The Global Food Security Summit is drawing to a close in Rome today and is expected to issue a compromise statement:
The merits of increasing biofuel production in the middle of a crisis over skyrocketing food prices was being hotly debated at a United Nations summit, but the top U.S. delegate said Wednesday that consensus on the issue was possible.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said on the second day of the three-day gathering of world leaders, U.N. food agencies, development banks and business representatives that progress was being made on determining the role of biofuels in food price hikes.
“It looks as though consensus on this important issue is in reach,” Schafer said in a statement.
He told reporters that he thought some “acceptable” language, apparently a compromise, on biofuels would be in the final summit document on Thursday.
There are compromises and there are compromises. A compromise in which the different parties each agree to surrender something they want to achieve a commonly-desired goal is one thing. A compromise in which each party returns home in the confidence that what they’ve been doing all along is right and with the intention of going right on doing it isn’t a compromise at all. It’s a cop-out.
I’ve heard some of the statements coming out of the summit. They’ve mostly been scatter-shot complaints blaming whatever food crisis exists on everything from biofuels production to obesity in rich countries to export restrictions. As an example here’s the communique from the UN Secretary-General and the Italian Prime Minister:
The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and H.E. Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy co-hosted a high-level working dinner with Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers on 3 June on the occasion of the High-Level Conference on World Food Security from 3 to 5 June 2008 in Rome. The dinner saw the participation of more than 44 Governments representing donor countries, food-producing countries, and those affected by the current food crisis. In addition, eight heads of international organizations participated in the event. Discussions focused on some of the most pressing policy issues related to the current world food security crisis and its underlying causes, namely agricultural productivity, biofuels, and trade restrictions, the three themes of the high-level dinner.
The Secretary-General stressed the need for a collective and concerted effort of all concerned. He noted that all agree on the most important issues: the common challenge; the need to focus on the poorest; and the insufficiency of food production. He pointed out that the High-Level Task Force has presented recommendations that represent the collective thinking of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. He invited participants to discuss the themes of the high-level dinner: emergency needs; agricultural production; biofuels; and trade restrictions.
I wonder if the irony of a dinner in the interests of aiding the hungry is lost on them.
The problem with the formulation is that it places these three factors on an equal footing. Is that correct? Or it is just politically correct?
I’m completely in favor of the U. S. and the EU eliminating crop subsidies. And I’m in favor of eliminating subsidies here for ethanol production. But the notion that U. S. ethanol production is equivalent to bad trade policy or other bad government policies that somehow seem to have escaped the notice of the summit’s attendees as a cause of a food crisis is poppycock. Show me the numbers and, as you do so, remember one word: substitutability. Corn isn’t a substitute for rice. Yellow corn (the kind used to make ethanol) isn’t even a substitute for white corn (the kind used for making tortillas).
There are a host of other factors that need to be considered, too. What about Chinese agricultural subsidies? And what about the subsidies that many of the countries at greatest risk for hunger place on gasoline, which insulates its citizens from price fluctuations in oil and subsidizes wasteful practices?
I don’t want to be coddled, mollified, or made to feel better. If what I’m doing is a problem I want to know about it. I think we owe the rest of the world the same courtesy.
译文:
谁，我吗？
今天，在罗马召开的世界粮食安全峰会渐进尾声，预计将发布一项共同宣言。
尽管在这次联合国峰会上，与会各国就增加生物燃料的产量是否会在价格飙升的危机下进一步恶化食品价格方面一争高下，但是美国最高代表周三说就这一事宜有可能达成共识。
全球领袖，联合国粮食机构，发展银行和商界代表聚集一堂的为期三天的会议的第二天，美国农业部长谢佛说，在确定生物燃料对食品价格飙升所起作用这一议题上正在取得进展。
他告诉记者们他认为在周四发布的峰会最终文件中，会包括有关生物燃料问题的一些“可接受的”语言，即某种妥协意见。
的确，那些都是妥协。各代表为实现他们共同的理想而做出妥协是一回事，但是他们回国后仍然自信自己所作的一切是正确的，为此所作的并非是一项妥协，则是另外一回事。妥协只是一种逃避。
我听到过一些从峰会中传出的言论。从生物燃料的生产问题到发达国家的肥胖症问题到出口限制问题，这些言论大部分都是些无关紧要的抱怨，谴责粮食危机无孔不入。
这里就有一个例子，以下来自联合国秘书长和意大利总理贝卢斯科尼的联合公报：
联合国秘书长潘基文和意大利总理贝卢斯科尼在6月3号共同主持了这次高级别的工作晚宴，招待各国参加2008年6月3日到5日在罗马举行的世界粮食安全峰会的国家元首和官员。全球40多个国家的代表参加了这次晚宴，他们有的来自捐赠国，有的来自粮食生产国，有的则是来自于遭受粮食危机的国家。此外8个国际组织的负责人也参加了这次晚宴。他们讨论的重点都放在一些与现今食品安全危机相关的重要政策，以及食品安全危机的潜在原因上，即晚宴的三大主题：农业生产率，生物燃料和贸易限制。联合国秘书长呼吁各国政府及所有相关方面应共同致力于解决全球粮食问题。他强调在一些重要的问题上，各国意见一致：各国共同面临的挑战，对于贫穷国家应给与的重视以及粮食产量的不足。他指出高级别工作队建议能代表联合国，世界银行，国际货币基金组织和世界贸易组织的共同想法。他诚邀各国代表共同讨论晚宴的三大主题：农业生产率，生物燃料和贸易限制。我想知道，为了那些缺粮国家的利益举办晚宴，这样的讽刺是否会影响他们的食欲。规划问题出在他们不知道这三个问题哪个更紧急。这样对吗？或者在政治上这样对吗？
我十分赞同美国和欧盟取消农作物补贴的做法。我在此也同意取消对乙醇产品的补贴。但是我们得注意美国允许从谷物中提取乙醇本身就是一项很糟糕的贸易政策或者是糟糕的政府政策，但是不知道何故，这些糟糕的政策居然避开了峰会代表的注意，这样让人觉得食品危机只是一席空话。给我看看用作提炼乙醇农作物的数据，你在做这个的同时，记住一个词：可置换性。玉米不能代替大米。黄色的玉米（通常用提炼酒精）更不能代替白玉米（通常用来做玉米团）。
仍有许多其他的因素我们必须考虑。例如中国的农业补贴如何？许多国家冒着缺粮的风险补贴汽油，使得它们的人民不得不应对油价波动，这样浪费的补贴有意义吗？
我并非想矫情，让自己态度缓和或者让自己感觉好点。如果我所作的是我很想了解的，那么我觉得我们欠其余他人同样的恩惠。