World Bank's Food Security Plan Temporarily Blocked at Doha Talks

The World Bank of course stands with the US on the the battle between the US and India/China over protection for small farmers, and positions it as usual by suggesting that this will solve the crisis of poverty.

Zoellicks Plan for the Food Crisis which he announced at the Food Security Summit in Rome laid out the World Bank view that "to help those in danger today and ensure that the poor do not suffer this tragedy again" the World Bank proposed a 10-point plan. The ninth point was "we should conclude a Doha World Trade Organisation deal in order to remove the distortions of ag­ricultural subsidies and tariffs and create a more adaptable, efficient and fair global food trade. The need for rules that are agreed multilaterally has never been stronger".

See below for the latest on the WTO where the World Bank's vision of food security has been temporarily blocked.

Michele Kelley

----------------------
WTO talks fail as India and China stand up to US to 'protect' farmers

Wed, Jul 30 03:03 AM
Yahoo News

The ministerial level talks here that attempted to clinch a global trade deal failed to achieve a breakthrough after nine long and tense days of discussions mainly due to differences between the US and India on measures to protect the livelihood concerns of poor farmers in the developing world.

The talks, that form part of the seven-year-old Doha Development Round negotiations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), also saw differences between the developed and the developing world in several market-opening commitments regarding agriculture and industrial goods.

Though a formal announcement is expected only later in the night, official sources said WTO director general Pascal Lamy clearly indicated that there was no progress in the meeting of the group of seven countries that included representatives from India, Brazil, China, the European Union, US, Japan and Australia. They said, therefore, it was highly unlikely to have any resolution of outstanding issues in a larger group of countries.

India had earlier refused to give in to attempts to weaken a measure called the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) meant to protect poor farmers, despite enormous pressure from developed countries, especially the US. The SSM enables developing countries like India to hike agricultural tariff by imposing additional duties to protect the livelihood of its poor farmers from import surges and price declines of sensitive agricultural products like wheat and rice. But it is a contingency measure and, therefore, used only when imports are substantive.

Meanwhile, developing countries on Tuesday blamed the US for what they called its stubborn attitude in maintaining the prosperity of its subsidized farmers and said this was the main stumbling block in clinching a global trade deal.

Despite efforts between Monday and Tuesday to resolve the SSM issue using different formulations - including a proposal by Lamy and another one by the European Union - the US rejected these saying SSM would disrupt normal trade rather than protect poor farmers. Some agricultural exporting countries like Uruguay and Paraguay, too, said SSM would hurt their interests.

Meanwhile, India was backed by China and around 100 other countries at a crucial juncture in the talks when India suffered a setback as Brazil broke ranks with other developing country allies in this aspect due to its interests in the farm-export business.

China had said it would not offer any concessions on special products (SPs farm products that are subjected to minimum or no duty cuts) and SSMs as these directly affect the livelihood of its poor farmers. It wanted to demarcate rice, cotton and sugar as SPs. On SSM, India turned down a WTO proposal under which developing countries could impose additional safeguard duties only if the import surge is 40% more than the average of previous three years.

India had told the WTO that if developing countries were forced to wait till a 40% rise in imports, it would wreak havoc on the livelihood of the most vulnerable farmers due to cheap farm imports from the rich world. India also demanded that the additional safeguard duties that it should be allowed to impose on such imports should be above the Uruguay Round-bound levels (tariffs that were committed to at the Uruguay Round) as the present proposal of 15% additional duty would not be enough to curb such import surges and price declines.

However, the SSM proposal available to developing countries continued to be weaker than a similar mechanism available to rich countries to protect the interests of their mostly rich farmers from such cheap imports.

The other main unresolved issues included reduction of huge trade-distorting farm subsidies of the US, especially their cotton subsidies and Washington's insistence that developing countries should eliminate duties in certain infant and vulnerable industries. Earlier, in a bid to speed up the Doha Round talks, Lamy had last week disbanded the original group of 30-odd ministers and started holding discussions of just seven major countries including India.

But apart from adding to the bitterness that it caused to the members excluded from the core group, this attempt at expeditiously resolving the persisting differences between the developed and the developing world did not bear fruit with Lamy himself admitting that there was no convergence on key issues. Several of the developing, least developed and even developed countries excluded from the chosen group of seven nations expressed apprehensions about being left in the dark.