EU and U.S. are threatened by lawsuits for illegal agricultural subsidies

The international development organization Oxfam accuses the EU and U.S. to subsidize the production of various foods illegal. The producers of corn, rice, sorghum, fruit juice, canned fruit, tomatoes, dairy products, tobacco and wine would be supported annually with 9,3 (USA) or 4.2 billion dollars, according to a report released on Wednesday the organization. As a result, 38 developing countries were suffering from unfair competition, including major countries such as Mexico and Brazil, as well as poor countries like Malawi and Mozambique.

Oxfam's study concludes that violate the EU and the U.S., the agreement of the World Trade Organization WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The subsidies are either prohibited because they would be paid only for the use of domestic products over imported products, or they constitute actionable because it exports from developing countries, repressed, oppressed, and the market prices of other industrial countries damaged.

The development organization warned that the EU and the U.S. threatened a wave of commercial claims, if they are not committed lobbied for a fair world trade agreements. Developing countries remains no other choice but to reach equitable trade rules, Oxfam said. The organization relies on information "leading legal experts," an effort to which the affected developing countries in WTO multiple cases against the EU and the U.S. and could win.

"The WTO dispute that the EU lost on sugar and the U.S. lost on cotton subsidies are just the tip of an iceberg," said Phil Bloomer, head of Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign. Oxfam is not opposed to all subsidies, but the organization had always said that the worst lead to dumping. "Now we know that many of these subsidies are not only unfair but also unlawful."

The procedure proposed by the WTO dispute mechanism for the sizing of Oxfam criticized as' expensive and complicated. " It may therefore only as a last resort in question. "The way to reform the world trade in terms of development, should carry on the negotiating table, not in the courtroom," Bloomer requested.

But do the rich countries at the current WTO talks not enough criticized Oxfam. The EU and the U.S. would require in the "peace clause" even immunity against such litigation. Oxfam rejected this demand. On the contrary, the EU and the U.S. would implement the provisions which they had already signed. Applicants would also have further offers to cut their subsidies and open their markets to offer the developing countries. Otherwise, developing countries should reject their proposals, Oxfam recommended.

Oxfam called on EU and U.S., the payment of prohibited subsidies - whose payout is bound to contain a certain proportion of "local products" - set. They should reduce their support by more than they have offered so far and accept additional disciplines on subsidies that remain. The U.S. should stop all distorting support for cotton and the EU until 2010 to abolish all export their support.

Previous Oxfam research concluded that most of the EU and U.S. subsidies would be paid to the largest farms and the farmers were mostly left out. Subsidies should be reformed so that they support smaller farmers, rural development and environmental protection benefits, called for the organization.