ActionAid says today’s long-awaited release of the WTO’s new draft negotiation framework at the General Council meeting in Geneva proves rich countries are unwilling to bring about real change in world trade rules. Rich nations, such as the EU, US and Japan, have forced concessions from developing countries, yet only made vague promises of trade reform themselves. The text sends a clear message that these talks, meant to deliver benefits for poor countries, are nothing more than a front for the rich to push through their own self-interests.

The framework that will form the basis of international trade agreements covers key issues for developing countries, such as agricultural subsidies and industrial tariffs. With talks due to finish this evening, most countries are left with only half a day to analyse the document, which could have a massive impact on their economies.

Moussa Faye, from ActionAid Senegal, said: "The new framework is a sham. We have been told that these trade talks are all about give and take, but so far developing countries have done all the giving and rich countries the taking. The EU and US have been able to protect their markets, while denying protection to the poorest countries. If these talks do not take a dramatic turn, rich nations will be able to share out the benefits of world trade between themselves, leaving millions of the world’s poorest people with nothing."

Key proposals:

Agriculture
The new text still strongly favours rich countries’ concerns. While there is an offer to end export subsidies, domestic subsides are left in tact. The EU’s offer to phase out export subsidies looks good on the surface. However, as the deal is only valid if the US gives up its subsidies at the same time, it is unlikely to lead real cuts in the near future. Also, there is contention among EU members, with France particularly unwilling to give up its financial support to its farmers.

Cotton
There is no clear mechanism for the elimination of cotton subsidies. This will allow the EU and US to continue subsidising their farmers at the expense of over 10 million farmers in Africa, who depend on cotton for their survival.

Sensitive products versus special products
One of the key areas of contention is that the text is very weak on ‘special products’, put forward by developing countries to protect the livelihoods of their farmers. There is no agreement on the issue and it is left open to further negotiation. However, rich countries are allowed ‘sensitive products’, on goods such as sugar, rice and dairy products. Therefore, this deal strips protection from poor countries and gives it to the rich nations.

Non-agricultural market access (NAMA)
NAMA, which deals with industrial tariffs and market access for manufactured goods, has come out as one of the most highly disputed issues of the meeting. The proposals could have a massive impact on developing countries wanting to build local industries for products, such as the car industry in Pakistan.

Developed countries have also failed to provide commitment for duty-free and quota-free market access for manufactured products from the poorest countries. The Derbez text on NAMA, rejected by developing countries during the Cancun WTO Ministerial last year and by countries including India and South Africa at this meeting, has also been included in the framework.

ActionAid is calling on the General Council to:

• provide concrete proposals to allow poor countries to protect their farmers
• exclude the Derbez text on NAMA, already rejected at the Cancun WTO Ministerial, that does not safeguard poor countries’ local industries
• eliminate all trade-distorting subsidies
• take immediate steps to bring an end to US and EU cotton subsidies that are having a disastrous impact on African farmers.

Ziaul Hoque Mukta, from ActionAid Bangladesh, said: "I think this agreement will have a devastating impact on developing countries. The fact that we have to make concessions on so many issues of critical importance to our economies suggests that many countries have come under serious pressure to reach an agreement. Against the might of the EU and US, it is very difficult for poor countries to stand up for their own interests. It is time for a fair and democratic WTO that addresses all of the concerns of its members and not just the powerful few."