World trade talks end in collapse

EU trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's reaction

Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.

Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".

The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.

The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.

India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.

Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.

Possible solution?

The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.

"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.

"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."

He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.

This is a better outcome for the world's poorest people than the bad deal on the table World Development Movement The end of Doha dreams Q&A: Crunch trade talks

The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.

However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.

The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.

Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.

Recent complications

Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.

America's top trade negotiator Susan Schwab on the talks

Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.

The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.

Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.

Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.

"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.

'Protecting livelihoods'

Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.

The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".

"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.

But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.

"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.

THE BATTLE OVER TRADE

LATEST NEWS

World trade talks end in collapse

Bid to salvage world trade talks

Deal still elusive at trade talks

Hope of deal in world trade talks

EU offers 60% cut in farm tariffs

EU seeks key deal on fruit trade

China loses car parts dispute

US loses in cotton dispute at WTO

FEATURES AND ANALYSIS

Last chance
Can the Doha trade round reach a successful conclusion?

Deal 'within reach'

Trade boss blames deregulation

Death of Doha

BACKGROUND

Profile: World Trade Organization

A Guide to World Trade Blocs

HAVE YOUR SAY

Can a global trade deal be reached?

Will WTO deal make a difference?

QUIZ

Beat the world trade system

VIDEO AND AUDIO

Trade talks deal

AT-A-GLANCE GUIDE

Poor countries and trade

RELATED INTERNET LINKS

European Trade Commission

WTO

Back to basics on climate change

The climate change debate has become shrouded in hot air. We need to step back and look at the larger picture

All comments (21)

• 
• 
  
  • Khaled Diab
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Friday July 25 2008
  • Article history

Tonight marks the exciting climax of the eco-drama Burn Up, which I enjoyed watching. Despite its simple political message, the characters were complex and interesting, the acting strong and the drama unrelenting.
Aside from the unnaturally high percentage of beautiful people and the stunning scenery, a similar climate change drama has been playing itself out here on Cif's own narrative threads in recent weeks. This was triggered by the emission of Ofcom's report on Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle which caused the temperature of the debate to rise alarmingly, raising concerns about Cif's delicate ecosystem.
In fact, I have found

the growing fixation on climate change over the past few years worrying, because the entire debate has become sidetracked. What should have become by now a broad debate on the environment and our place in it has actually been reduced to a single issue. The whole environmental debate is being shoehorned through the funnel of global warming.

In a way, this is understandable, because people find it easier to focus on individual political issues than try to tackle the intricate complexities of reality.

Environmentalists and greener politicians can scare us with stories of the coming inferno, while big business and free-wheeling politicians can assure us that in consumer heaven our actions have no consequence, and even if the temperature does rise a bit, this particular hell ain't no bad place to be.

Meanwhile,

mainstream thinking has focused on the idea that a low-carb Kyoto energy diet will save our obese societies. And, like the formula of any successful dietary programme, it acknowledges pain in one aspect of our life but promises that our broader lifestyle will remain intact.

Those unable even to contemplate cutting back, cast doubts on whether the climate is actually warming up, whether temperatures will rise as much as models project, whether it is our fault and how much responsibility we bear for it.

Of course, I don't believe that our oil-based economies are sustainable and I think that switching to renewable energy is essential to our future. But even if our energy supply becomes predominantly renewable, will our woes end there?

By weaning us off oil, this will help avert a massive energy crisis that already appears to have begun. After all, at most we only have a few decades' worth of petroleum left.

According to a 1999 estimate by the American Petroleum Institute, the world's oil supplies would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.

This was based on estimated proven reserves of 1.4 to 2 trillion barrels and consumption at 80 million barrels per day. As we have learnt since then, both Opec and oil companies have had a vested interest in overstating the amount of oil that is still out there, and, already in 2005, daily oil consumption already passed the 83.5 million barrel per day mark.

The trouble is that it is not just the oil that is running out – everything is. Coal at current production levels is likely to run out within 150 years. If it is used as an oil substitute, many decades would be knocked off this projection.

Many relatively common metals, such as copper, are at risk of serious depletion, if the global economy continues its rapid upward trajectory. Even relatively abundant iron ore could disappear within six decades if demand continues to grow at 2% per year,

according to Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute.

At the current rate of deforestation, all tropical forests in the world might disappear by 2090. One model even suggests that the Amazon could be no more within half a century and that more than half of Papua New Guinea's rain forest – the third largest in the world – could disappear by 2021.

This is not just about the devastating effect on biodiversity and protecting cuddly and not-so cuddly animals, but it also means

we will be facing a global food and wood shortage pretty soon, as well as the collapse of the farming land that will replace the forests, due to soil erosion and depletion.

Droughts and desertification are also threatening millions of people. The Sahara desert is growing at a rate of up to 30 miles a year; Nigeria loses hundreds of square kilometres of land to the desert annually, and as much as 80% of arid Afghanistan's land is subject to soil erosion and desertification.
Even in more temperate Europe, droughts have dramatically increased over the past three decades – the areas affected have gone up by a fifth between 1976 and 2006. The 2003 drought affected about 100 million Europeans and southern Spain might become desert in the coming decades.

Within a couple of generations, the global economy will have outgrown the globe. Without access to other planets, exponential economic growth cannot go on indefinitely. Finite resources cannot be used to fuel infinite rises in our standards of living. One day we will hit a brick wall. Our reckless lifestyles pose some risks for ourselves and even more for future generations.

There is a desperate need to rethink our attitudes to consumerism, the disposable culture, overpopulation and the economic growth orthodoxy so as to find ways to spread the joy more equitably without necessarily committing mass suicide in the process. Humanity will probably survive our irresponsibility but our modern industrial civilisation may not, and we may become the Atlantis myth for future societies.