|
| | Doha Round: WTO Causes More Disputes than it Settles |
In May, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a U.S. think tank based in Minneapolis, published an article entitled "Seven Reasons Why the Doha Round Will Not Solve the Food Crisis."1Pointing out that the "crisis is the result of a series of circumstances. They all matter," the IATP makes an observation that is increasingly shared among many experts and decision makers: the WTO strategy of liberalizing agricultural markets is no solution to the food crisis. On the contrary, it is part of the problem faced by countries trying to ensure their food security. Furthermore, this observation evokes another: the growing number of agricultural disputes brought before the WTO shows that the only real point of convergence today is the widespread skepticism of most major countries regarding the strategy of liberalizing global agricultural trade promoted by the WTO.
According to the IATP, the inability of the Doha trade negotiations to provide sustainable solutions to the food crisis is due primarily to the fact that the WTO’s mandate does not cover all of the challenges facing global agriculture. Indeed, it notes that strategic issues such as financial speculation on raw materials, the effects of climate change on agricultural resources, the production of biofuels and the impact of rising oil prices are completely ignored by the WTO, which has adopted a vertical approach to agricultural problems. As discussions during the FAO's recent High-Level Conference on World Food Security2 have shown, the only way that the world food crisis will be solved is if governments and international organizations move toward a comprehensive, cross-cutting approach to agriculture that goes beyond the WTO approach based exclusively on trade policy.
But that’s not all. As the IATP stresses, the liberalization of agricultural trade as contemplated by the Doha Round could increase the volatility of agricultural prices because, under the WTO's existing trade agreements and recent proposals, "measures previously available to governments to soften the effects of price volatility... are either banned or discouraged." To see the dangers the WTO strategy represents for global agriculture, the IATP notes that one need only observe the disastrous consequences that liberalization policies carried out by international organizations over the past two decades have had on developing countries' food self-sufficiency. Weakened and discouraged by the drastic reduction in government support, farmers in developing countries have not been able to ensure their own food security or that of their fellow citizens. As a result, many of these countries now find themselves in a situation of food dependency, with imports being the only resort. By not learning from the failure of these policies, the WTO strategy of completely liberalizing agricultural markets could increase the food dependency of developing countries, at just the time that the international community is becoming aware of how strategic food security is for those countries.
The IATP's position against concluding an agreement on agriculture based on the current proposals cannot be considered to be an isolated protest. On the contrary, it illustrates an undeniable and paradoxical truth: the only real point of convergence observed today is the widespread skepticism of the WTO strategy of liberalizing global agricultural trade.
In Europe, for example, countries such as France, Ireland and Poland voiced their concerns in May over the draft compromise on agricultural and manufactured goods. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson even said that he "fully shared many of these concerns." In Canada, the WTO proposals also raised criticism from leaders. These concerns were echoed by the United States through U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. Speaking on May 28, Schwab said that "The new draft texts on agriculture and manufacturing are disappointing because they do not move us closer to a deal that would contribute to economic growth and development." Moreover, passage in the U.S. Congress of a new Farm Bill that proudly ignores the WTO's recommendations is proof for those who still needed any that the world's leading agricultural power is not ready to sacrifice its agricultural interests for the benefit of concluding a WTO agreement.
As Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, states, "The 'invisible hand' is not the solution, it is the problem." By refusing to admit this for agricultural issues, the WTO is therefore causing more disputes than it resolves. This situation is worrisome for the future of the multilateral trade system and, more generally, for free trade, and could lead to a protectionist withdrawal in certain countries that do not wish to entrust their food security to global agricultural markets plagued by instability. More than ever, therefore, it is essential to put in place global agricultural governance responsible for reconciling the economic efficiency and food security of each region of the world. The WTO would, therefore, be well advised to reconsider its strategy and take into account the arguments made by certain think tanks and NGOs, if it does not wish to halt trade liberalization and lower confidence in this process even further.
Bastien Gibert, Expert of momagri
| 1 IATP, May 2008.
2 High-Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy, FAO, Rome, June 3-5, 2008
| |
| |
| | |
|
|
Advocating for
agricultural market
regulation and global
food governance | |
| |
| | |
| |
|