Sins of the Father

It is not implausible to think that Africans are probably being punished for some evil deed one of their own committed several centuries ago. Considering the sobering statistics that filled the pages of last month's Impact List, no one could probably be blamed if they arrived at such a conclusion. Nothing can explain why to this day, there are 49 countries - crudely classified as LDCs - that effectively face the prospect of marginalization unless they hang on to the across-the-board-liberalisation dogma that neo-liberals like to promulgate.

In any event, July's WTOIL made considerable reference to the plight of the poor, despite the overshadowing of Genoa violence over a Zanzibar conference on LDCs (to prepare themselves for upcoming WTOMC). Their plight is a very fundamental one - obtaining their daily bread, as well as ensuring that the food they eat does not become an economic burden, but a right as fundamental as is one's personal security.

In July 9's WTOIL, two West African countries - Ghana and Nigeria - were in the spotlight. We read how despite high rising prices in Ghana -brought about by the ineptitude of the previous government - a retired Minister of Food and Agriculture is seeing to the dire food situation. He will be opening a six-month course to further investigate the systemic causes of food insecurity.

In Nigeria, too, a government official highlights how for Nigeria - biggest financial contributor to ECOWAS - to grow industrially, she needs to pay particular attention to developing her food industry.

A possible solution could come from two unlikely bedfellows - the regional group of 16 countries, ECOWAS, and the UN's own Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In fact, ECOWAS Executive Secretary, Lansuna Kouyate, emphasised that agriculture is paramount for West Africa's development "as 70% of the sub-regions' population resides in the agricultural sector." In what was the third meeting between the two organisations, it was agreed that both "will work towards harmonising legislation and regulations, co-ordinate and integrated institutions dealing with agricultural matters." It eventuated that a regional/continental approach will bring about quick results - and one of these could be a Common Agricultural Policy exclusively for West Africa.

According to the article in 23 July's WTOIL - "Agricultural Exports of Developed Countries" -- agriculture is the cornerstone of not only many a developing country's economy, but also LDCs.

Compared to the industrialised countries' - especially the EU and its CAP (not excluding the US and its subsidising of farmers) - whose many agricultural subsidies, the article continues, "undermine the competitiveness of developing country products", the LDCs are lagging way behind. The statistic is staggering -- the subsidies of these economies yield nearly $1billion a day. On an annual basis, these subsidies surpass the combined GDP of all 49 LDCs. According to "Empty Promises don't Feed Poor Children", (July 9 WTOIL), both the EU and the US spend more on agricultural subsidies today than they were spending at the start of the Uruguay Round of world talks in 1986.

Paying Lip Service...

Once could be forgiven for thinking that this in itself would be enough to generate some concern for First World officials that something needs to be done. How far this issue has been mooted is questionable. According to "Trade-related Technical Assistance to LDCs" - featured in July 9's WTOIL - as far back as October 1997, a high-level meeting on Integrated Initiatives for LDCs Trade Development took place. The meeting supported proposals for "increased technical assistance efforts by the WTO itself, autonomous action by WTO members to improve market access for imports from the LDCs and the establishment by six international organisations of an Integrated Framework for their trade-related technical assistance to LDCs."

Proposed in 1997, there were high hopes for a constructive outcome. The framework was intended to co-ordinate the activities of WTO, UNCTAD, UNDP, ITC, World Bank, and IMF. The agencies actually agreed to co-ordinate assistance to LDCs for trade-related activities. Yet, when it came to the crunch, the agencies themselves had no funds allocated for the Integrated Framework. Put simply, the initiative was made abortive by lack of organisation and political will. Those organisations that had pledged funding no longer showed interest in helping push the project forward. Consequently, there has been no significant funding, which the authors of the article consider "all deeply disappointing", as it brings home "how trade-related proposals fail so miserably do fit into broader development plans."

...And Selling an Empty Box

To use the statistics that GDP per person fell by 1% a year in the '90s in non-globalising developing countries, while it rose by 5% a year in globalising ones, is making a mockery of those who argue otherwise -- such as Green Left Weekly. They argued that HDR 2000 statistics are nothing but a litany of lies. According to this article, one set of World Bank data indicates that the ratio of incomes of 20% of the world's population living in the richest countries to those of the 20% in the poorest was 13:1 in 1960; 18:1 in 1991, but fell to 16:1 in 1997.

Green Left Weekly argues this is biased data, for it includes rapidly industrialising China, with its 1.2 billion people. But an even more sobering statistic hits us in this WTOIL: average per capita GDP of an OECD country was 16 times greater than that of the average LDC in 1985, and 19 times greater in 1998.

Pandora Revisited

Perhaps the most glaring indictment of the UN's HDR comes from two articles - in 16 July and 23 July's WTOIL. The first, by New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst Dr.Devinder Sharma, entitled "Biotechnology Will Bypass the Hungry", argues that UNDP's annual Human Development Report 2001, "Making New Technologies Work for Human Development", remains "another biotechnology industry-sponsored study" that sings the praises of market-led technology at the expense of the poor - "all in the name of eradicating hunger and poverty." He maintains that "the reality of hunger and malnutrition is too harsh to be even properly understood." His argument is that biotechnology, far from assisting the poor, will further entrap them.

Sharmas' criticism is incisive. He writes: "the deft manipulation of the prestigious UNDP's HDR to push forth the US farm interests, however, will cast a shadow over the credibility of future UN programmes for human development.

Faiza Rady, writing in the second article, echoes a similar sentiment when she writes of how ever since the UN formed alliances with corporations, which partially finance the international organisations' operations, it has been forced by dint of this association to sing their praises. Ultimately, this chorus of approval for biotechnology remains unequivocally corporate-led, with a mere UN mask. The UN, it appears, feels it has no choice. In what many see as a volte-face by the usually Southern-friendly and apolitical - and indeed a-corporate (as suggested by my colleague Julio) - United Nations, the HDR is, put simply, seeking "highly controversial solutions" - as exemplified by its promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms - to the very complex problems of food security and hunger in the South. That the UN is now toeing the transnational line is a moot point. If the UN of all organisations has succumbed to the charms - whether by dint of pragmatism or expediency - and strength of private finance, who is to stop these multinationals leaving indefinitely the box that Pandora never closed?

ekb/wword7/200107unldc.rtf/w:1290:3

Large emphasis lay on the prospects of launching a new round of trade liberalization talks at Doha. The quotes below highlight some of the most recurring concerns brought up.

The preparations for the conference itself have roughly divided the subject matter into six areas. First, there is the matter of how best to mobilise domestic resources, including how to create an overall favourable environment for the raising of capital through existing assets backed by strong public finances, legal and tax systems. Second, the conference intends to focus on mobilising international resources for the benefit of developing countries, including private flows and official development assistance (ODA). Third comes the question of how to improve market access for developing country products, if necessary through special and differential (S&D) arrangements. Fourth, the conference will explore new innovative ways of FfD. Fifth, if will seek to propose solutions for the crippling debt conditions of many countries. And finally, in terms of creating enabling global regimes for FfD, attention will be placed on so-called "systemic" issues relating to the international trading and financial architectures, with the possibility of reinvigorating the role of the UN in the process. Emphasis rests with the necessity of considering these topics together and in a mutually supportive way.

In WTOIL 6 July, there appeared an article on a UN FfD panel report which briefly touched on some of these very questions.

During the month of July, the Rio+10 WTOILs touched on subjects related directly or indirectly with the 2002 WSSD, including current UN initiatives, as well as with topics of interaction between trade, the environment and sustainable development.

KYOTO PROTOCOL / BONN CONFERENCE

The most prominent topic in the news for the month of July was the climate change talks at the Bonn Conference of Parties-6. The global initiatives on climate change will proceed under the basic framework set by in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol after an 11-th hour deal prevented the initiative from being shelved. In the aftermath, there are widely varying perspectives on what Kyoto being "kept alive" really means. We provided a wide sample of all the views expressed post-Bonn in order to identify the different dimensions of the debate. The complete list of articles in the July WTOIL included: July 24 -
1) BONN CONFERENCE ANALYSIS
2) UNEP ON BONN CONFERENCE

July 31 -
1) HISTORIC VICTORY FOR THE CLIMATE AND FOR COMMON SENSE
2) KYOTO RESCUED
3) REVISED KYOTO PROTOCOL SEEN AS LESS RIGID
4) PRONK FORECASTS US RETURN TO KYOTO PROTOCOL
5) JAPAN CALLS FOR USA TO MAKE COUNTERPROPOSAL ON KYOTO PROTOCOL
6) GUESSING GAME ON US REVIEW OF REJECTION OF KYOTO

The first dimension on the meaning of the Bonn Conference outcome is political. The political debate was sparked a few months back when the United States announced it would not ratify the Protocol, with President Bush calling it "fatally flawed". However, the deal reached in Bonn to keep the process going was considered as extremely positive for various concerned parties and actors, including the WWF ["Historic Victory..."-WTOIL, July 31], UNEP and the Conference Chairman/Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk ["UNEP on Bonn Conference"-WTOIL, July 31]

The "victory" consists firstly on having built a wider consensus by bringing part of the "umbrella group" countries on board, including Japan, Canada, and New Zealand. Secondly, the US rejectionist position is isolated further.

A more skeptical view provided in The Economist ["Kyoto Rescued?"-WTOIL, July 31] points out that this wider consensus was achieved via compromises that water down the treaty and essentially nullifies its actual effectiveness. Additionally, implementation raises another important issue: how to strike a balance between the need for reversing the effects of climate change and the economic cost that the initiative implies? Is economic feasibility the most important criteria to determine the success of the protocol? This certainly seems to be the position of the US.

Related to this last point, what next for the US? Having rejected Kyoto, the United States has not come out with any constructive proposals [JAPAN CALLS FOR USA…]. But will US proposals be made within the UNFCCC framework or will they insist on a separate track for action? Dutch Minister Jan Pronk argues that after the "victory" of Bonn, the US might even be compelled to return to the Kyoto family [July 31- "PRONK FORECASTS US RETURN…]. The question remains if this would require further compromises and watering down of the treaty. .

AFRICAN NEWS

Developing countries have some general concerns about the possible launch of a new trade round in the next WTO Trade Ministerial in Qatar. African countries in particular have been engaged in preparations [July 3- "AFRICAN TRADE NEGOTIATORS PREPARE"] for the meeting. Among other chief concerns of the continent are WTO rule implementation, consideration of labor and environmental standards in any new trade round, and the role of international financial institutions in Africa's future development.

From the Addis Tribune we presented an interesting view on the intricate problems of governance that Ethiopia currently faces [July 3- "THE PUZZLING NOTION OF GOVERNANCE"]. Their problems are extremely complex - catalyzed by years of political instability - and are enhanced by lack of infrastructure, and lack of integration of the different ethnic groups that make up its population. While the author does not suggest the concrete steps to be taken, he gives an important starting point for future discussions.

The final Africa-related note refers to an environmentally-friendly production initiative coming from the South [July 24 - "UGANDA CERTIFIED ORGANIC COFFEE"]. A simple example of the possibility for sustainable agricultural practices even where conditions are most difficult and resources more scarce. Productive initiatives from developing countries could satisfy the rapidly increasing market for organic products in Europe. However, the article does not bring up another related issue of international trade: the "fairness" in the North-South exchange.

TRADE POLICY

July 3's "WHO WANTS TO LEAD THE WORLD'S NEXT TRADE ROUND?" highlights the lingering differences between Europe and America, in particular with respect to agricultural trade. With the Trade Ministerial looming, the article also makes a strong argument for developing countries not to discount what the WTO can do for them. In essence, a portrayal of the WTO as the lesser of two evils, the other one being an anarchical state with no rules, where the strongest corporations can really run rampant.

Coming back to current United States trade and other multilateral policies, the conservative environmental NGO Environmental Defense Fund criticized the Bush administration recent actions [July 3- "CRITICISM OF BUSH TRADE POLICIES"]. The criticism centers mostly on the lack of coordination between trade and environment policies. Chief amongst them is the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, as detailed previously. Bush's disregard for multilateral environmental initiatives has caused EDF to question how well the President can conduct US trade policy in light of the possible conflicts that arise with respect to the environment.

In the run up to the Qatar WTO Ministerial, the WWF expressed their position to WTO member states at the Symposium on Issues Confronting the World Trading System, in Geneva at the beginning of July [July 24- "WWF ON WTO"]. WWF highlights that consideration of developing country positions as well as those of concerned citizens all over the world are key for the WTO to seriously address global problems of poverty, economic inequity, and the environment. The World Wildlife Fund recognized five key areas that should be prioritized:

1-Respect and prevalence of multilateral environmental agreements over trade rules.

2-Insistence on achieving "triple-win" scenarios between trade, environment and development.

3-Increased participation and transparency in WTO processes, including coordination at national level.

4-Increased capacity-building for developing countries to achieve efficient participation in WTO discussions and negotiations.

5-No new negotiation of rules on foreign direct investment within the WTO framework.

ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND POLITICS

A recent EU-UN meeting pointed out some of the most pressing global issues for the next 15 years [July 3 - "STATES SAID TO LAG ON FOOD SECURITY"]. The most recognized area for action seems to be poverty reduction, although not enough is being done in one of its main manifestations - food insecurity. The coming Food Summit+5 (in Rome) needs to assess the progress achieved up to now, as well as support the implementation of constructive initiatives.

Green Left presented a stinging criticism on the German Greens [July 10- "GERMAN GREENS--BETTER THAN NOTHING/WORSE THAN USELESS?"] based on their position with respect to the movement of nuclear wastes from France to Germany for reprocessing. The article points out the policy inconsistency of the German Coalition government (of which the Greens are part of). Germany was already committed to admitting back the reprocessing wastes, thus avoiding "NIMBY" criticism at least. However, that was the pre-condition for being allowed to send more fuel for reprocessing to France and the U.K. Finally, the article points out that "the waste is not a 'French' problem or a 'German' problem", but rather that it points to the global need for the nuclear industry to provide feasible options for reprocessing and disposal.

From Earth Times we presented an interview with Anita Bay Bundegaard, Minister for Development Cooperation [July 17- "INTERVIEW WITH..."]. Ms. Bundegaard came across as very enthusiastic on the effect of her position, which is supported by the traditionally cooperative Danish government. She mentioned the importance of working with NGOs both in Denmark and in the South. With respect to next year's World Summit on SD, she highlighted the need for not only setting appropriate goals but also assessing their chance for success. The issue of financial assistance is key, as implementation of goals and initiatives will be highly dependent on the contribution from donor countries.

Water resources use and management is an area that is getting increasing attention on the global agenda. Is commodification of water and privatization of its management the most beneficial practice? We presented a report from the "Blue Planet Conference" [July 17-

"BLUE PLANET TARGETS COMMODIFICATION OF WATER"], that explores the question. The arguments are kept on an ideological plain, without taking the discussion to its practical implication and solutions. Room for further exploration here in the future!.

BIO-PROSPECTING/NATURAL RESOURCE USE/IPR

There are a growing number of worldwide efforts to find new biological material for pharmaceutical and agricultural research. [July 3- THE NEW SHOPFRONTS FOR BIO-PROSPECTORS]. The Australian government is launching investigations on the bio-prospecting industry, as well as on the establishment of appropriate laws. Still it remains to be seen if a proper balance between a private company's use of "public assets" and protection of marine/land flora and fauna.

An interview with the head of the Least Developed Countries Unit of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) [July 10-THE WEST HAS BEEN STEALING AFRICAS IP] brings to the table the significant problems that many African countries face in this respect. It is argued that implementation of property rights does not necessarily imply preferential protection of foreign interest, and does bring much needed foreign direct investment. However, it also points out the infrastructural and administrative inadequacies in least-developed countries that are unable to protect their knowledge and resources from foreign plunder. The arguments were also discussed during the OAU/UPOV/WIPO May meeting [July 10-"IPR AGENTS TRY TO DERAIL OAU PROCESS"]. The meeting discussed the OAU Model Law that seeks to protect the rights to biodiversity of local communities, farmers and breeders. However, it became apparent that OAU and WIPO do not see eye to eye, especially with respect to patents on life. Further conflict was

generated by the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (UPOV), which essentially tried to discredit the OAU initiative. Some of the most relevant unresolved issued in the debate include how property rights could affect (positively or negatively) food security, and if existing IPR laws subordinates farmers' rights to breeders' rights.

BUSINESS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Business involvement with sustainable development initiatives is another extremely controversial subject. The business sector considers it a "win-win situation", while hardcore environmentalists and development advocates call it "corporate greenwashing". An article on the "win-win" side of the debate [July 10- NEW SD AWARD FOR COMPANIES] advocates the creation of a Sustainable Development Award for "companies that have proven that sustainable development can be profitable". While their heart seems to be in the right place, there are intrinsic difficulties in placing a sustainable development banner over a company. The definition of sustainable development can take varying shapes and forms, for one. Also, would complete consideration be given to a company's way of conducting business, or simply to specific green initiatives they perform? This more skeptical view is also shared by the Corporate Europe Observer [July 17- "RIO+10 FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM"]. The article chronicles the development of the

business sector's involvement with sustainable development, from the creation of the Business Council on SD to current efforts in the lead-up to the Rio+10 meeting. But in the end, it is up to the business community to "put up or shut up" with effective wide-ranging strategies, not only strategical initiatives that merely serve PR-purposes. Additionally, it is up to NGOs to ensure that the business sector does deliver concrete promises, and to educate the public in order to balance the sometimes one-sided information coming from the media.

One final article from Green Left Weekly [July 17- "COULD CAPITALISM EVER BE ENVIRONMENTALLY STABLE?"] brings into question our dominant economic doctrine. Before diving into a more ideological discussion, the authors point out that the core of the problems resides in the Northern definition of "well-being", consumerism, and the unfeasibility of "green consumption" on a global scale.

[END]