Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves today is what the Doha Round will mean for Irish agriculture and for farm families who form the bedrock of our rural society. The WTO is informed by a modus operandi that seeks, with the World Bank and the IMF, a global market devoid of trade barriers. Since 2001, at Doha, the WTO has embarked on a strategy of liberalisation of global trade resulting in a view, by countries such as our own and, I might add, poorer countries, that the indiscriminate liberalisation agenda will be detrimental to our interests and the interests of poorer countries seeking to raise their economic output.

For the purposes of analysing the Government's amendment to this motion, there is absolutely nothing in its response that would give solace to the thousands of farmers who today had to leave their homesteads in the quest to have their voices heard.

Our critique of the current Doha Round is simple. The WTO is not on the correct path to deliver worldwide economic prosperity. It will not raise the economic tide of all comers and, from this island's point of view, will have a disastrous effect on the rural economy and agricultural sector. Moreover, it will decimate the Common Agricultural Policy, to which we all subscribe and which has been negotiated by a process of pooled sovereignty of EU member states through many years of diplomacy.

All of us recognise the primacy of agricultural negotiations and this sector has become an easy target for the EU Commission in its quest to gain concessions on a neoliberal trade agenda because of the subsidisation of agriculture. Our view is simple. To use developing countries as a bargaining chip to unravel CAP is a disingenuous argument and one to which we do not subscribe. It is our analysis that concessions will be fought for on agricultural issues as a substitute for agreement on the liberalisation of services. Developing countries rightly argue that it is unfair to expect them to open their markets on services while clear barriers to entry exist amongst developed countries on the provision of services. The key worry for services liberalisation is what it means for the ability to regulate foreign service-based companies operating in less developed regions.

Furthermore, the availability of micro-credit in Africa has had the positive effect of lifting tens of millions of small farmers out of poverty. An agrarian revolution is taking place in Africa about which one will not hear on radio or TV. Our concern is that the growth of urban populations in Africa, which are fed through the rural African economy, may be compromised in the quest to achieve a rate of liberalisation, which may be detrimental to their economic interests. Therein lies the comparison with the Irish farmer. While the Irish farmer relies on the subsidisation of agriculture, the African farmer relies on a new system of micro-credit which may allow him to survive, and even in time, flourish.

In that context, Ireland and developing countries are united in their opposition to the Doha round, albeit for differing reasons. To state that our interests are somehow detrimental to those of developing countries is a naked lie which must be firmly nailed. To say that we are being protectionist and self-interested is true. We should not be afraid to state that we as a nation must ensure the primacy of agriculture as an integral part of our society and any attempt to diminish hard-fought gains on CAP must be resisted at ministerial level.

A fairer global trading system is something we all want. Any agreement should also encompass bilateral deals in which the EU is engaged, particularly with the poorest and most vulnerable economies through economic partnership agreements. As we in Ireland look at the potential cost of cuts in tariffs, the poorest countries are being asked to eliminate more than 80% of their tariffs by the EU. There is no equity in that proposal which signals a bad deal for both developing countries and developed countries such as Ireland.

Global food security is an issue that not only effects those who are more prone to adverse weather conditions but also this island. If it advances, this deal will compromise the food security of this nation. The African farmer may also be left with a stark choice if this process is to succeed as envisaged by the EU Commission. The African farmer may find himself at the end of a trade liberalisation agenda that forces him to buy his seed from a conglomerate such as Monsanto, thereby risking his livelihood, chaining him to another form of bonded labour and potentially compromising his biodiversity.

Doha and the WTO failed to consider the cultural and societal permutations of ramming this deal down our throats. If it succeeds, we can wave goodbye to a traditional way of living. Those farmers who are able to acquire more land and develop economies of scale will flourish and the traditional farm family will no longer exist. I may be accused of expounding rhetoric but the implication of this deal will be a flight from the land. This will be due to the influx of cheaper imports devoid of any controls, standards or traceability.

The Doha round is predicated on a globalisation agenda. It relies on unrestricted global market forces. In this scenario, transnational corporations will commandeer advantageous terms of trade. Small local interests will no longer be able to secure, control or protect market share. Co-operatives will be swallowed up by larger food multiples and the "Tescofication" of agriculture will become the norm. When these larger food multiples control the means of production, they will control the price the consumer pays and the price the producer derives. We have already arrived at this scenario, albeit on a smaller scale.

The structure of an unaccountable WTO rule-making militates against the small producer, be he or she European or African. The structures give an advantage to large corporations and foreign direct investors at the cost of weakening the traditional equity-orientated economic programmes such as CAP, from which we as an island have benefited.

See this speech in context