Doha round talks fall apart over food concerns from developing countries
(From The Japan Times August 2 issue)

WTO交渉決裂、農業分野で対立解けず

For seven years, international negotiators have struggled to reach agreement on a deal that would lower barriers to trade and investment. At the end of July, they held a round of talks that was widely considered "do or die." Failure to conclude a deal was likely to kill the effort.

The threat of collapse did not spur negotiators toward compromise. After nine days of intense discussions, the talks ended without agreement. The global trade order continues, but great damage has been done.

Launched in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, this round of talks was intended to address the concerns of developing states; they complained that previous rounds focused on developed country priorities. Topping their list of concerns was access to agriculture markets in the developed world, one area in which the world's poorest countries can compete but are often denied the opportunity as a result of protectionism.

Those political barriers have proven formidable. Discussions broke off at a ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003, in Hong Kong in 2005, in Geneva a year later and in Potsdam, Germany, last year. Skeptics point out that each of those meetings was "do or die" for the Doha round, yet each failed and discussions continued.

Japan's government is in no position to make important concessions on agriculture, and neither is that of India — a key developing nation — that will hold elections next year. Europe is not united when it comes to concessions on agriculture.

Unsurprisingly, the nine days of talks failed to produce an agreement. After getting pledges from the United States to cap support for American farmers — Europe and Japan would be expected to follow suit — many thought a deal was in reach. But developing countries then introduced a new obstacle: Ironically, they expressed the wish to protect their agriculture sectors from foreign competition. They want to be able to implement safeguard measures that would keep their farmers from being overwhelmed in the event of import surges.

Developed countries protested that such measures are not allowed under current trade rules and permitting them would constitute a step backward.

Apart from the particulars of the disagreement, the dispute reflects fundamental changes in that way international trade negotiations occur. First, there is the sheer size of such negotiations. There are now 153 members in the World Trade Organization (WTO). That makes talks messy and drawn out: A few members cannot make deals on behalf of the whole.

Second, and more important, is the assertiveness of emerging economies. China and India in particular are increasingly vocal in these talks. Openness and integration into the global economy have given them new clout in trade negotiations and they have not been reluctant to use it. That is not to say such behavior is unjustified: All governments should assert their interests in such negotiations. But their new strength changes their perspective on the value of such talks. Delhi and Beijing may now prefer bilateral negotiations in which they can even more aggressively press their interests. In other words, their commitment to multilateralism may be flagging — at least once their other concerns have been addressed.

Meanwhile, governments will move forward with bilateral and regional trade deals. That has the potential to create a patchwork of trade rules and to introduce distortions in trade relationships. This will make it harder for companies to operate in various markets, and deny producers in poorer and weaker nations the opportunities to do business. Economists estimate the failure to reach agreement could cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic growth. That does not include the potential impact of a rise in protectionist sentiment as economic woes spread. And prospects for other multilateral agreements, such as those dealing with climate change and energy security, are likely to be impacted by the failure to conclude a trade deal. Even if Doha is not dead, great damage has been done.

貿易と投資への障壁を減らすために7年間続いた国際交渉が７月末、9日間の激しい議論の末、決裂した。国際貿易秩序は守られるが、大きな打撃となった。

2001年にカタールのドーハで開始されたドーハ・ラウンドは、発展途上国の抱える問題に取り組むために設けられたが、問題のトップを占めるのは、最貧国に機会を与えるための先進国の保護主義改善と農業市場開放である。

しかし政治的な壁は厚く、交渉はカンクン、香港、ジュネーブ、ポツダムと続いた閣僚会議で決裂した。

日本政府や、来年総選挙を迎えるインドは、農業分野での大幅譲歩を許さず、欧州も足並みが揃わない。

米国が農業の国内補助金削減を誓約し、欧州や日本もそれに倣うことで合意が可能ともみられたが、途上国が自国の農業を守るための「特別緊急輸入制限措置」を求めて新たな障壁を生み出し、先進国と対立した。

今回の決裂は、細かな意見の相違以外に、国際貿易交渉の根本的変化を映し出している。まず、世界貿易機関（WTO）史上最多153カ国の参加という規模の大きさが、交渉を混乱させ長引かせている。インドや中国など経済新興国の発言力も増大、多国間貿易交渉よりも主張が通りやすい二国間交渉を重視するとみられている。

一方で、各地で二国間・地域間協定が結ばれ、貿易関係が歪み、貧困国が生き残れなくなる可能性がある。今回の決裂が経済に与えた打撃は数千億ドルにのぼると経済学者は言う。経済への暗い見通しから保護主義の風潮が勢いを増す恐れもある。気候変動やエネルギー安全保障といった多国間協定への悪影響も懸念される。ドーハ･ラウンドは再開が望まれているが、致命傷を負ったことは確かだ。