A disaster to avoid: Recent developments in the WTO Doha Round are not in my mind dramatic in any way. They even have the great merit of having prevented disaster. Pressures from supporters of an unbridled free trade without rules, and opposition from those directly affected, who call for certain safeguards, have been so heartfelt and shouted from the roof tops that there were certain fears that Heads of State and Governments from the main trade powers could have given in to unreasonable demands (to the extent that they do not always give the impression that they understand what's really at stake). In fact, recommendations from the G8 Summit are very general: conclude negotiations as soon as possible, find a balanced result and so forth. Two deadlines are mentioned: 2013 for getting rid of agricultural export subsidies; 2008 for total free trade access for the poorest countries to the richest countries' markets and as far as possible, the same thing for emerging countries. There was already an agreement in Geneva on these two deadlines, thanks to Europe's commitment on the first aspect and on the example set by the EU on the second. Nothing new, then, apart from the envisaged tightening up of the timetable.
Stupid and absurd calculations. Having avoiding a calamity is certainly not a massive result but it's all we could have expected at Saint Petersburg. We have still not seen global trade negotiations taking the real urgent needs of humanity and the earth more into account: environmental dangers, collapse of biodiversity, malnutrition of a large part of humanity, threats of starvation. This is talked about everywhere else except the WTO. In trade negotiations, everyone has their own particular interest. Pressure groups draw attention to the billions of dollars they claim unlimited free trade will provide but avoid any evaluation of the losses to biodiversity due to the uniformity of animal and plant varieties and, following the invasion of additional immense territories for corn, soya and manioc (which, grown over certain limits, destroys natural habitats and wetlands). Europe is being called on to abandon its farming in exchange for an additional opening up of external markets for its services, aid based on absurd calculations according to which agriculture will only contribute to 2% of global European income and services for 70%. These calculations arte false and above all, they are stupid. Destroying the vineyards, and replacing orange groves with a Steel Centre (this was actually done but not a single kilo of steel was ever produced) and by replacing olive groves with motorways we're strangling rural areas and destroying territorial balance in our countries. Europe will have lost part of its soul but someone will have got rich.
Two recent reports from the EU's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) denounce the imports of foodstuffs that do not respect European standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare: additives for animal feed banned in Europe, pesticide residues that are above the norms set out etc. These are thorny issues. The EU is strengthening standards, making them stricter and exporting countries get the impression that this is being done with a hidden protectionist motive. But if Europe wants to better protect its consumers and improve the quality of its products and food safety, it should not open up its borders to products that do not respect the same requirements.
Three factors in a balanced compromise. In a more general perspective, several analysts have indicated that the way in which China and Brazil are developing certain production, endangers the planet's ecological balances. Europe also had its responsibilities itself in the past but the dimensions are different and the EU currently (as well as other avant-garde countries that have been doing it for a long time, such as New Zealand) is going in the opposite direction. The Doha Round can and should be saved but on a healthy basis and not just on a mercantile one. Poor countries, especially Africa, have to be encouraged to prioritise the food needs of their people by abandoning export mono-cultures and reducing food dependency. Emerging countries have to be able to reasonably protect their markets in domains where they are still not competitive and where they still have to consolidate their results. The USA and Europe (but especially Japan and of course India) have to conserve their farming, which is indispensable for them and for the world's food balance, while getting rid of artificial export aid.
Big trade interests do not constitute the priority of priorities.
(F.R.)