Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I will concentrate my comments entirely on the agricultural aspects of the WTO. In recent weeks, there have been suggestions from some quarters that because agriculture accounts for a tiny percentage of the world economy, disagreement over agricultural aspects of WTO agreements must not be allowed to derail the entire agreement. I believe this is fundamentally flawed. First, the mindset that views agriculture solely through the guise of its economic significance to the world economy as a whole is flawed. It is a mindset that refuses to recognise that agriculture feeds us all and which refuses to recognise that the economic importance of agriculture to a subsistence farmer in the developing world is vastly greater than it would be even to a poor farmer in Ireland. In the developing world, farming is not a choice of occupation. It is the only way in which one can obtain the food one's family needs to eat.

This view is also flawed because it uses agriculture as an excuse for failures to find agreement in other areas. The chairman of the negotiating group of the WTO in a crucial area outside of agriculture, namely, market access, reports that the establishment of full modalities is at present a difficult prospect, given the lack of agreement on a number of elements. Hence, it is not simply a lack of agreement on agriculture which is holding matters up, despite what one might have been led to believe.

A third reason why the "everything but agriculture is important" view is flawed is because in its quest for an agreement in favour of their own economic interests, proponents of this mindset overlook the necessity to make any prospective agreements poverty, inequality, human rights, labour standards and environmental-proofed. Accepting an agreement which is not so proofed, even with agreement on agricultural aspects, would be a colossal misjudgment.

This is not to downplay the enormous significance of the failure to reach an agreement on concluding all aspects of the WTO's objectives as stated in the Doha declaration of November 2001. Ambassador Falconer, the New Zealand chairman of the agriculture negotiations, notes in the draft ministerial declaration text of November 2005 the acceptance at a recent delegation meeting that full modalities, that is, the assignment of specific numerical values and formulae for tariff cuts, will not be achieved in Hong Kong. An agreement will be reached in Hong Kong but, judging from the text of the draft ministerial declaration of 26 November, it will be incomplete.

I can think of no greater example of the obstacles to full agreement than the lacuna Mr. Falconer notes between the respective positions of the United States and the European Union on tariff cutting. This issue is very important to Ireland. The European Union has indicated it could be prepared to make cuts of as much as 70% provided the US makes cuts of 60%. However, the United States will agree to 60% only if the European Union agrees to 83%. I am thankful that the European Union is not willing to do this, probably not for Mr. Mandelson's want of trying.

In one or two respects, the failure to fulfil the potential of the Doha Round is a great pity, but in other respects it is not such a great tragedy. The failure to agree modalities in respect of export competition or subsidies, domestic support and market access means once again that the postponement of the conclusion of the work programme of the World Trade Organisation, as agreed at Doha, represents a setback for the organisation. It is also a setback for those who hope free trade can assist development and for those who were prepared to sell out European farmers to achieve agreement at any cost. However, Irish farmers will not weep at this failure, nor should they. They have made great sacrifices over recent years and continue to do so. Few would shirk making some sacrifices if there were corresponding gains for our brethren in the developing world. However, even if agreement on full trade liberalisation had been reached at WTO level, the farmers of the developing world would not have gained most. They had very little to gain from the Doha Round.

The Doha Round is often referred to as the development round and some would say its apparent concentration on development aims to balance the huge losses developing countries suffered after the Uruguay Round. By losses, I mean the vast, brave and unreciprocated concessions these countries made in terms of opening up their internal markets for services, including financial services, and intellectual property.

The failure of the Doha Round relative to its objectives, and the imminent Doha ministerial declaration, is not necessarily bad for farmers of the developing world. World Bank estimates of the income effects of merchandise-trade liberalisation predict that, in the worst case scenario, the developed world would make gains of US$65.6 billion, while the developing countries would gain US$9 billion and sub-Saharan Africa would gain US$300 million.

See this speech in context