I’ll try and work up something on subsidies, and why I think there are better ways of achieving policy objectives. It would help me if maybe you had the time to indicate in a little more detail what you mean when you write that “subsidies designed to take into account multifunctionality and compensate for, and reduce, ‘external’ costs are vital for sound agricultural development.”

In the executive summary of the synthesis report it is interesting to see where the US has made reservations. Here is one:

“There is growing concern that opening national agricultural markets to international competition before basic institutions and infrastructure are in place can undermine the agricultural sector, with long term negative effects for poverty, food security and the environment.”

Bummer. This does not sound like free-trade. Red alert!

I did not note much about subsidies when I skimmed through the summary report, but I wanted to comment your side-kick to subsidies, Jeremy. Why do you hate them so much? I think subsidies is an essential part of any sustainable agriculture policy. Export subsidies sucks –of course, but subsidies designed to take into account multifunctionality and compensate for, and reduce, “external” costs are vital for sound agricultural development. I don’t buy that urban “the economist” and “oxfam” subsidy bashing –its way too simplistic. I think the IAASTD authors is onto something very important about the shortcomings of market forces when they say:

“Incentives are needed to influence the choices individuals make. Issues such as poverty and climate change also require collective agreements on concerted action and governance across scales that go beyond an appeal to individual benefit.”