The talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) known as the Doha Development Round are continuing but the atmosphere is increasingly tense in the context of fears of a recession in the US, and the reality of world-wide food shortages. In the Declaration made at the start of this Round in November, the emphasis was placed on the needs of developing countries: “a majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in the Declaration.” It has proved extremely difficult to come to an agreement which can achieve this aim. Currently, revised negotiating texts drawn up the Chairs of the Agricultural and NAMA (non-agricultural market access) Committees, are being considered – and largely rejected. Rich food-importers such as the European Union maintain that they cannot lower tariffs and subsidies any further on agriculture, and Peter Mandelson has been given the go-ahead to push for a better deal for European countries. At the same time the US and the EU are arguing that developing countries are not moving far enough on allowing the import of industrial goods. A group of developing countries known as the NAMA-11, which includes Brazil, Egypt, India and South Africa, take the view that the tariff cuts proposed are too generous to developed countries and too demanding on poorer ones.
   There does not seem to be very much confidence among organisations such as Oxfam that any likely WTO Doha agreement will be ‘development friendly’, in the sense that it will bring much benefit, if any, to developing countries. It is probably the case that no agreement will be better than one which brings no benefit to the poorer nations. But the WTO does at least offer an equal vote to each member country, so that when they act together developing countries can prevent the US and the EU from forcing an agreement on them.

• Write to your MP or your MEP and ask him or her to pass your letter on to Peter Mandelson, the EU Commissioner for Trade. Ask him (1) to remember when negotiating in the WTO that the Doha Round was intended to benefit the developing world, not the EU. (2) to ensure that any new Economic Partnership Agreements in fact be a partnership for development, not a free trade time bomb. Demand that the EPAs already agreed be monitored for their impact on the developing countries which have signed them.
• If you want to take the matter further, have a look at the following Oxfam paper:
  A Matter of Political Will

The other topic of acute concern to Trade Justice campaigners has been the Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). The need for such agreements arose from the challenge made in the WTO to long established agreements between the EU and the ACP which has offered a degree of protection for the exports – such as bananas and sugar – from the ACP countries, most of which were former European colonies. In December 2007 35 ACP countries bilaterally or sub-regionally signed agreements, although only a group of Caribbean countries (CARIFORUM) signed a full agreement. The agreements require trade liberalisation – the removal of tariffs - in return for continued entry for ACP goods into EU markets. There has been much criticism of the way these agreements have been pushed through under threat of the total removal of protection and diminishing levels of aid. This approach has resulted in rushed deals, removing the opportunity for appropriate expert or public scrutiny as well as debate of the content either in ACP countries or Europe.
   The deals agreed could pose a major threat to development in the countries concerned. Many ACP governments were put in the impossible position of having to choose between supporting existing livelihoods and industries now or retaining the ability to support industries that may emerge in future – a policy choice that Europe itself made during its development.. Although the EU’s stated objective was that EPAs would lead to increased regional integration in ACP countries, the fact that the agreements have been made with individual governments or handfuls of countries can only weaken existing indigenous regional integration processes.
   The Trade Justice Movement (tjm.org.uk) is calling for a revision of the existing agreements, in particular to avoid damaging regional integration, and for an effective review and monitoring process. For those countries which have not yet signed an agreement, a more development friendly approach must be taken by the EU. SA refused to sign an agreement because of the EU's "unreasonable" demands about inclusion of issues such as the obligation to negotiate the liberalisation of trade in services. South Africa’s deputy trade minister has declared that . "If not amended, the economic partnership agreements will become another obstacle which developing countries will have to overcome on their path towards development."