Jun 06, 2008
The world food summit in Rome has come to a delayed end after some angry exchanges in the closing stages, but it ended without agreement on some of the key policy decisions now confronting governments. Franco Frattini, the foreign minister of the host nation, Italy, described the final declaration "disappointing relative to expectations" and said the text had been "watered down".
ROME - The text calls for "urgent and coordinated action to combat the negative impacts of soaring food prices on the world's most vulnerable countries and populations". It also demands more agricultural investment and immediate food aid.
On the most contentious issue - biofuels - the suggestion by an FAO working party that international standards be established to ensure biofuels were not produced at the expense of the world's hungry has been ignored. Instead there is some watered-down prose on "the challenges and opportunities posed by biofuels".
"We are convinced that in-depth studies are necessary to ensure that production and use of biofuels is sustainable", the declaration says, calling on "relevant intergovernmental organisations" to maintain an "international dialogue on biofuels in the context of food security and sustainable development needs."
In short, the dilemma has been kicked further down the road in the hope that another organisation will pick it up. Meanwhile, the US agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer has told American reporters that increasing the production of ethanol is "the right policy direction". The US seem to have conceded nothing, and corn prices have been mounting on world markets throughout the last hours of the summit.
On trade, the summit has backed the rapid conclusion of the Doha round of trade liberalisation, despite French reservations - a win for Britain and the US.
The final declaration talks about the need to "minimise the use of restrictive measures that could increase the volatility of international prices" - a disapproving reference to export bans and tariffs. Argentina, which has imposed hefty tariffs on food exports to keep domestic prices under control, bitterly opposed the use of the word "restrictive" and held up the closing session for hours in a bid to have it removed, but they ultimately went along with the text.
Despite the fact that the meeting was billed in part as addressing the "challenges of climate change", it has very little to say on that topic.
But Barbara Stocking, the director of Oxfam in the UK argued "it would be a mistake to dismiss this summit as a waste of time" pointing to pledges of $4 billion over the course of the conference to support agriculture in developing countries. She said the onus was now on the G8 to make financial commitments at next month's meeting in Japan.
(c) 2008 The Guardian
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The world food summit in Rome has come to a delayed end after some angry exchanges in the closing stages, but it ended without agreement on some of the key policy decisions now confronting governments. Franco Frattini, the foreign minister of the host nation, Italy, described the final declaration "disappointing relative to expectations" and said the text had been "watered down".
ROME - The text calls for "urgent and coordinated action to combat the negative impacts of soaring food prices on the world's most vulnerable countries and populations". It also demands more agricultural investment and immediate food aid.
On the most contentious issue - biofuels - the suggestion by an FAO working party that international standards be established to ensure biofuels were not produced at the expense of the world's hungry has been ignored. Instead there is some watered-down prose on "the challenges and opportunities posed by biofuels".
"We are convinced that in-depth studies are necessary to ensure that production and use of biofuels is sustainable", the declaration says, calling on "relevant intergovernmental organisations" to maintain an "international dialogue on biofuels in the context of food security and sustainable development needs."
In short, the dilemma has been kicked further down the road in the hope that another organisation will pick it up. Meanwhile, the US agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer has told American reporters that increasing the production of ethanol is "the right policy direction". The US seem to have conceded nothing, and corn prices have been mounting on world markets throughout the last hours of the summit.
On trade, the summit has backed the rapid conclusion of the Doha round of trade liberalisation, despite French reservations - a win for Britain and the US.
The final declaration talks about the need to "minimise the use of restrictive measures that could increase the volatility of international prices" - a disapproving reference to export bans and tariffs. Argentina, which has imposed hefty tariffs on food exports to keep domestic prices under control, bitterly opposed the use of the word "restrictive" and held up the closing session for hours in a bid to have it removed, but they ultimately went along with the text.
Despite the fact that the meeting was billed in part as addressing the "challenges of climate change", it has very little to say on that topic.
But Barbara Stocking, the director of Oxfam in the UK argued "it would be a mistake to dismiss this summit as a waste of time" pointing to pledges of $4 billion over the course of the conference to support agriculture in developing countries. She said the onus was now on the G8 to make financial commitments at next month's meeting in Japan.
(c) 2008 The Guardian
The world food summit in Rome has come to a delayed end after some angry exchanges in the closing stages, but it ended without agreement on some of the key policy decisions now confronting governments. Franco Frattini, the foreign minister of the host nation, Italy, described the final declaration "disappointing relative to expectations" and said the text had been "watered down".
ROME - The text calls for "urgent and coordinated action to combat the negative impacts of soaring food prices on the world's most vulnerable countries and populations". It also demands more agricultural investment and immediate food aid.
On the most contentious issue - biofuels - the suggestion by an FAO working party that international standards be established to ensure biofuels were not produced at the expense of the world's hungry has been ignored. Instead there is some watered-down prose on "the challenges and opportunities posed by biofuels".
"We are convinced that in-depth studies are necessary to ensure that production and use of biofuels is sustainable", the declaration says, calling on "relevant intergovernmental organisations" to maintain an "international dialogue on biofuels in the context of food security and sustainable development needs."
In short, the dilemma has been kicked further down the road in the hope that another organisation will pick it up. Meanwhile, the US agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer has told American reporters that increasing the production of ethanol is "the right policy direction". The US seem to have conceded nothing, and corn prices have been mounting on world markets throughout the last hours of the summit.
On trade, the summit has backed the rapid conclusion of the Doha round of trade liberalisation, despite French reservations - a win for Britain and the US.
The final declaration talks about the need to "minimise the use of restrictive measures that could increase the volatility of international prices" - a disapproving reference to export bans and tariffs. Argentina, which has imposed hefty tariffs on food exports to keep domestic prices under control, bitterly opposed the use of the word "restrictive" and held up the closing session for hours in a bid to have it removed, but they ultimately went along with the text.
Despite the fact that the meeting was billed in part as addressing the "challenges of climate change", it has very little to say on that topic.
But Barbara Stocking, the director of Oxfam in the UK argued "it would be a mistake to dismiss this summit as a waste of time" pointing to pledges of $4 billion over the course of the conference to support agriculture in developing countries. She said the onus was now on the G8 to make financial commitments at next month's meeting in Japan.
(c) 2008 The Guardian
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.