SUDAN: Whatever finally emerges from the tense negotiations over the future of the Doha trade round, it is unlikely to satisfy either advocates of open markets or those who would simply like to see rich countries give the developing world a better deal on trade, writes Denis McClean
It will still be some time before a Sudanese mango fetches up in an Irish supermarket trolley at an affordable price. And Irish farmers will be hoping to stave off as long as possible the even more deadly threat posed by giant ranching interests south of the Equator in Australia and Latin America who would love to stack their beef high on supermarket shelves throughout the EU.
Export subsidies, domestic support and market access are the three pillars around which the 147 WTO members have been doing an intricate dance over the last four days of formal negotiation and haggling in the corridors of the high-security venue on the shores of Lake Geneva.
Unlike the G8 summit in nearby Évian last summer, which led to unprecedented violence on the streets of Geneva by anti-globalisation activists, the Geneva police have had little to contend with on this occasion of global summitry, beyond some tame protests by Swiss lettuce farmers and an Oxfam happening in a park.
And yet the success or failure of these talks could have repercussions for years to come on the world trading system and the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals, to halve world poverty by 2015, provide universal primary school education, improved water and sanitation for millions and reduce the mortality rates from AIDS and other infectious diseases.
Employment and living standards worldwide would receive a boost estimated at $3 trillion by the World Bank if the Doha Round which got under way in the Qatar capital in 2001 is successfully concluded.
Any final agreement would have to make serious dents in the $300 billion of trade-distorting subsidies which benefit farmers in rich countries and to open up market access to the developing world. The latter would make more significant inroads into poverty reduction than the present $50 billion in development aid from the west.
However, WTO officials are pessimistic that if a framework agreement is not concluded this weekend the steam will run out of the talks following so soon on the acrimonious failure to agree at last September's ministerial level meeting in Cancún, Mexico.
The Americans are already forging ahead with bilateral trade agreements with several developing nations, and their trade representative, Robert Zoellick, will be stepping down after the US elections in November.
Likewise the Europeans will be losing the Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, who has announced that he will not continue beyond the end of the year. Replacing such significant players in the Doha process will not be easy and is likely to lead to delays in getting back to the negotiating table.
It took seven years to bring the previous Uruguay Round to a conclusion, and the Doha Round so far has had only one notable success, an agreement on the emergency licensing of life-saving drugs for production in countries experiencing major public health emergencies such as the AIDS pandemic as covered in the TRIPS agreement.
Oxfam International and others are forecasting a diluted agreement at best because of French objections to the EU's proposal to eliminate export subsidies in the absence of a proportionate move from the US.
"Thousands and thousands of small farmers are being destroyed, their families going hungry because of the unfair subsidies of American cotton," said Mr Ousman Ngom, Senegal's Minister for Trade. Oxfam estimates US subsidies to its 25,000 cotton-producers at $3.9 billion annually.
Other factors in the mix are whether or not the draft framework agreement circulated at 5 a.m. yesterday will satisfy the group of 20 large developing nations which put a roadblock in the way of EU and US efforts to reach an agreement at Cancún. Countries like China and Chile are adamant that wealthy nations have to cut their agricultural supports.
If there is an outline agreement on farm trade, attention will shift to issues such as lowering tariffs on industrial goods and opening markets in developing countries.
According to Oxfam's analysis, the worst-case scenario would be if rich countries get their way on non-agricultural market access and there is no meaningful effort to level the agricultural playing field for producers in developing countries.