Somtimes situations create popular opinions that are so obvious, so simple, that they are almost certainly misinformed – or at the very least, not considering the whole picture.
That might be the case for two of the biggest issues in international agriculture today. I’m speaking of the 世界贸易组织 (WTO) 关于贸易政策和生物燃料热潮的多哈回合。两者都被广泛认为是巨大的变化，将对全球农业产生积极影响。
I’m not arguing here that this will not happen. Given the right set of circumstances, one or both could live up to the lofty expectations set upon them. But there is reason to doubt both Doha and biofuels, and some compelling arguments against either shaking out the way they are envisioned to.
从 6 月份美国、欧盟、巴西和印度的代表在德国波茨坦举行会议时成为新闻的多哈回合谈判开始，就有很多怀疑的余地。波茨坦是谈判再次破裂的地方，巴西和印度代表离开谈判桌，提前结束了会议。
这是一连串崩溃中的最新一次 自 2001 年开始以来一直困扰着多哈回合（顺便说一句，这是另一次失败的结果；该回合原定于 1999 年在 世贸组织 Conference in Seattle, US, and to be known as the “Seattle Round”). However, the inability of governments to find common ground is not the only reason to question Doha.
While I consider myself a free trade advocate, I have begun to doubt the intentions of some of the nations in Doha. The spirit of Doha at its inception was one of fair trade, of improving the situations of the world’s poorest countries through a “development agenda.” However, there appears now to be different motivations – ones that see the world’s most powerful developed and developing countries wrangling for market access, leaving poor nations – and any reference to “development” – out of the discussion.
怀疑多哈的最终用处 is supported by several sobering pieces of evidence. The World Bank, which had estimated that Doha would benefit poor countries by US $60 billion per year, has slashed that figure down to US $16 billion, with much of that going to the most advanced developing countries. Similarly, the EU’s recent “Impact Assessment” reported that many poor countries would be hurt by Doha more than helped.
对于生物燃料，情况更简单。正如许多 FCI 读者所知，我相信只要生物燃料是国家议程的一部分，就不能从竞争力的角度来考虑它们。这是一个政治化的行业，因此它将由政府培育。
但这并不意味着它无懈可击。 在与 CEO Jim Hines 的对话中 大米公司, he mentioned several points that might reverse public opinion on biofuels, which could endanger its status as a political darling. Among his concerns were a reaction from OPEC that would drive oil prices higher, as well as “the backlash to the cost of milk, meat, canned products which use corn starch … also the availability of raw materials for propanil and diuron.”
FCI reader Alan McCracken also expressed doubts, saying, “when consumers realize the true costs of ethanol from corn and the poor fuel efficiency, they will revolt and kill the project.” As a regular driver in Brazil, McCracken added that he had experienced first-hand the decreased fuel efficiency of Flex-Fuel cars.
这些观点并不是说生物燃料或多哈会议注定失败。但与任何主要趋势一样，这些故事的某些方面很少受到关注。我们对所有不同的角度了解得越多，我们就越能做好适应它们所产生的变化的准备。