Special report: globalisation
The Guardian (UK) | Duncan Green and Matthew Griffiths | September 3, 2001
When asked his opinion of free trade, a Sri Lankan activist replied that it is like "putting the rabbit and the tiger in the same cage". Free trade is far from fair - a fact that largely escapes the world's trade negotiators as they limber up for November's meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Qatar. Developing countries, and in particular their small farmers, need special help to compete against the might of northern agribusiness.
The WTO recognises that positive discrimination should play a part, and its agreements contain cumbersome references to the need for "special and differential" treatment of developing countries. S&D amounts to little more than granting poor countries a few more years to implement the agreements, however, and exempting altogether a few dozen of the poorest nations.
What is needed in Qatar is a radical overhaul of special and differential treatment, above all in farming. One way would be to introduce a development box into the WTO's agreement on agriculture. This would be a package of exemptions from WTO rules, designed to allow developing countries to protect the poorest farmers.
It is based on three principles. First, it will only apply to developing countries. Once northern governments get in on the act, lawyers will start twisting the rules to benefit big business.
The EU's common agricultural policy is a prime example - sold as a way of protecting small farmers, the lion's share of spending ends up in the pockets of large corporations. In any case, northern governments have more options for helping their small farmers, through regional development funds and environmental improvement grants.
Second, the development box is targeted at small farmers in developing countries, rather than the south's own agribusiness lobby. Governments could raise tariffs to protect small farmers from being swamped by imports, and would be exempt from commitments to reduce support to small farmers (such as funding transport to get their crops to market). This helps allay suspicions that the proposal is merely special pleading by large agro-exporters in developing countries.
Third, governments will be allowed to identify a list of food security crops, which would be exempted from commitments to cutting import tariffs. These crops are grown by small farmers, and are vital to the way a country feeds itself.
More extreme free trade ideologues may believe it makes no difference if a country grows its own food, or imports it, but politicians know better. As George W Bush helpfully pointed out: "A country that can feed itself is a country that is more secure in its own borders."
A development box would bring immediate benefits. Instead of having to cut tariffs and domestic support, developing countries would have the flexibility to protect the livelihoods of their poorest citizens - more than half the world's poorest people depend on farming. But the develop ment box is not a panacea - whether those governments take advantage will depend on whether small farmers can make their voices heard.
The north has to put its own house in order by opening its markets to developing country exports, and cutting the grotesque levels of subsidies (running at an annual $20,000 per farmer), which help drive down world prices and make it impossible for southern farmers to get a decent price for their crops.
In a world where 800m go hungry, the trading system is not delivering for the poor. A development box would send an important message that the WTO wants policymakers to put the needs of their people before dogmatic commitments to cutting tariffs and spending.
Duncan Green and Matthew Griffiths are advisers at aid agency, Cafod. The development proposal is on www.cafod.org.uk/policy/devbox.htmSpecial report: globalisationThe Guardian (UK):
