Alter the WTO

Alter the WTO

Many Africans and their allies tried to raise a sustainable development agenda at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (wssd) -- with limited success. The wssd relinquished responsibility to big business and the World Trade Organization (wto).

wto equates trade liberalisation with development. It believes the three pillars of environment, economy and society can each be built separately instead of in an integrated way, and that it has the responsibility for building a fair and equitable global economy. Wrong! Trade liberalisation will always favour strong economies. At its basis is a need to increase production and consumption. Therefore we need to radically alter the basic premise, principles and rationale of the wto.

Fairness and equity are key requirements for sustainability. Recognising this, the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities was agreed to in Rio in 1992 and affirmed at the wssd. On this basis African countries, contributing very little to global environmental degradation, should be much better off after questions of 'trade and environment' and 'trade and development' have been settled. Yet this is unlikely to happen within a wto characterised by trade-liberalisation imperatives and skewed power dynamics. A reframing of the trade-environment-development nexus needs to take place. In particular, the question of ecological debt should be addressed. This should be the basis of any trade or investment agreement.

The wto is by no means a democratic forum. The Doha ministerial meeting which launched what is commonly called a 'development round', was every bit as manipulated and undemocratic as Seattle. The Doha Declaration does little to create the conditions for Africa's development. Developed countries aren't committed to anything "developmental"; their actions since then -- to increase subsidies on agriculture, to renege on public health commitments for cheaper medicines, to push for access to services -- show the real interests.

The Agreement on Agriculture is a weapon against small-scale peasant farmers and food processing industries in Africa. In conjunction with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (trips) agreement and and the imf -inspired Structural Adjustment Programmes, it pushes up the price of production for small-scale farmers (through patents on seeds, reduction in agriculture extension services, pesticide use), while at the same time condoning the dumping of highly subsidised, artificially 'cheap' food from Europe and America onto African markets. wto agreements entrench and exacerbate the flow of resources from small producers to large, from poor countries to rich.

so what should africa do?
• Assess existing agreements in relation to improving household food security of the very poor, in bringing people water and energy, in protecting the integrity of ecosystems. On these counts, the wto does not look very good.

• Disempower wto. Bringing new issues and negotiations -- investment, cleaner technologies -- into the wto is likely to give it more power, and in areas only marginally related to trade. Instead, African governments should meet commitments made under un agreements.

The trips Agreement undermines national legislation to protect peoples' rights to health, education and food security, and encourages biopiracy. Africa should negotiate for its alternative, the African Model Law.

Further liberalisation of services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (gats) could undermine access to basic services such as water and energy. These services should be protected and excluded from any negotiations. Liberalising environmental services will make it harder for us to develop indigenous technologies, services and processes.

• Build global democracy. The wto has undertaken to resolve potential conflicts between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and its own agreements. Surely the United Nations, with a more balanced socio-economic and human rights agenda, is the better forum. This requires governments to actively support and strengthen un structures.

• Instead of competing in the heavily loaded international game of 'fairer' market access, African governments must re-orient economic production for local markets and needs.

• The aggressive strategies of rich countries also expose their desperation. Perhaps they need us more than we need them. In this context it is critical that Africa presents a united front. African governments must demand that rich countries honour their commitments to parallel imports of essential medicines and reduced agricultural subsidies. They must put in place mechanisms to ensure that extraction of resources -- oil, diamonds, wood -- do not lead to bloody conflicts. They must look to their citizens, mobilise African civil society.

Jessica Wilson and Stephen Law belong to the Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa 12jav.net12jav.net