Amid the chaos and the queues, the hard negotiations get started. There are five (or so—reports vary) negotiating groups, working on: implementation, agriculture, market access, new issues and so-called institutional issues. Each is chaired by a different country—Singapore, that well-known agricultural producer (!), is chairing the agriculture group.

But the work may not end up as arduous as was expected. On agriculture, one of the deals that just couldn’t be brokered before arriving in Seattle, suddenly a breakthrough looks imminent. A draft text exists and is rumored to have been okayed already by the United States and the Cairns Group (the major exporters of agricultural products).

Some developing countries are considering it overnight tonight, but the outlook looks positive. No one has seen the deal yet to know how good (or bad) it might be. There is no word yet on how the E.U. might respond, but the text is said to be "clean" - there are no brackets, suggesting no disagreements, thus far.

What is missing? We haven’t seen the text, but it is likely there is no sign yet of more than just words on food security (supported in principle but ignored in the details of the existing agreement), or on preferential treatment for countries heavily dependent on one or two export commodities. We might see the words "multifunctional agriculture", but there hasn’t been any sign yet that we’ll get some substance behind it, giving countries without enormous budgets to spend on agriculture a meaningful way to protect a sector that is about so much more than export revenues.

Agriculture won’t just be addressed in the agriculture working group. It is also about implementation, where important language that addressed inequities in the existing agreement appeared in initial drafts back in October but then quickly disappeared. There seems to be no interest in either the U.S. or Europe for considering the problems faced by developing countries with the existing agreements, including agriculture.

Yet, Article 20 of the existing agreement calls for a review in the light of implementation experience. Developing countries, and many NGOs, know the Agreement on Agriculture is not fair. Pushing for meaningful assessments of the agricultural agreement, to complement the work already done by many NGOs, should be a minimum demand within the implementation discussion. The next deal needs to be informed by more experience and less ideology.

Sonia Murphy, Institute for Agriculture

home