TradePolicy.ch

What Hinduism, Buddhism and the Doha Round have in common

2010-02-20T16:02:00.003+01:00

Asian religions believe in the power of words MANTRAS - typically repeated stoically during long periods - as means to create transformation.

As a matter of fact, interested parties led by DG General Lamy have been repeating - mantra-like:
- that "progress is at hands", that "nobody throws the towel", that "substantial negotiations are ahead", that "agreement on technical issues is promising" .... you name it.

What we have been seeing since maybe the Hong Kong Ministerial (this was in 2005 - freshen up your memory!!!) is a slowly revolving merry-go-round with mantra spelling trade and government officials sitting on the artfully crafted horses.

Let us see whether the upcoming (Feb 22) Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee to the WTO General Council will prove us wrong - here the proposed agenda:

GENERAL COUNCIL: MEETING OF 22-23 FEBRUARY 2010

I. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee

II. Work Programme on Small Economies ? Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development

III. The financial and economic crisis and the role of the WTO ? Communication from Argentina, Ecuador and India (WT/GC/W/617 and ADD.1)

IV. Accession of developing countries ? Communication from Gabon on behalf of the informal group of developing countries (WT/GC/126)

V. Information on EU schedule CXL ? Statement by the European Union

VI. Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies

VII. Election of Chairperson

Other business back to top

New Doha impetus from WEF / Davos

2010-01-31T19:33:00.004+01:00

Already a matter of routine, a interested group of trade ministers met at the sidelines of WEF in Davos in order to discuss state of play and next steps for troubled DOHA Round. Even for the trade ministers, optimists by proefession, the result is meager, as reported by Reuters:

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Trade ministers expressed gloom on Saturday about the prospects of concluding stalled global trade liberalization talks this year, with many blaming the United States for foot-dragging.
Davos: China | Davos

Ministers from about 20 major economies held informal talks on the sidelines of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, but Egypt's trade minister said they made little progress.

"I don't think very much came out of this meeting unfortunately," Rachid Mohamed Rachid said.

"If we don't have the participation at ministerial or even ambassador level from the United States, of course it doesn't give us a positive signal," he said.

Symbolizing the Obama administration's reluctance to commit to an endgame in the long-running negotiations, the world's biggest economy sent only a deputy ambassador who was not authorized to speak.

"We had other representatives who could not take the floor because they were not ministers," Swiss President Doris Leuthard, who chaired the meeting, told a news conference. "Those who are not present don't have the floor."

Leaders of the G20 grouping of major economies, including U.S. President Barack Obama, agreed in Pittsburgh last September on the goal of wrapping up the Doha round of World Trade Organization negotiations in 2010.

Rachid said there was very little prospect of meeting that goal, adding: "We are not optimistic, we are very concerned."

Many participants say domestic politics and the impact of the financial crisis and high unemployment in the United States and Europe have made chances of an early trade deal more remote.

David Shark, deputy U.S. envoy to the WTO, declined comment on the complaints at the level of U.S. representation but said: "It was interesting as always. It was just a conversation."

"FRANK EXCHANGE"

The long-running 153-nation talks collapsed in 2008 over a dispute between the United States, India and China on protection for farmers in developing countries. Other unresolved issues include cotton subsidies, trade in services and in environmental goods and services.

Brazilian Trade Minister Celso Amorim suggested that G20 leaders should get involved, as at last month's Copenhagen U.N. climate talks, to make key trade-offs needed to clinch a deal.

But WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy told reporters any such top-level engagement would require lengthy preparation to boil down the complex issues to simple, manageable choices.

Leuthard said ministers agreed the strength of the WTO system had safeguarded free trade during the recession, but the longer the world went without a new pact, the bigger the risk of a retreat into protectionism.

India's Trade Minister Anand Sharma agreed there was an urgent need for trade negotiators to learn lessons from the global financial crisis.

"It was a rules-based system that has prevented the world trade from collapsing during the economic crisis and the global economy stands to gain much," Sharma said.

The Obama administration has said big emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil must open their markets more to make a global trade deal worthwhile for U.S. business.

Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean saw hope in the fact that Obama's State of the Union address on Wednesday had underscored the link between free trade and job creation.

"Look at President Obama's speech where he talks about the objective of doubling exports. That can't be done unless trade is liberalized," he said.

Senior officials are due to conduct a stocktaking exercise in late March to see if an outline WTO deal is possible this year, and participants said no one would want to put negotiating cards on the table at this stage.

(Additional reporting by Ben Hirschler, writing by Paul Taylor and Dominic Evans, editing by Hans Peters)

The Reuters Report speaks for itself and there is little to add. There is however on piece of additional info that makes interesting reading. Frau Leuthard, Swiss trade minister and host of the referred meeting was slightly more outspoken to Swiss media - we quote from the HandelszeitungOnline:

WTO-Minister wollen Freihandelsrunde wieder in Fahrt bringen

Die festgefahrene Liberalisierung des Welthandels soll wieder in Bewegung kommen: Unter der F�hrung von Bundespr�sidentin Doris Leuthard pl�dierte eine informelle Ministerrunde in Davos f�r einen Versuch, der stillstehenden Doha-Runde wieder Leben einzuhauchen.

Es sei beschlossen worden, dass die Chefunterh�ndler bei der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) im Februar und M�rz eine Liste von Schl�sselthemen erstellen sollten, die noch konkretisiert werden m�ssten, k�ndigte Leuthard vor den Medien am Rande des Weltwirtschaftsforums (WEF) an.

Dabei gehe es um technische Bereiche wie etwa Verhandlungen im Industriesektor, Abbau der Z�lle f�r bestimmte Sektoren, Antidumping-Massnahmen oder Massnahmen gegen �berfischung, sagte die Schweizer WTO-Chefunterh�ndlerin Marie-Gabrielle Ineichen-Fleisch auf Anfrage der Nachrichtenagentur SDA. Erst dann k�nne eine n�chste Ministerrunde mit neuen oder revidierten Papieren vorbereitet werden.
"Am Schluss geht es nat�rlich um den politischen Willen", sagte Leuthard nach dem Treffen von 17 Ministern und WTO-Generaldirektor Pascal Lamy. Hier st�nden einige Staaten immer noch abseits. Ohne gemeinsamen politischen Willen werde diese Runde nicht vorw�rtskommen.
�ber einen Abschluss der sich bereits acht Jahre hinziehenden Doha-Runde noch heuer zeigte sich die Bundespr�sidentin skeptisch: Zwar sei die technische Seite unproblematisch. "Da ist das Jahr 2010 immer noch im Bereich des M�glichen. Aber auf der politischen Seite wird sich das Ganze nicht realisieren lassen, wenn gewisse Staaten keine Verpflichtungserkl�rungen abgeben."
"Wir brauchen die USA. Das macht uns allen Sorgen, dass auch hier US-Pr�sident Barack Obama sehr zur�ckhaltend ist und seine Priorit�ten anderweitig setzt", sagte Leuthard weiter.

The text is unfortunately in German - two points are interesting:
one: the ground note is substantially more optimistic

second: Frau Leuthard, going more into details than the Reuters report, enumerates the areas where
....trade negotiators at WTO will establish, in the course of February and March, a list of key issues that still need concrete work .... we refer thereby to issues such as technical matters in the industrial sector, anti-dumping or measures against over-fishing ...
certainly more than interesting the areas that are being skipped and that therefore do not appear to be in need of concrete work (whatever that means)

HJN

EU Commission 2009 - 2014 designate - interesting!

2010-01-24T17:26:00.002+01:00

The new Barroso Commission designate for the period 2009 to 2014 is out - and it is indeed interesting to have a look at the list (click here) - check out in particular their CVs and their national origin.

Interesting in our context here the nomination to the succession of Frau Fischer Boel , the agricultural commissioner - the Romanian Dacian Ciolos - check out his CV - CVciolos_en.pdf - and a summary of a hearing in the European Parliament - both make interest reading and are most self-explantory.

Preference Erosion - a key obstacle to DDA conclusion being removed?

2010-01-17T16:44:00.002+01:00

Trade negotiators appear to have returned rather quietly from their X-Mas leaves - nothing much has been catching public visibility so far. However, the news on a common proposal by ACP, Latam and the EU in respect of how to deal with the issue preference erosion, seem to me much more significant than the little of news coverage this proposal has so far received beyond the really specialized media channels.

For a full report and backgrounder on preference erosion
you best go to Bridges weekly - click this link.

In fact, a common proposal from those with directly opposite interests in the matter is more than remarkable - this is not a small step but a huge jump towards a DDA conclusion.

Antibiotics in animal farming - an issue with relevance for global trade

2010-01-02T19:52:00.010+01:00

The wide spread use of antibiotics in animal farming has been causing concerns for quite some years, now.
The absence of globally binding rules governing the use of antibiotics as feed additives and clear disciplines for the veterinary application of the same - say SPS and TBT related issues in WTO speak - are rightfully on track to turn trade barriers much more important than tariffs. In this respect, I found a most interesting backgrounder drawn up by Keith Good on his Farm Policy site. For easy reference, here his text:

Quote

Associated Press writers Margie Mason and Martha Mendoza reported yesterday that, ?[M]ore and more Americans ? many of them living far from barns and pastures ? are at risk from the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics. These animals grow faster, but they can also develop drug-resistant infections that are passed on to people. The issue is now gaining attention because of interest from a new White House administration and a flurry of new research tying antibiotic use in animals to drug resistance in people.

?Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year ? more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs ? 28 million pounds ? went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it?s 50 percent.?

The AP article stated that, ?The rise in the use of antibiotics is part of a growing problem of soaring drug resistance worldwide, The Associated Press found in a six-month look at the issue. As a result, killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and staph are resurging in new and more deadly forms.

?In response, the pressure against the use of antibiotics in agriculture is rising. The World Health Organization concluded this year that surging antibiotic resistance is one of the leading threats to human health, and the White House last month said the problem is ?urgent.??

Yesterday?s article noted that, ?More than 20 percent of all human cases of a deadly drug-resistant staph infection in the Netherlands could be traced to an animal strain, according to a study published online in a CDC journal. Federal food safety studies routinely find drug resistant bacteria in beef, chicken and pork sold in supermarkets, and 20 percent of people who get salmonella have a drug resistant strain, according to the CDC.

?Here?s how it happens: In the early ?90s, farmers in several countries, including the U.S., started feeding animals fluoroquinolones, a family of antibiotics that includes drugs such as ciprofloxacin. In the following years, the once powerful antibiotic Cipro stopped working 80 percent of the time on some of the deadliest human infections it used to wipe out. Twelve years later, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study linking people infected with a Cipro-resistant bacteria to pork they had eaten.?

The AP writers pointed out that, ?Antibiotics are a crucial part of [farmer and veterinarian Craig Rowles'] business, speeding growth and warding off disease.

??Now the public doesn?t see that,? he said. ?They?re only concerned about resistance, and they don?t care about economics because, ?As long as I can buy a pork chop for a buck 69 a pound, I really don?t care.? But we live in a world where you have to consider economics in the decision-making process of what we do.?

?Rowles gives his pigs virginiamycin, which has been used in livestock for decades and is not absorbed by the gut. He withdraws the drug three weeks before his hogs are sent for slaughter. He also monitors his herd for signs of drug resistance to ensure they are getting the most effective doses.

??The one thing that the American public wants to know is: Is the product that I?m getting, is it safe to eat?? said Rowles, whose home freezer is full of his pork. ?I?m telling you that the product that we produce today is the safest, most wholesome product that you could possibly get.??

With respect to policy related issues, the AP article indicated that, ?Some U.S. lawmakers are fighting for a new law that would ban farmers like Rowles from feeding antibiotics to their animals unless they are sick.

??If you mixed an antibiotic in your child?s cereal, people would think you?re crazy,? said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y. [FarmPolicy.com Note: See related news items on this issue from Congresswoman Slaughter here (July 2009), here (September 2009), here (October 2009), and here (October 2009). A related release from the House Rules Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Slaughter, is available here (July 2009)].

?Renewed pressure is on from Capitol Hill from Slaughter?s bill and new rules discussed in regulatory agencies. There is also pressure from trade issues: The European Union and other developed countries have adopted strong limits against antibiotics. Russia recently banned pork imports from two U.S. plants after detecting levels of tetracycline that the USDA said met American standards.?

On the other hand, the article stated that, ?Opponents, many from farm states, say Slaughter?s law is misguided.

??Chaos will ensue,? said Kansas Republican Congressman Jerry Moran. ?The cultivation of crops and the production of food animals is an immensely complex endeavor involving a vast range of processes. We raise a multitude of crops and livestock in numerous regions, using various production methods. Imagine if the government is allowed to dictate how all of that is done.?

?He?s backed by an array of powerful interests, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Pork Producers Council, Eli Lilly & Co., Bayer AG, Pfizer Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto Company, who have repeatedly defeated similar legislation.?

With respect to legislative and administrative history on this issue, the AP article explained that, ?The FDA says without new laws its options are limited. The agency approved antibiotic use in animals in 1951, before concerns about drug resistance were recognized. The only way to withdraw that approval is through a drug-by-drug process that can take years of study, review and comment.

?In 1977 the agency proposed a ban on penicillin and tetracycline in animal feed, but it was defeated after criticism from interest groups.

?There has been one ban: In 2000, for the first time, the FDA ordered the poultry medication Baytril off the market. Five years later, after a series of failed appeals, poultry farmers stopped using the drug.

?In 2008 the FDA issued its second limit on an antibiotic used in cows, pigs and chickens, citing ?the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans.? But the Bush Administration ? in an FDA note in the federal register ? reversed that decision five days before it was going to take effect after receiving several hundred letters from drug companies and farm animal trade groups.?

Unquote

Your contribution:
Make sure and inquire with your supplier, whenever you purchase animal products - i.e. beef, pork, poultry, aquaculture fish and seafood, eggs, dairy products - that those were produced without antibiotic feed additives and that relevant and trust worthy certification is at hand.

You may also request your government / authorities to expedite legislation banning the use of antibiotic feed additives in your country and in the products to be imported into your country.

No Xmas bang from the Doha Round - but my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

2009-12-13T12:46:00.002+01:00

Dear Visitors

Some may have hoped that the Conference of the Trade Ministers in Geneva might open the door for a "Doha-break-through-bang". It is now clear that this will not be the case.

As a matter of fact: negotiators have returned swiftly to day to day business and they concentrate on praising themselves for the good jobs done; trade ministers have returned home affirming - once again - that the Doha Round will be brought to a conclusion in 2010.

In short, accepting that 2009 has passed away, what remains to be done is the contribution towards a good starting mood in 2010.

With this, we have time to exchange our best wishes for a

Merry Christmas &
Happy and Joyful Next Year

hjn

Acrobatics on the Trade Negotiation Floor - Geneva Ministerial

2009-12-06T12:16:00.003+01:00

The NZZ newspaper has presented in its Saturday December 5 edition a most inspiring summary of the state of play of the Doha Round (unfortunately in German only)

upload the pdf here: 091205NZZ.pdf

The text gives a nice view of the boldness of the WTO as an organization and the difficult relationship among established (such as USA, EC) and potential future (Brazil, India, China) global leaders - tensions cropping up on platforms such as the G-6 (Australia, Brazil, the EU, India, Japan and the US).

Further, the text comments the difficult art of allocation of benefits and losses generated by progressive trade liberalization (i.e. displacement of trade flows).

Last but not least, the text shows us that the Geneva Meeting - perhaps because the Doha Negotiation was not part of the formal agenda - has added fuel to the fading Doha fire.

Setting the stages for the Ministerial - officially and extraofficially!

2009-11-29T12:22:00.004+01:00

Past week, we made an effort provide some real food for thought to the upcoming trade ministers meeting. Within that text, we did make a hint to P. Lamy's report to the General Council - "trying obviously to set the informal agenda" - this latter report (to the General Council) is a public WTO document, so it was worded quite carefully and balanced, while still trying to set the extra-official trade negotiation agenda in the otherwise "housekeeping" centered Conference.

In the meantime, P. Lamy, this time in his function of chair of the TNC (Trade Negotiations Committee), assembled the heads of delegation. I understand this to have happened on November 27, going with them through the state of play of the negotiations.

While the text of the report to the General Council is a publicly available document, this is not the case for the TNC 'Speaking Notes' of Mr. Lamy.

Probably, these latter 'Speaking Notes' would provide a better picture of what the real situation is.

I would not be surprised to hear, judging from what has been moving over the past months, that:

agricultural negotiations continue to dodge forward, slowly but steadily, making headway in all these technically difficult but necessary details;

in non-agricultural market acess (NAMA), virtually no progress has been made.

Most likely, I guess, this lack of progress would have to be credited to preference erosion - for a backgrounder, feel free to upload the enclosed WTO Working Paper

ersd200505_e.doc

(click the link)

There certainly is a very broad consensus that agricultural subsidies need be reduced further (not least due to the recession-suffering, cash-strapped public coffres). In contrast, reduction of agricultural tariffs is only of second importance - agricultural trade is no longer so much influenced ty tariffs than it is by domestic subsidies - check out the WTO cotton case if you dubt.

So, while unpopular domestic subsidies are the centerpiece in agriculture, NAMA really deals with tariffs, primarily - indeed, reaching a consensus where some need to give up 'trade goodies' called preferences so that the whole market place gets really even is a huge challenge. A challenge fare beyond the even most ambitious agricultural endeavor.

Food for Thought - Right in Time for the upcoming meeting of Trade Ministers

2009-11-22T12:09:00.002+01:00

Trade Ministers will meet Nov 30 to Dec 2 in Geneva, trying to keep up the once established bi-annual conference schedule. It was only possible to convene this conference by formally excluding Doha-Round issues from the agenda - what did not prevent P. Lamy to address the General Council, in the wake of the Min-Conference, primarily with a stock-taking of the Doha-Round - trying obviously to set the informal / extra-official agenda of the Meeting - click the link for his report to the General Council.

The real contribution to what might be a decent "house-keeping" agenda comes however from a little known Canadian Trade and Development Think Tank

- iisd / International Institute for Sustainable Development -

Right in time for the ministerial conference, the institute has published a most interesting piece of work:

A Sustainable Development Roadmap for the WTO, by Aaron Cosbey

click the link in order to get an upload of the full document

For those in a hurry, read thru the potential elements of the roadmap, as identified in the document - Ministers in Geneva (and Mr. Lamy) could snatch significant inspiration - good luck to them - here now the elements of the roadmap lined out:

quote (pages 45 & 46)

...
The paper then attempts to lay out a roadmap for the WTO, on the
premise that the organization takes seriously its explicit objectives,
including the need to contribute to sustainable development. Only a
dedicated and inclusive process could elaborate such a roadmap with
any legitimacy, but a number of areas of promise are explored here as
potential elements of a final roadmap. They include:

? Assessment: The WTO should create a regime that will assess how
well it is doing in achieving its objectives in the area of sustainable
development. The regime should perform two basic functions: the
?paragraph 51? function of monitoring and commenting on ongoing
negotiations, and a broader regular assessment against a
roadmap of elements such as the one elaborated above. Ideally
both functions would be performed by third parties, that is by a
credible, legitimate group with broad expertise on the matters of
economy, environment and development and their relationship to
trade law.

? Environment: The WTO should take the lead in liberalizing trade
in environmental goods and services, on reducing or eliminating
perverse subsidies (such as fisheries and fossil fuel subsidies), and
on any needed amendments to the TRIPS Agreement to make it
compatible with obligations under the CBD. It should also grant
observership to MEAs in WTO Committees. The WTO should
attempt, in an exercise that included inter alia environment
Ministry officials, to negotiate agreed understandings or guidance
on what WTO law says on the subject of PPM-based discrimination,
and on the precautionary principle. It should ensure that others
act to address at least two other items on the trade-environment
agenda, but not take a lead role: the cluster of issues that includes
market access, standards and labelling; and assessing the broad
impacts of trade on the environment.

? Development: The WTO should be actively leading in the areas of
trade-related technical assistance, capacity building and trade facilitation.
It should be spearheading a collaboration that has others
going further than this, to efforts designed to build up trade-related
infrastructure, to build productive capacity and to strengthen the
domestic institutions that are key to a healthy investment climate
(bureaucracy, judiciary, regulatory bodies, etc.) The WTO should
explore developing a system of indicators that would link successful
aid for trade to related trade law commitments.

? Negotiation: The WTO should create an independent advisory
body staffed by technocrats, modelled along the lines of the IPCC.
The body (referred to hypothetically in the text as the IPTSD)
would be charged by the Members with delivering advice on a
range of empirical questions of relevance for the achievement of
sustainable development through trade law and policy. Such a body
would improve the quality of the negotiations, which urgently
need to find some reliable manner to link to the Organization?s
objectives, rather than merely to mercantilist national priorities.

? Multilateral governance: The WTO should convene research at a
level adequate to inform the Members?particularly the least
developed among them?whether the rush to regionalism harms
their prospects for sustainable development. This is not a methodologically
simple question, and much research has already been
carried out. But a dedicated effort to advance understanding on
this question would nonetheless be welcome.

? Accession: The WTO should create a new agreement on accession
that lays out objective criteria for deciding what obligations any
given acceding Member should undertake. The agreement should
contain an approval process that eliminates the need for bilateral
negotiations with all interested parties.

? Dispute settlement: The WTO should explore the possibility of
monetary payment as penalty for non-compliance with DSM rulings,
this being an imperfect but superior solution for the problems
that smaller economies encounter with the existing system. The
WTO should make all submissions public documents, and should
open up all dispute settlement proceedings to the public.
...

unquote

FAO World Summit on Food Security - Part of the Problem or Part of a Solution?

2009-11-15T11:30:00.002+01:00

Tomorrow the FAO organized World Summit on Food Security will open its doors. Launched with lot of publicity - such as highly media-covered 24 hour hunger strike by FAO secretary general Diouf - the event still risks to turn another obstacle on the bumpy road towards Global Food Security. Two comments in this respect:

A 24 hour hunger strike by FAO Secretary General for PR purposes is ridiculous and is not being understood as a serious message. In fact, not eating during 24 hours is probably quite a healthy measure for Mr. Diouf, very far away from any link to starvation.

A World Summit is expected to bring together the heads of state and to reach commitments from among the top of the diplomatic hierarchy. It is being commented that heads of state presence will be restricted to gentlemen with glittering names such as Mugabe, Ghadhafi or Chavez. Should this prove correct - please check it out during these coming days - then indeed to organization tasked to fight hunger in the world has a major problem. FAO would be well advised to look deep inside in order to find out why such an event appears to attract the bad species and what would need be done to change that. Worst case scenario will be a summit with a majority of lower ranking diplomats condemned to silence and the three referred gentlemen taking again advantage of a vacant stage to spit out their well known messages. We should not forget: Mr. Mugabe has a unrivaled track record for starving his own people - Mr. Chavez track record is best described as the top scorer when it comes to wasting petroleum dollars for anything except the development of the country entrusted to him - for Mr. Ghadhafi, we leave it there ... Mr. Berlusconi, prime minister of hosting Italy, is expected to give the opening address - it will be in his hands to set the stage so that the above scenario will not occur. Alas this would mean to expect a lot from media tycoon and Ghadhafi-buddy Silvio B.

US Government nominates Chief Agriculture Trade Negotiator to WTO

2009-11-07T23:29:00.002+01:00

Better late than never: the US administration has finally identified a candidate for the position of chief ag negotiator to WTO - for details click here to get to the Reuters news item. Mr Siddiqui's track record is quite promising and raises expectations. Let us hope that the mustering process by Senate and Reps goes thru smoothly.

More important than the name as such is however the fact that the Obama administration has finally got its act together to staff its WTO team - conditions that substance will return to the negotiating floor may improve for early 2010.

Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference

2009-11-01T17:35:00.007+01:00

Exactly two fortnights from now, Geneva will host the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference.

Earlier this year, the global economic situation had been perceived as so bad that it had been a must for WTO's General Council to focus this upcoming MIN-CONF on the economic situation - WTO Document WT/L/760:

quote

SEVENTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE

Decision of 26 May 2009

1. Taking account of the obligations set out in Article IV, paragraph 1, of the WTO Agreement, the General Council decides that the Seventh Session of the Ministerial Conference shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland from 30 November to 2 December 2009.

2. The general theme for discussion at the Seventh Session shall be "The WTO, the Multilateral Trading System and the Current Global Economic Environment".

3. The Chairman of the General Council is requested to undertake all necessary action to prepare the Seventh Session in consultation with Members and in co-operation with the Director-General and the Swiss authorities.

unquote

Lucky enough for everybody, the global economic crisis has furnished a politically convenient rationale to skip sickly floating Doha-Round from the agenda of the Ministerial Conference - this may be politically wise - however it will not contribute much towards the goal of wrapping up a Doha Deal some time in 2010.

It will not contribute either to lower the level of frustration of delegates - frustration caused by the gap between political lip-service and self-centered and protectionist negotiation mandates - see ICTSD:

Lamy Calls for Text-Based Talks, Delegates Express Frustration

Delegates need to move to text-based negotiations if they want to spur progress toward a global trade deal, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy stressed to a meeting of WTO officials on Friday. The mood among delegates was grim, with many complaining of back-sliding and a lack of transparency in the negotiating process, but Lamy remained optimistic. ....

Food Security - again!

2009-10-25T19:56:00.003+01:00

A week ago, we discussed issues related to food security, concluding with the question:

Why is it so hard to accept that food should be produced, to the extent possible, in the region where it is needed?

Seldom I have felt, in the recent past, so affirmed in my views as right now. Read this, coming straight from inside the US Agricultural Policy Brain Tank (for the quote, my thanks to Keith Good, www.farmpolicy.com :

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack held a conference call to discuss food security issues.

Reuters writer Roberta Rampton reported on Friday that, "The Obama administration wants more flexibility in how it allocates food aid dollars to complement its new strategy to help small farmers in poor countries boost their food production, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Friday.

"Vilsack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is leading the administration's three-year, $3.5 billion global food security initiative, did not rule out using U.S.-grown food aid as a tool for development projects.

"But they told reporters food aid funding should also be used to buy crops in or near poor countries as a way to benefit local farmers while supporting U.S.-led development projects."

The article added that, "The United States will no longer rely on food aid as its primary tool to help reduce world hunger, Vilsack said, but will continue to use it where needed.

"The focus of its initiative will be on helping small-holder farmers get access to seed, fertilizer, irrigation and markets so that they can feed themselves and earn a living.

'"We?ve got to make farmers around the world more productive,"Vilsack said.'

Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported on Friday that, "Biotechnology will play a 'critical role' in combating hunger, which has become a global security threat with more than 60 food riots worldwide since 2007, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

"Improved technology will be one of the main tools the U.S. will use to help countries produce more food, Clinton said today in a teleconference with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, in observance of World Food Day.

"Hunger is becoming a larger economic, environmental and security threat, Clinton said. The number of hungry people worldwide reached 1.02 billion for the first time this year, the UN said earlier this week. The U.S. will be 'investing in all of the tools that are needed to leverage the skills and perseverance of farmers,' Clinton said."

Nothing much to add to this truly bold (and overdue) policy change of the US administration - chapeau.

On a different stage, this policy move underlines the - often disputed - reality that indeed the global food market (whatever that exactly is) is more different from other markets that some would like to make believe.

So much for today - hjn

Global Food Security - is this a real issue?

2009-10-17T18:49:00.000+02:00

Past Friday, I had the opportunity to assist a panel discussion at ETHZ's Department of Agriculturual and Food Sciences (D-AGRL). For details on the panel meeting - click here. (Sorry, no English version). The panel meeting was successful and succeded in bringing together a crowd that spilt over into a second auditorium with video display.

Indeed, the crowd had not come to hear news about food security, but to get an occasion for networking and small talk - as usual drinks and finger food are most important for the perveived success of such an event.
QAuite big was the disappointment among attendees - not because that nothing new in respect of food security was brought up - but because more time than planned was wasted with the panel discussion and less therefore remained for the drinking and networking part.

For myself, I could not avoid a sentiment of despair: I had been convinced that the world had now accepted that food security is, principally, a question of
a) poverty
b) good production practice / say know how / say education / say technology

but no: in spite of all facts, there are people that still believe that food security is a matter of production quantity - irrespective of type and kind and of the location of production.

By coincidence, the Farm Policy Newsletter by Keith Good addresses the same issue in its Friday issue - it is well worth reading:

Food Security

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday that, ?Stepping into the debate over how wealthy countries should support agricultural development in places such as Africa, billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates cautioned aid leaders not to let battles over biotechnology versus sustainability create an ?ideological wedge? that hinders the need to solve world hunger.

?Gates, the chairman of Microsoft Corp., in his first major address on agricultural development, spoke to a standing-room-only audience at the World Food Prize symposium on Thursday [transcript, video replay]. Given Gates? status in helping reduce global hunger, his speech at the World Food Prize further elevated the symposium?s profile.?

Mr. Clayton added that, ?With renewed recent emphasis on the world stage to reduce global hunger, Gates? speech also represents his foundation elevating its focus from aiding specific projects to weighing in on political issues and challenges. ?Now is the time,? Gates said. ?The food crisis has forced hunger on the world?s agenda. From NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to the G8 to African heads of state, there is a rush of new commitment.?

?But there is a problem, Gates said. Helping to end world hunger is endangered by the ?ideological wedge that threatens to split? the movement, he said. Gates highlighted that some groups support technological solutions to increase agricultural productivity without regard to environmental and sustainability concerns. Then there are those who question any emphasis on productivity, he said.?

Yesterday?s DTN article indicated that, ?Nonetheless, Gates championed the need to increase agricultural productivity, particularly in Africa. He cited that higher productivity protects land use. ?When productivity is high, people can farm on less land,? he said.?

Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Iowa Politics Insider Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, ?Bill Gates, the Microsoft chairman who is pouring part of his fortune into alleviating global poverty, defended the use of genetically engineered crops to help poor farmers increase food production.

?In what was billed as his first major speech on agriculture, Gates chided critics who he said are ?instantly hostile to any emphasis on productivity? and ignore the challenges to food production posed by climate change.

??They act as if there is no emergency, even though in the poorest, hungriest places on earth, population is growing faster than productivity, and the climate is changing,? Gates said, giving the keynote speech at the World Food Prize symposium.

?Gates said transgenic crops ?can help address farmers? challenges faster and more efficiently than conventional breeding alone.??

Reuters writers Christine Stebbins and Roberta Rampton reported yesterday that, ?The fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa, Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft, said on Thursday.

?Gates said GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools ? although not the only tools ? to help small farms in Africa boost production.?

The AP reported yesterday that, ?The world can make huge strides in reducing hunger and poverty by helping the world?s poorest farmers become more productive, Microsoft Inc. co-founder Bill Gates said Thursday.

?Gates, co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, spoke at the World Food Prize symposium, where he said more needs to be done to help small-holder farmers in Africa increase production and get their crops to market.?

Yesterday?s article added that, ?Earlier Thursday, the Gates Foundation announced nearly $120 million in grants to help bring a green revolution to sub-Saharan Africa.

?About half the grants will go toward agriculture research in Africa, including experiments with sorghum, millet, legumes and sweet potatoes. Several unusual projects also were announced, including proposals to use cell phones and radio programs to educate small farmers.?

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson noted in today?s paper that, ?When you are Bill Gates ? directing a foundation with assets larger than the GDPs of 104 countries ? your enthusiasms get amplified on a global scale. Six or seven years ago, Gates read a book by Gordon Conway, ?The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century,? which argued for a second green revolution, this time in Africa. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has since devoted several hundred million dollars to this cause. It is now on the policy agenda of the president, the secretary of state and the Group of 20, which recently pledged $22 billion to help poor farmers increase their productivity.

?During a recent conversation, Gates described himself as a ?city boy,? but spoke with typical wonkish intensity about wheat rust, marker-assisted selection and finger-millet outputs. ?The world moved away from a focus on seeds and plant disease in a dangerous way for 20 years,? he told me. Gates is determined to push a revival.

?His reasons are strategic. Approximately three-quarters of Africans are employed in agriculture, but about 30 percent of people on the continent suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Over the next few decades, African farmers will need to feed a growing population without expanding into ecologically important lands, while adapting to climate disruptions that make drought, pests and floods more common. They will need Gates?s help, and more.?

Mr. Gerson noted that, ?Will the resistance to genetically modified food by European regulators, activists and media be a problem? ?It could be a big obstacle,? admits Gates. This opposition began ?at a time when the benefits [of this technology] were small ? tomatoes that lasted longer on the shelf ? and at the same time as Chernobyl and mad-cow disease. People wondered whether scientists were tough enough on themselves about the risks they were creating. Now the benefits are likely to come ? offsetting the damage of climate change, addressing the situation of the poor. The maturity of science is greater, and the experience with these crops has been very good.??

With respect to the EU and GMO?s, Reuters news reported yesterday (article posted at DTN, link requires subscription) that, ?The European Union?s farm chief urged governments to stop blocking imports of animal feed if it contains only traces of banned genetically modified organisms (GMOs), saying such policies harmed the meat sector.

?EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said EU countries should look at scientific evidence rather than emotions, as is now the case, when deciding on authorizations for new biotech products.

??The last thing farmers need now is an increase in feed prices. For some of them, it would be the last straw,? Fischer Boel told a GMO panel discussion in Brussels on Thursday.?

Also on the issue of genetically modified crops, Clive Cookson reported yesterday at the Financial Times Online that, ?The European Union may still be resisting genetically-modified crops but GM plants continue to spread across farmland elsewhere.

?The leading annual survey of GM in agriculture, published earlier this year by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), showed the worldwide area of ?biotech crops? increasing from 114m hectares in 2007 to 125m ha in 2008, producing a harvest worth $7.5bn. The number of farmers planting GM crops rose from 12m in 22 countries to 13.3m in 25 countries.

?Clive James, ISAAA chairman, says the most significant development last year was the first commercial planting of biotech crops in two African countries: maize in Egypt and cotton in Burkina Faso. Both crops contain Bt genes from bacteria, which kill insect pests. In 2007, South Africa had been the only country on the continent with GM plants: cotton, maize and soya.?

Yesterday?s FT article explained that, ?Mr James, a strong supporter of GM in agriculture, says: ?Future growth prospects [in Africa] are encouraging. The positive experiences in these new regional footholds will help lead the way for neighbouring countries to learn by example.??

In other news relating to the general topic of food security, Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported yesterday that, ?Economic rebounds in China and India will support crop-price gains without spurring inflation in the next 18 months, according to J.B. Penn, the chief economist for Deere & Co., the world?s largest maker of farm machinery.

?Recoveries in Brazil and the U.S. will also be good for farmers, Penn said today in an interview at a global-hunger conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Declines in the prices of corn, soybeans and wheat from records last year represent a ?rebalancing? of commodity costs that is laying the groundwork for growth, he said.

??As the global economy recovers, we can see demand pick up again,? said Penn, a former undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.?

Yesterday?s Bloomberg article stated that, ?Growth outside the U.S. will also be necessary to meet food demand the United Nations expects to increase by 70 percent by 2050, Penn said.

?The number of people going hungry each day has expanded to a record 1.02 billion people, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said this week. Climate change is contributing to water shortages and land degradation, while dwindling fish catches and the use of crops to make fuel and cereal grains to feed livestock will weigh on food availability, the agency said in a February report.?

Meanwhile, Samuel R. Berger, a former national security advisor to President Clinton, noted in an Op-Ed that was published in today?s Los Angeles Times that, ?Every day we wake up to headlines and images of devastating violence in hot spots around the globe. In Pakistan, for example, attacks over the last few weeks have killed scores and seriously injured many more. But beneath the headlines, there is another great challenge that is often the root cause of violence or its unintended consequences: increasing rates of hunger and an alarming lack of food.?

Mr. Berger stated that, ?Today, on World Food Day, we must understand that hunger and conflict go hand in hand. Millions of people in poor countries suffer the burden. In 2008, protests over high food prices swept the globe. In Haiti, demonstrations turned into violent riots, killing many and causing widespread looting.

?These explosions are no surprise. Empty stomachs breed panic and desperation, while extremist groups ? such as the one in Pakistan that carried out the recent attacks ? use food to advance their violent missions while undercutting security.?

Today?s opinion item concluded by saying, ?Ensuring that no child goes to school hungry is the single greatest investment we can make in building prosperous, healthy and stable societies. The United States and other developed nations must make nutrition a requirement in peacemaking strategies.?

Why is it so hard to accept that food should be produced, to the extent possible, in the region where it is needed?

A less than uninspiring "trade week" - in spite of the G-20 summit

2009-09-27T19:40:00.000+02:00

Top government officials of about 20 of said to be most influential economies of the world met for a pow-wow in Pittsburgh. Expectations in respect of guidance and leadership in dealing with the present economic crisis were high.

The outcome however is short of even the most modest expectations. Loser, in particular, is WTO and the role attributed to free trade in making a better future. How can salary policies of banks become more important an issue for heads of state than fundamental decisions in the area of (i.e.) trade policy - bad days for all those that are convinced that the free exchange of goods and services all around the globe are the best receipt for maximum global welfare - and therefore, indispensable prerequisite for global peace - ????????

For a first hand impression on the most disappointing summit results, check out yourself these links:
Radio France Internationale (in English)
Neue Z�rcher Zeitung (in German)

Back to the real issue - How to bridge the gap ?!

2009-09-20T10:32:00.001+02:00

Our analysis made past weekend "... the Delhi meeting does not seem to have contributed much to bridging the gap between the political ambition and the real world... " has been confirmed by the development of the situation or, as Bridges Weekly reports on September 16 (for the full text, click the link):

Senior Officials Discuss Doha 'Road-Map'
Senior negotiators from major trading nations met in Geneva this week to try to agree on next steps for the troubled Doha Round of trade talks, following a ministerial meeting in Delhi where governments agreed to re-energise negotiations with the aim of concluding the round in 2010 (see Bridges Weekly, 9 September 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/54723/). However, several delegates expressed scepticism about the prospects for progress in the absence of any movement in countries' actual negotiating positions. ...

Key among the many issues that do not help brifging the gap is certainly the fact that the still largest trading nation, the USA, do not appear to have a clear picture of their respective strategy and goals. At least, the office of the USTR has returned to the floor with a statement on September 18, after having remained silent for more than 4 months - for the full statement click the link here: USTR Statement at Close of Senior Officials' Meeting in Geneva - some elements follow below:

... an important element of moving Doha forward will be for key Members to begin a sustained bilateral engagement to assess the nature of the gaps that exist and address them -- particularly with regard to market-opening contributions under Doha by key emerging markets. ...

A little bit of news as to what the Doha-vision
of the US might be would be helpful.

So much for today.

Delhi Meeting 'Breaks Impasse' in Doha Talks - Does it?

2009-09-13T16:06:00.000+02:00

The title of our today's column is inspired (once again) by Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest - Volume 13 - Number. For the full article click the link. Interesting is the following section of Bridges text:

The technicalities of the talks were officially off the agenda at the Delhi meeting; the ministers instead focused on overcoming political hurdles to progress toward a deal. Judging from the officials' public pronouncements, at least, that objective seems to have been achieved.

With all respect to the highly prized analysts: The above sequence is worse than an outright admission of failure. For the past years, the Doha Round has been facing only technical hurdles. If anything hang around in abundance, then it was political lip service in favor of swift conclusion of the Doha Round. Most conveniently, politicians left the leg work to the technical workers (some call them negotiators or trade diplomats) and they did not worry about the unbridgeable gap between visionary political will and the real world of so called technical issues.

In short, the Delhi meeting does not seem to have contributed
much to bridging the gap between the political ambition
and the real world of technicalities.

So much for today.

Follow Up

2009-08-23T21:40:00.000+02:00

Completing past week's "reflections during the WTO Summer Break" - I would like to add as an illustrative element the Grain Market Report of the International Grains Council issued on July 30 (download report: gmrsumme.pdf) - read through the document and look in particular at the development of stocks .... enjoy your reading!!!

WTO Summer Break - Time for reflection

2009-08-15T16:23:00.000+02:00

With his speech to WTO General Council on July 28 2009, Director General Pascal Lamy raised the stakes and thel level of ambition for activities in fall and winter:

"Our task now is to match political promise with negotiating performance" - Lamy

Director-General Pascal Lamy, in his report to the General Council on 28 July 2009, said that at the informal Trade Negotiations Committee meeting the day before, "there was unanimous agreement that if we are to get to our destination on time, the renewed level of political re-engagement by leaders urgently required translation into tangible progress in the negotiations". He also reported that the second WTO Aid for Trade global review was a success and "a clear demonstration of our collective resolve to address the capacity challenges facing developing countries".

Raising stakes and levels of ambition is one thing - taking stock of the situation, keeping in touch with the reality the other. I would like to share with you some thoughts I had earlier today when running to the top of the Niesen mountain.

We stand at an interesting moment in time. The global economic crisis, said to last forever some months ago, has been starting to show signs of bottoming out. The number o silvery strips detected on the horizon has been growing and businesses start to plan for a return to expansion and growth of demand.

It might well be a good moment to look what happened to world trade in the past say 2 years - and I would like to focus primarily on agricultural markets - and to reflect on what the lessons might be for negotiators, so that stakes and levels of ambition are not set for nothing.

Here some of the thoughts in random order:

Volume of world trade decreased, affecting the whole value added chain, from producers of raw materials and commodities straight thru to industries, transport services, .... you name it.

Markets, including agricultural markets have proven to be quite efficient, producers reacted swiftly to price signals, increasing supply, some 2 years ago - and they have started to scale back with prices collapsing - this holds true for relatively liberal markets as well as for those benefitting from significant levels of protection.

Export restrictions for food - or thoughts about implementing them - or other means to influence market behaviour have been turning more prominent - be it restrictions on exports by Argentina (an important supplier of grain and meat to the world) or "Buy American" campaigns by another WTO Member that claims to feed the world provided markets permit to do so.

The expected food crisis in the NFI LDCs (Net food importing, least developed countries) does not seem to have happened - even though interested organizations continue to claim so - where food was a problem over the past 12 months it was caused by elements unrelated to the economic downturn - elements well known and unchanged (see Darfur, Zimbabwe, etc)

R. Zoellick, World Bank CEO, APRIL 2008: (Food) Prices are unlikely to drop soon. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says world cereal stocks this year will be the lowest since 1982. - What a blunder!!! And nobody worries about cereal stocks an year later.

The listing could move on for a while - but let us think about what this means:

1. The decoupling of agricultural support is effective - ag markets work and members can use ag policy space.

2. No, markets do not work: as soon as shortages of supply show up - even in agricultural power houses - export restrictions surge or other means to (inevitably) prefer the domestic consumer over the one abroad are put in place.

3. Economic analysis and politics of international organizations have little to do with reality and much with institutional interest - and FAO is one of the more telling examples.

For our ag negotiators in Geneva, the signal is simple:

Pursue the path of decoupling - reduce direct subsidies to production / keep policy space with well defined decoupled measures (no country can afford to abandon agriculture)

Enter into serious discussion on what the inevitable return to "Food Sovereignty" means for WTO - It is by now clear that the term coined by Via Campesina is not a far fetched idea, but a concept put in place - though without admitting - by most WTO Members. Any Doha deal will need to reflect this reality.

So much for today.

WTO Doha Round: the gap between political talk and action

2009-07-29T21:14:00.000+02:00

I had it taken fro granted, a couple of weeks ago, that WTO had been going for an early phase in of the summer break, given the scarcity of news and information.

The following recent pieces of information are therefore most interesting before all when put in context:

A) Lamy in the Trade Negotiations Committee, July 24

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE
Lamy presents road map for the autumn negotiations

Director-General Pascal Lamy, in his report to the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 24 July 2009, said he sensed from recent Summits held in Bali, Paris, L?Aquila and Singapore ?a genuine and strong renewal of political commitment to re-engage in the Doha negotiations to conclude it in 2010.? He said the autumn will be ?a very busy period? for all negotiating groups, and that ?we have to ensure the whole caravan moves forward together and arrives on time.?

B) The reaction of Delegates in General - as seen by Bridges Weekly

WTO Delegates Decry 'Gap' between Talk and Action on Eve of Summer Break
WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy set out an ambitious autumn schedule for technical work in the Doha Round trade talks in two addresses to delegates just before the organisation breaks for its annual August holiday. But many officials were quick to point out the 'mismatch' between strong ambitions for the talks at the political level and

C) Thew specific reaction of one Member / its Head of Mission, respectively - I received this last info from my good friend Hilton Zunckel, Trade Law Chambers, South Africa):

GIs and CBD
Geneva - Switzerland again insisted yesterday that it will not accept a final Doha Development Agenda trade agreement that does not include extension of Geographical Indications to goods beyond wine and spirits, WTD has learned (WTD, 7/21/09).
World Trade Organization Director General Pascal Lamy yesterday held an informal meeting to discuss two TRIPS-related issues - GI extension and disclosure provisions and patent protection for genetic resources. The Director General briefed members on the state of play on the two divisive issues.
Swiss trade envoy Luzius Wasescha criticized opponents of GI expansion - led by the United States and Australia - for their refusal to engage, trade envoys said.
The United States, Australia, Chile, Argentina, Canada and several other farm-exporting countries ruled out any negotiating scope for GI extension, but showed flexibility on the TRIP/Convention on Biological Diversity issue, trade envoys said. Australia has maintained that proponents of GI extension have failed to establish their case that would warrant changes in the TRIPS agreement. They insist it is wrong to link the two TRIPs issues with the Doha mandate.
On the TRIPS/CBD issue, Australia and the United States said they agree on the issues of prior consent and benefit sharing for traditional knowledge and genetic resources, but argued against the need for disclosure norms.
In sharp opposition, India trade envoy Uzal Singh Bhatia pointed out that the levels of bio-piracy have reached alarming proportions. While there is a concerted attempt to upgrade intellectual property rights enforcement under the TRIPS agreement, the same does not seem to apply to traditional knowledge and genetic resources, he said.
Director General Lamy intends to continue his consultations with Geneva-based trade envoys and convene another meeting October 8, WTD was told.

Trade Reports International Group, Washington, D.C. July 28, 2009

The combined effect of these news items is indeed interesting:

Lamy - tough Marathon runner as he is - stubbornly pursues his vision and target

Negotiators cry foul and they do so because they are the ones suffering most from the obvious gap between summit language of their heads of state and the constraints of their respective negotiating mandate.

One member comes up with specifics - unlikely so by coincidence - because product differentiation is seen by many European Members as a significant measure to improve domestic and international marketeability of their produce, once tariffs no longer provide for differentiation by price. Indeed, the EEC must have been happy that Switzerland made this "bold" move.

However, looking at the picture from a certain distance, we conclude similarly as commented here earlier: The level of ambition of the DDA has become too high - for several reasons: Economic situation - Advanced Emerging Economies that continue asking for Developing Country treatment ... and so on. The news items discussed here confirm and support the analysis of my June 21 comment:

10 years after Seattle

Enjoy reading.

10 years after Seattle

2009-06-21T17:22:00.004+02:00

Back in early December 1999, WTO held a Ministerial Conference in Seattle, USA. Expectations were high, as can be seen from the WTO backgrounder prepared for that event. Here some excerpts:

... The ministerial conference is the organization's highest-level decision-making body. It meets "at least once every two years", as required by the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization -- the WTO's founding charter.

The Seattle ministerial will be the third since the WTO was created on 1 January 1995.

What's special about this ministerial?

This ministerial will launch major new negotiations to further liberalize international trade and to review some current trade rules. It will also set in motion a work programme to look at other important issues. ... (For the full backgrounder, click here)

So much for the visions and the expectations
linked with the ministerial gathering 10 years past.

Some of the visitors of this site may recall that the Seattle reality, from November 30 to December 3 1999 was different.

Civil Society made the ministerial gathering fail - fail in the crude sense of the word - it was not that trade ministers would have been a priori unable to agree on this or that - the huge protests and public resistance made any decision politically impossible and even inhibited attendance of participants to some of the individual meetings.
For a overview of media and NGO coverage, visit the following sites:

BBC / GLOBALISSUES

The Seattle situation escalated to a point that even the then secretive WTO itself, unheard of before, addressed the public:

Criticism, yes ... misinformation, no!

(click the link)

With 10 years of distance, it may be worthwhile to look at:
- some of the fundamentals of those protests
- the lessons WTO learned
- unfinished business

The fundamentals
I stick to 3 key issues - being well aware that the full reality is more complex.

Fundamental 1: SECRECY - GATT talks had been of little interest to the big public - and WTO continued in the same footsteps. In the early days of GATT, and even when WTO was founded, this was of little concern to the global society. This however started to change with the growing level of ambition that WTO displayed once the Uruguay Round implementation was well under way. Increasingly, public society, through many NGO's, started to feel uneasy about the secretive process among bureaucrats and trade ministers that was expected to have significant impact on the way the world's future was shaped. Seattle was an expression of those feelings.

Fudamental 2: ILLUSION OF A DEVELOPMENT JUMP-START - Trade is a strong driver for development - nobody will reject that affirmation. David Riccardo has shown us why. Largely for political reasons, the dimension of the term "development" has been overstated in the entire post Uruguay-Round era. Entire libraries have been filled with research on trade, development, poverty, food security and the links between these issues. For today, I limit myself to the following statement:
WTO lost sight of the quite simple fact that trade liberalization can only benefit those that have tradeable products. Unfortunately, many of the poorest and most development-needy countries ( i.e. many LDCs) possess little or no tradeable goods. For them, trade liberalizations means primarily less food for free (subsidized surplus disposal) and a higher imported food bill. It is not WTO that can address their immediate needs.

Fundamental 3: THE DECISION MAKING POWER OF THE FEW LARGE TRADING POWERS
In the past, WTO had been driven primarily by the US - and the Seattle incidents may have marked something like the culmination point of that dominance.

The lessons learned by WTO
Of the 3 fundamentals identified above, WTO itself tackled the issue of secrecy. With a level of success that we can replace the word secrecy with Transparency. WTO today has an impressive inclusiveness, involving stakeholders in all processes. A transparency that would have been unbelieveable a few years back.

Recent events, and the success of the UR, have resolved the monopolistic position of the few super powers back in 1999. The US is one in a large group of significant global trading powers - and many of the them are developing or emerging economies. Decision-making power is quite well balanced, now.

Unfortuantely, the illusion of the "development jump start" continues to be fostered by WTO, seemingly against better knowing.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Reaching a consensus among widely disparate and complex issues is a true challenge in a secretive and secluded green room. The challenge grows exponentially should the secrecy and exclusivity of the green room be replaced with public exposure and discussion. Well, this is what has happended to WTO.

Where is the problem?

The Doha Round, agreed in 2001, has incorporated a level of ambition adequate for the secluded and secrete negotiation process. It is a level of ambition that cannot be held up with the transparency and inclusiveness that are the mark of 2009. Technicalities aside, I am convinced that it is here where the fundamental obstacle to the successful conclusion of the Doha Round is found. Said this, there is one way out: the level of ambition needs get reduced substantially both horizontally (number of areas under negotiation) as well as vertically (deepness of concessions to be made).

If there is one issue of importance for the Ministerial Conference in Geneva in December 2009, then it is the reduction of the levels of ambition written into the mandate given to negotiators.

Dead Aid: Why aid is not working

2009-06-14T20:20:00.000+02:00

Dambisa Moyo - in her recent book entitled "Dead Aid" she brings forward strong arguments:

... one of the greatest myths of our time: that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth.
In fact, poverty levels continue to escalate and growth rates have steadily declined?and millions continue to suffer. Provocatively drawing a sharp contrast between African countries that have rejected the aid route and prospered and others that have become aid-dependent and seen poverty increase, Moyo illuminates the way in which overreliance on aid has trapped developing nations in a vicious circle of aid dependency, corruption, market distortion, and further poverty, leaving them with nothing but the ?need? for more aid.

Debunking the current model of international aid promoted by both Hollywood celebrities and policy makers, Moyo offers a bold new road map for financing development of the world?s poorest countries that guarantees economic growth and a significant decline in poverty?without reliance on foreign aid or aid-related assistance. ...

Eveline Herfkens, Founder, UN Millennium Campaign; former Dutch Minister for Development Co-operation; and Chair, ICTSD Board, has discussed the text quite extensively in the recent "Bridges Monthly" - while, at a quick glance, her arguments seem quite straight forward - there is one sentence that says it all:

... But regarding her (Dambisa Moyo's) criticism of aid, frankly, I feel the ?aid-business? has reacted too defensively. ...

Difficult to find a a better way to spell out, without doing so in straight words, that Dambisa Moyo is right on target with her arguments.

WTO Ministers meet in Geneva in December - will Doha Round be an issue?

2009-05-31T13:09:00.001+02:00

WTO has finally reached a consensus to move forward with a Ministerial Conference, to take place in Geneva late November early December. For the full WTO communication, click here - 7th Ministerial Conference.

Two issues, completely unrelated are interesting, one deals with the setting, that made the conference possible, the other is an anecdote from Switzerland from within the same context.

1 - What has made the Nov - Dec 09 Ministerial Conference possible
Until the very recent past, Mr Lamy has been implying that the next Ministerial Conference's purpose will be that of, if not the conclusion, the inking of significant progress in the Doha Round. In line with what I have been writing on this site since the last Ministerial Conference, there is no real Doha progress.
It is therefore of little surprise that suddenly a Ministerial Conference gets scheduled without major concerns, once Doha is removed from the Agenda - or, in the words of WTO General Council Chair:

... I would like to stress the word "regular", as it has also become clear that this Conference is not intended to be a negotiating session - the DDA negotiations are on a separate track. ...

... This departure from past Ministerial Conferences could help us establish a new model of Ministerial-level meetings conducive to good governance and overall review of the WTO, and one that is not inextricably tied to any particular ongoing negotiations ...

... In this context, the nature of this Conference should be kept firmly in mind - the meeting is not intended as a negotiating session, but rather a regular gathering of Ministers to engage in a broader evaluation of the functioning of the multilateral trading system. ...

Of course, Doha Round will be remain the issue in informal talks. However, this setting may well have lowered pressure and expectations so that progress might now become possible.

2 - The anectote from Switzerland
In the May 27 2009 issue of NZZ, WTO / Doha Round was part of two news items:

Item 1: Swiss Federal Councilor (Trade Minister) Leuthard tells one of the Chambers (Nationalrat), in the course of a debate involving agricultural trade policy matters, that:

... Eine n�chste Ministerkonferenz sei bereits Ende 2009 m�glich; die Dauha-Runde k�nnte 2010 abgeschlossen sein ... (... a Ministerial is possible before year end, a Doha conclusion in 2010) ..

Implicitly, Minister Leuthard clearly establishes and underscores the link between Doha negotiations and Ministerial Conference ....

Item 2 (Same day, same newspaper) Title of the news item:

Abgespecktes WTO-Ministertreffen in Genf
Dauha-Runde ausgeklammert

(Scaled down WTO-Ministerial in Geneva
Doha Round excluded)

This unfortunate coincidence eithers shows us a badly briefed Trade Minister - or it illustrates - again - that a political argument is more important than the fact behind ...

Food Sovereignty - taking food security a step further

2009-05-23T21:19:00.002+02:00

Only after reading the following note, I perceived in full the global implication of what had happened in Madagascar in the recent past. But first the note, quoted from Bridges Weekly:

NGOs Cry Foul over Rich-Country 'Land Grab' in Developing World
A recent jump in rich country land purchases in the developing world has caught the attention of analysts in trade and human rights circles. In many cases, governments and private sector parties to such deals have remained mum on the details of the acquisitions, a fact that has caused some concern among NGOs, who worry that the scale of the acquisitions could potentially undermine development and food security objectives. But The World Bank insists that the large-scale purchases of developing country farmland can facilitate the transfer of technology and technical know-how, and ultimately have positive impacts on local populations. (For the full article, click here)

The fears expressed, and I think rightfully expressed, highlight the continental divide between the principles of free trade and what some refer to as "Food Sovereignty". Some the principles of food sovereignty, as coined by Via Campensia more than a decade ago, are merely ideological, others quite straight forward. The concerns as voiced above need serious consideration. Unfortunately, I do not think that the views of the World Bank (see above) address the real issue.

In fact. what wee see is the discussion of what comes first and what second:

Is it global free trade in food?
Is it the interest of ALL domestic consumers, when it comes to domestically produced food?

Some will object and insist, that international trade law offers all the instruments necessary. In fact, one of the big food exporters of the World (Argentina) is world champion in preferring the domestic consumer over the world market - with the application of export taxes going as high as 50% market prices.

The issue here is different, a hypothetical example:
An industrialized or emerging economy X sources its food needs to a large extent from farming operations it runs in LDC Y. De facto, Country X bypasses the international food markets. By circumstances, Y faces a considerable food shortage. Country X continues to supply its market from its Y operations and rejects requests to deliver production to the local Y market. Assume that the Y government has little political or other power to effectively impose its demand.

An unrealistic example? Maybe.

However, should significant quantities of food be withdrawn from open international trade by shortcuts as illustrated above, then the challenge will be there. WTO might be well advised to look closer at the matter. The World Bank view (... insists that the large-scale purchases of developing country farmland can facilitate the transfer of technology and technical know-how, and ultimately have positive impacts on local populations ...) is certainly of little help.

Doha - Negotiations - Skipping Modalities - Cutting of the Gordian Knot?

2009-05-10T11:17:00.000+02:00

The Gordian Knot is a legend associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem, solved by a bold stroke.

The intractable problem solved by Alexander the Great with a bold stroke compares nicely with the state of play of the DOHA Round. The negotiations, even more with the increased ambition of the new US administration (labor standards ..) have reached a stage where any common denominator still left got definitely lost. This loss is evidently due to the complexity of an agenda that goes beyond the handling capacity of a multilateral, consensus-based decision-making process.

The proposed short cut to a result -

Trade officials in Geneva are considering a new approach to the Doha Round that would bypass the negotiation of modalities - the broad outlines of a deal that WTO Members have been struggling to forge for more than seven years - and move directly into scheduling countries? specific commitments on cutting tariffs and reducing subsidy levels.

- is therefore more than promising:

The complexity of the agenda is reduced substantially
Thea area of mutual interest based partial agreements is increased
The possibility to come up with (direly needed) visible results becomes real, again

This however has a price:

The multilateral, all-inclusive process is abandoned
Any result will consist of sectoral deals among interested trading partners
Members without real trade interests will be locked out (i.e. most LDCs)
And, of course, any development component that should go beyond market access and straight forward, trade distorting subsidies will have lost its space