Will Doha hinder sustainable agriculture?

The Doha round of talks in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ended with a loud trumpeting of success, but the reality for poor, small farmers in developing countries is likely to be very different. 

Among the EU countries France must bear responsibility for the lack of progress on agriculture issues, while the US refusal to lift its right to impose ‘punitive’ tariffs on textile imports if these threaten US producers, appears incompatible with the notion of a ‘development round’(1). 
    However, some estimate that the development box text (addressing ‘special and differentiated’ treatment for issues that affect the least developed countries) is ‘sufficiently strong’(2). 
    The EU’s negotiating position was contradictory, refusing to address dumping through export subsidies yet ‘standing up for non-trade issues’(3). In this context, the US portrayed the EU as the principal culprit on subsidies, despite its own farm support systems. This weakened the potential for the EU and developing countries to work together on social issues, particularly on lifting trade restrictions on developing countries non-military exports(4).

The precautionary principle
The precautionary principle, particularly regarding agricultural chemicals, fell victim to US-EU disagreements. This pleased many developing nations, who ‘fear that it could impose crippling certification costs on their exports, and be used for eco-protectionist purposes’(5). The US said ‘with a precautionary principle a country could say they would take a certain action “in the interest of a precaution” without regard to the science’(6). The rejection is tantamount to refusing to take action in despite significant risks. 
    However, the agreement affirms the right of members to not ‘ be prevented from taking measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or of the environment ... subject to the requirement that they are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries... or a disguised restriction on international trade’(7).
    The Doha agreement is worrying as multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) will only apply at the WTO when already ratified by a country. This may act as a disincentive to ratification8. Many developing countries fear that environment and trade negotiations will lead to further hidden protectionism. A consistent theme emerging from Doha seems to be that too many unresolved issues such as ecolabelling have been sidelined, in order to move ahead with the agenda of developed countries. There is concern over the number of issues to be negotiated and the lack of capacity of many developing countries to prepare and thus lose ground on issues like agriculture(9).

Trade and textiles 
Point six of the ministerial declaration affirms the principle of mutuality between sustainable development, environment and trade. However, there is continued delay by developed countries, notably the US, to address the outstanding issue of the removal of quotas and restrictions in textiles(10). 

Manipulation? 
A concern is the way in which developing countries were manipulated in negotiations to break down their resistance to a new trade round. The tactic led to the watering down of their negotiating positions(11). 
    While generally developing countries had a better negotiating platform than in the past, apart from Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), this did not translate into concrete results(12). An observer claimed the US Commerce Secretary offered Pakistan a lowering of trade restrictions on some products in return for its signature on the draft text(13). Devinder Sharma says, ‘ The richest trading block, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), provides the phenomenal support of one billion dollars a day for agriculture. The US, under its pending Farm Bill has promised farmers an additional US$170 billion in the next ten years’(14). The US trade representative claims Doha offers opportunities for US farmers to increase export market share, while removing what they claim is the threat of the precautionary principle(15). Meanwhile, many developing countries have already removed restrictions and protections on domestic production(16).

The reality for development 
Developing countries have gained extra rights to special and differentiated treatment(17). They have made some progress in negotiating power, with a notable result on TRIPs, and they blocked new areas such as competition and transparency pending the resolution of other issues. The development agency CAFOD views this as a very positive sign, although it regrets that ‘while the preamble makes reference to poverty reduction (paragraph two) there is no explicit reference to making the 2015 millennium development targets an overarching objective of the WTO’s work, as had been proposed by the G77 plus China in the run up to Doha(18).

Conclusion 
Point two of the ministerial declaration makes much of developing countries being a majority of WTO members, and at the heart of the new work programme(19). However, many issues of concern are only open for further negotiation. 
    The EU welcomed the Doha declaration for restoring business confidence, addressing further liberalisation, putting development central to future negotiations, and negotiating on issues of transparency and the environment(20). The EU expressed itself satisfied with the agriculture declaration, as negotiations are ‘without prejudice’(21), meaning in effect that there is no real commitment to looking at export subsidies. (SF)

References
1. Trade Justice press release from Doha, US/EU still blocking a development round at the WTO, CAFOD, 2001, www.cafod.org.uk/livefromdoha/doha_devtround20011113.shtml
2. Duncan Green, CAFOD analysis of WTO Doha Declarations, CAFOD, 19 November 2001, www.cafod.org.uk/livefromdoha/doha_analysis.shtml.
3. CPE membre de Via Campesina, Press release, 16 November 2001, www.cpefarmers.org/positions/en/16_161101.pdf
4. CAFOD, Op.cit. 1.
5. CAFOD, Ibid.
6. Veneman Heralds New Round of Trade Talks as Great Victory, The United States Mission to the European Union, 18 November 2001, www.useu.be/Categories/WTO/Nov1801VenemanWTOVictory.html
7. WTO ministerial declaration, 14 November 2001, www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm
8. Les Volatiles de l’Agriculture Solagral, 2001, www.solagral.org, and WTO Op.cit. 7.
9. CAFOD, Op.cit. 1.
10. Consumers would welcome competition law and policy at the international level, but not sure if the WTO is the best place, CUTS, Doha, 12 November 2001, www.cuts-india.org/press-oct-nov01.htm#doha%20meeting%20press
11. Jennifer del Rosario-Malonzo, WTO Doha Meet in Retrospect: A WHOLE NEW ROUND, www.ictsd.org/English/neg_update_2.pdf, 20 December 2001
12. CAFOD, Op.cit. 1. 
13. Devinder Sharma, WTO Doha Ministerial: ‘We Take Over’, Foreign Policy in Focus, 27 November, 2001.
14. Foreign Policy in Focus, Ibid.
15. USTR’s Summary of WTO Doha Meeting, White House Fact Sheet, www.usrbc.org/Members-Only/events/Pres%20Summits/USA%20Nov%202001/FS%20ustr%20summary%20from%20doha.htm 14 November 2001.
16. Foreign Policy in Focus, op.cit. 13.
17. CAFOD, Op.cit. 1.
18. CAFOD, Ibid.
19. WTO, Op.cit. 7. 
20. Outcome of WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha: Comprehensive assessment of results for the European Union Briefing, Brussels, 19 nobmer, 2001.
21. Brussels, Ibid.Roots of reform – a call for sustainable farming

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 55, March 2002, page 17]