Away from Seattle hype there is hope for world's farmers

By Brian Chamberlin

There are two words which stalled the agricultural negotiations in Seattle. They are elimination and multifunctionality.

Despite the cost of subsidies to the taxpayers in the nations concerned and despite the huge penalty they impose on third countries, European negotiators refuse to have the ultimate elimination of export subsidies placed on the agenda. At the same time, they and the Japanese are insisting that what they call the "multifunctionality of agriculture" is included in the negotiations.

It may be that the other issues which have proved to be controversial in the past, those of internal support and market access, would have come to the fore had there been agreement on the other two.

Although the meaning of the word multifunctionality has not been explained, I have the feeling that it covers all the reasons why the Europeans and Japanese consider they need special privileges.

It is bizarre to think that it could take years to work our way through these issues at time when farmers' incomes are inadequate in almost all countries, many millions of people are starving and the environment is suffering from poor farming practices in a number of places.

The really frustrating thing is that the people who are holding up progress are a minority. Not only are they are a tiny minority in comparison with the total population, but the group of farmers who are subsidised and protected are well outnumbered by those who have either little assistance or none at all. There are, for example, more farmers in the Cairns Group then there are in the European Union and the United States combined. Vietnam, which is a small country, actually has more farmers than all the countries of the European Union.

Negotiations now move back to Geneva. They will take place between officials in a much less supercharged atmosphere than we experienced in Seattle. It is likely that the officials will be able to make progress away from the glare of publicity and personal political agendas. The time will come, however, when the agreement will have to be ratified by the politicians from the participating countries.

The fact that the United States Administration must secure approval to negotiate from its Congress in what is called "fast track" is an added complication. This approval is not likely to be given to the present administration if President Clinton continues to insist on the inclusion of labour and environmental issues in the negotiation.

The relationship between President Clinton and many members of the present Congress is such that he may not secure their support under any circumstances. This could mean that fast track approval to negotiate is at least two years away.

This is not the final hurdle. Once the negotiations are complete, any agreement has to be submitted to the US Congress for a vote.

Many will say that the whole process is too difficult and that it should be abandoned.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Trade liberalisation still offers the only way forward for rural areas in much of the world. It provides the best opportunity for the bridging the gap between rich and poor. Improving incomes for the majority of farmers can also have a positive influence on the environment.

Despite the gloom and doom which came from the failure to make much progress at Seattle, I believe that some real positives came from it.

One is that the WTO is no longer a forum in which the Americans and Europeans can make an agreement and then tell the rest of us what it is. The newer members, especially those from the developing countries, are not there to simply pay their subscriptions. They are there to make progress for their countries and they are not about to be patronised or put down. Our own Cairns Group is now a well-recognised force. The involvement of a number of developing countries in the group adds to its credibility.

Another positive is that there is a growing support for liberalisation in some of the protected countries. The president of the largest farming organisation in the United States, who is a passionate advocate for the removal of export subsidies, has a close association with the Cairns Group farmers' organisation, while a farming group from western Canada is working very hard to reduce the influence of that country's protected sector. Even in Europe there are many progressive farmers who realise that their industry is headed in a disastrous direction and they are starting to agitate for change.

Perhaps the most positive aspect of all was the professional pro-reform approach taken by some of the consumer groups. For example, what in my opinion was the most outstanding intervention made at the Cairns Group Farmers' Seminar came from Frances Smith, executive director of the Washington DC-based organisation, Consumer Alert.

The biggest lesson to come out of Seattle was that the benefits of trade liberalisation must be marketed effectively. Despite there being many professional and factual presentations made in favour of liberalisation during the conference, they got virtually no media coverage at all. Almost all the publicity was given to the demonstrators and anarchists.

It is ironical that the loudest advocates of the anti-WTO, anti-globalisation message used imported computers and the global internet to stir up support and mass their supporters.

The marketing of the benefits of trade reform must run in our own countries. Much more can be done. Even Australians and New Zealanders who stand to gain so much from a successful conclusion to this WTO round need to do more to explain the myths and realities of liberalisation.

* Brian Chamberlin is a former president of Federated Farmers and New Zealand's roving agricultural ambassador.