Business.
In many parts of the third world agri-business has been involved in the dumping of produce to destroy the small local producer, drastically lower the price of land so the transnationals can purchase the land at rock bottom prices.
Christian Aid and Oxfam aren't concerned about the poor farmers of the world but the transnationals and their interests. Its an irony not lost on the situation that the Blair government agreed with the purpose of the demo and a whole host of MP's came out of their million pound offices to get a feel for "Fair Trade"...
vngelis
Those arguing for Fair trade argue that poor countries do nat have equal access to the rich markets of the developed North unless subsidies are cut and the CAP is abolished.
This arguement obviously goes a long way in the UK which has 0.5% of people involved in agricultural production and where agriculture belongs to agri-business. But the main thrust of the argument is to destroy European agriculture for the purpose of destroying all the small and minor holdings for the benefit of the large transnational corporations who are at this present minute buying up whole swathes of Africa in order to then re-import the produce into a future deregulated Europe.
The deregulation of CAP goes hand in hand with the re-regulation for and on behalf of Agri-Business. For Fair Trade to exist community ownership of agriculture has to be pursued based on need not profit.
The arrival of Poland into the EU, a land of 10 million small landholdings, implies that agriculture in Europe has to be closed down and re-located into low cost areas such as Poland or parts of Africa. Hence the demand 'allow more imports' 'abolish CAP' in this present juncture serves only Agri-Business.
In many parts of the third world agri-business has been involved in the dumping of produce to destroy the small local producer, drastically lower the price of land so the transnationals can purchase the land at rock bottom prices.
Christian Aid and Oxfam aren't concerned about the poor farmers of the world but the transnationals and their interests. Its an irony not lost on the situation that the Blair government agreed with the purpose of the demo and a whole host of MP's came out of their million pound offices to get a feel for "Fair Trade"...
vngelis
vngelis