It came as no surprise that consensus between the 146 government delegations was impossible; not just because of the number of participants, but also because of fundamental disagreement on what should be negotiated. The developing countries wanted first of all a definitive end to unfair trade practices in agriculture, like export subsidies and barriers to the markets of the North. They expected the developed countries to fulfil their promises made in the previous meeting of the WTO in Doha two years ago.

The future of multilateral agreements depends on a fair and inclusive process

The dominant trading blocks, namely the United States and the European Union wanted a broader panorama of negotiations. In a common move they had put aside their transatlantic trade disputes and insisted on talking about new issues which suited their interests such as trade in services, rules for investments and competition. The Euro-American move meant that negotiations on agriculture and other urgent issues could not even begin before the developing countries had accepted the enlarged agenda. It was this pressure to inflate the trade 'cake' which convinced the South to form a common front against the power play of the two 'trade elephants'.

The group of 21developing countries (G21), led by Brazil, India and China, represented a critical mass  which empowered the developing world into being able to reject unfair conditions and pressures. From this point of view, Cancun has strengthened the international community. It has raised self confidence among delegates from the South and encouraged more South-South cooperation. The challenge now remains to move from a common opposition against the unfair to the achievement of fairer agreements.

Given the great disparities of interests within the G21 group (mainly between the big agro-exporting countries advocating the end of agricultural protectionism and farm subsidies, and the smaller countries wishing to protect their small farmers and domestic production) there will be much internal negotiation needed to maintain the recently discovered solidarity. In a world of growing conflict and disparities it is now in the interest of the international community not to wait for the new coalition to fall apart, but to support a constructive negotiation between the developing countries in all UN institutions including FAO and UNCTAD. This process must include civil society organisations who played a key role in Cancun supporting the smaller and poorer development countries.

Reactivating the process - Agriculture remains the test case

Cancun ended without a common resolution. This also means there is no decision about a prolongation of the so-called peace clause in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which currently keeps the WTO members from fighting trade wars or taking "revenge" for trade distorting measures. Theoretically, trade peace is over by the end of this year. Whether in practice some countries will turn smouldering disputes into new trade battles, depends on the strategic conclusions they draw from the Cancun experience.

The US has announced that it will concentrate on bilateral and regional negotiations as an alternative to the multilateral system and to defend American interests based on the current trade agreement. The Bush administration has set up an "international unfair trade task force" to identify and selectively attack practices which from the American point of view infringe the existing rules. The EU is one important target as it extensively applies the precautionary principle in the field of public health. The ban on growth hormones and the GMO moratorium have triggered repeated US attacks.

The EU has stated that it will continue to support multilateral negotiations. This means it will have to respond to the G21 group's far-reaching demands to end all farm subsidies and be granted full market access. At the same time the EU must respect the specific agreements with smaller countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) which contain preferential but limited access to the EU market. Last but not least the EU is bound to the compromise recently reached on the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP).

At the heart of this reform is the decoupling of direct payments from production, but the EU received no applause in Cancun for this. There was also very little interest in the inclusion in the trade negotiations of any 'non-trade concerns' such as food safety and environmental and social considerations. Remembering  the high priority that the European Commission had allocated to these concerns,  the project of making the CAP WTO-compatible seems to have missed its goal. The Commission found itself adopting an uncomfortably defensive position, when most of the developing countries attacked the CAP reform project for containing little more than cosmetic changes to an existing policy of dumping.

To get out of this defensive position the EU must provide further evidence that it is willing to stop subsidising surplus exports. If the EU were to abandon the instrument of export subsidies and apply modulation of direct payments in a way that would phase out structural surpluses, it could argue from a stronger position in order to promote an innovative rural development policy. Success of future negotiations with the developing countries will strongly depend on further proof that the CAP is moving away from support of intensive production and exports towards a truly integrated structural and cohesion policy which into account takes environmental, social and food quality considerations.

Qualifying for fair trade - special treatment of agriculture

Cancun has clearly shown that the WTO principle of "equal rules for all" does not work. It ignores the existing historical and structural disadvantages experienced by the vast majority of the member countries. However, the principle of "special and differential treatment", which many developing countries referred to, does recognise the imbalances between North and South. The EU applies this principle in its agreements with the ACP countries, allowing them access to European markets without demanding reciprocation.

The EU should show its commitment to fair trade by supporting developing countries in food security strategies. The EU should encourage these countries to limit access to their markets and to strengthen rural development programs. These programs should provide an infrastructure which allows small farmers and rural entrepreneurs to increase the added value of their products. With a greater percentage of processed farm products the developing countries would not be obliged to unsustainably increase export-oriented production. The key advantage in this differentiated approach of specific preferences and safeguard measures would be the achievement of higher prices per unit, instead of driving agricultural product prices down through global oversupply.

In the sugar market reform for instance, the EU could eliminate all subsidised export quotas but instead of fully opening the sugar market, it could offer the developing countries the opportunity to export this amount into the EU. This would mean to stopping all sugar exports and significantly reducing domestic sugar production. But it would not ruin all European sugar producers. Brazil’s sugar industry alone would be able to take over the European sugar market, but this would not necessarily feed the hungry of the country.

In Cancun, Commissioner Lamy told the G21 group: "If you think that all agricultural subsidies will disappear, we do not agree. We run the risk of not being able to farm in Europe. It is an issue of European sovereignty." Food sovereignty is a concept of civil society movements. But it was also taken up by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which is increasingly working together with the NGO community.

Food sovereignty needs protective measures against various forms of dumping. So external protection measures for agriculture  need to be qualified instead of being simply abolished. The European Parliament, in a resolution on the WTO and CAP reform, adopted a new concept of "qualified external protection" (QEP). It proposes that the EU should  include environmental, animal welfare and social criteria into external protection measures, conditions which EU farmers and food industries must also respect. Qualified external protection would exclude the import products that do not meet EU food safety laws. And it would raise tariffs on products not meeting our environmental, animal welfare or social standards. A rural development funds created through these measures would be available for developing countries implementing programs to help farmers to reach these standards.

Testing democracy- The International AgriCultural Convention

The institutions of the UN must be reformed urgently in order to work better for the countries and people most in need. Instead of drawing responsibility away from the FAO, the UN environmental programme (UNEP) and the Conference on Trade and development (UNCTAD), the UN system must increase the competencies of these organisations in relation to the WTO. This is the only way to sufficiently include the non-trade concerns that were completely sidelined by the WTO. Parliaments and civil society organisations need also to be actively involved in the preparations of negotiations. 

Broadening participation and involvement does not have to make things more complicated. On the contrary, responsibilities must be shared. In Cancun, the small developing countries with low staff numbers and resources received much help from the NGO community. In Rome, at the World Food Summit 2002 an international NGO planning Committee qualified for further official cooperation with the FAO on food security measures. Leaving aside occasionally strong ideological conflicts NGOs make negotiation processes more transparent and involve the general public through the media. It is time to try out more participative democracy in the international community.

The process of drafting a European Convention, which has elaborated the proposal for a European Constitution involving members of governments, parliaments and civil society, is an encouraging example. It has motivated many stakeholders  and civil society initiatives like the European AgriCultural Convention to contribute recommendations that have then stimulated European and national networks of NGOs into entering into more constructive dialogue with their governments. This inclusive method of decision-making and governance will not only increase the legitimacy of international agreements, it could also – in the long run – relieve governments and administrations from the complex and burdensome procedures of awareness-raising, monitoring and public control.

After Cancun, an International AgriCultural Convention  should help to prepare new inclusive and democratic talks on global food security and fair trade in agriculture. The European Parliament and the FAO should launch such an initiative. Both institutions have an interest in gaining influence on multilateral trade talks and in solving the problems of current farm policies.