As WTO negotiations go down to the final hours, delegates are near agreement on an agricultural communiqué, but at least two key issues were still being debated:

— Should WTO member nations reduce export subsidies or eliminate them?

— Should domestic price supports be reduced substantially or incrementally?

Minister Heo of Singapore, chair of the Agricultural Working Group, adjourned at 6 p.m. Thursday after hearing only minor comments on a communiqué text that focused on a number of U.S. and European Union concerns. Heo said the text would not be brought to U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefksy, chair of the committee of the whole, and that he expected only small changes to reflect other concerns of developing countries. In other words, the final text will not address any substantive concerns.

So much for the hopes for a Development Round to address the concerns of poorer countries. We are back to a three-way fight among the U.S., the E.U. and the Cairns Group of major agricultural exporters. It appears that the U.S. position will again prevail, as the concerns of developing countries have been eclipsed again by the narrow agenda of the big players.

Seattle will go down as a wasted opportunity to improve the widely acknowledged flaws in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Even small—but obvious and important—omissions of the last round, such as the failure to discipline persistent tariff peaks and escalation on agricultural products, will not be addressed.

Nothing is offered to developing countries in the framework proposed for the negotiations. Instead we have more of the same: increased market access, continued domestic support and export subsidy reductions.

At stake are the diversity of agricultural systems in the world and need that ensure food security. The real problems that developing countries face—from scarce foreign exchange to buy imported food to supply problems preventing an increase export revenues—are not mentioned. Once again, the nations with money for environmental protections and to subsidize their grain exporters are favored while developing countries’ needs are ignored.

Where is there mention of the need for flexible border and domestic support policies to improve food supply, as proposed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization? Where is the protection for developing countries against import surges and low commodity prices? Where is any mention of dumping — the persistent problem of goods being sold in world markets for less than they are at home?

The jury is still out, but the prognosis is not good. Despite the fact that this week in Seattle has focused world attention on reformers’ demands that WTO negotiations be transparent, informed and fair, real change is still a long way away.

Biotech Update

In an exclusive story Thursday, the Observer reported that European environmental ministers had denounced the proposal by E.U. trade delegates to establish a WTO working group on biotechnology. But in Seattle E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, insisted that the European Community stands by its proposal.