Joachim von Braun, Ashok Gulati and David Orden of IFPRI take on the task of telling the tales of reeling rounds and reading realities. In a recent research paper titled: "Making Agricultural Trade Liberalization Work for the Poor," the authors emphasise the role of rules-based trade, the abolition of pervasively used anti-poor protectionist policies, and a rise of realities on the ground. In this column today, I take the opportunity to highlight some of their observations.

Harm first, heal second!
Despite tears rolling down the cheeks of the poor of developing countries, developed countries allegedly pursued policies that militate against the interest of the poor. The support and border policies of the developed countries are "special and differential treatment" for the rich, not the poor.

Drawing upon the researches of IFPRI and elsewhere, the authors are of the view that developing countries are robbed of agricultural exports worth $37 billion (25 percent) annually due to blocking market access and driving down world prices. The aggregate figure conceals, more than it reveals, the exact impact on the poor. The authors submit a suitable example to drive home the point. The country is Benin and it is cotton export-dependent country. It could be discerned that a drop of world cotton prices by 20 per cent -- as might happen due to developed country subsidies -- raises poverty by four percentage points (an increase of 10 percent in the population in poverty) through direct and indirect effects on rural incomes.

There are, in fact, innumerable examples of developing country exports -- from bananas to biscuits, sausages to sugar -- that tend to face non-tariff barriers in the pretext of safety food. At home, the poor farmers produce these products and an export market denied goes to mean that their economic uplift is being denied.

Joachim von Braun, Ashok Gulati and David Orden strongly feel that developed countries should, in future, stop doing this farm to the farmers of developing countries. The developing countries should be brought to the talking tables to offer 'real reforms'.

Disorderly developing
The house does not seem to be clean from the side of developing countries also. According to the authors, nearly one-third of the agricultural trade of developing countries is with other developing countries. The share is growing over time. "But these countries also have substantial trade barriers on agricultural products. Among large developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, tariffs applied to agricultural products average more than 25 percent -- these are higher tariff levels imposed by many low income countries." Disconcertingly, developing countries are divided over their own baneful barriers and thus eroding their energies for a united fight against the developed countries. Those to prosper, argue for open trade; those to perish, argue for protection.

But the stakes from liberalisation of agricultural trade are different for developed and developing countries. IFPRI researches estimate that when developing countries join in agricultural trade liberalisation, they reap home additional GDP gain worth $23 billion annually. "This is more than $14 billion gain when only developed countries undertake agricultural reforms. The developing country trade policy reforms add an additional $15 billion annually to their aggregate agricultural exports." This is because, as the authors say, food consumers tend to face a fall in food prices.

Distributional issues
A grandiose generalisation on the positive impact of agricultural trade liberalization should be made with caution, as developing countries themselves are different in terms of the levels of development. Nor are their resource endowments same. For example, Brazil versus Bangladesh, Maldives versus Mexico. Bangladesh and other least developed countries might face a dark cloud on the horizon on the heels of their inability to "keep up with the Joneses." The authors are not oblivious of the outcome and hence suggest: "targeted assistance policies will be needed for some countries or regions and population groups, particularly among the very least developed, whose agriculcutural resources and other circumstances do not leave them well positioned to benefit under new trade rules for agriculture." But a warning waits in the wings: "the need for targeted assistance should, however, not be an excuse for failing to make changes that create agricultural trade opportunities."

Unsafe 'safety'
According to the authors, the fastest growing world agricultural markets for developing countries are for fruits and vegetables, livestock products, and other high-value commodities. Fruits and vegetables now alone account for nearly one-fifth of developing country agricultural exports.

Trade opportunities for these products largely hinge on the health standards set by the developed countries. Stringent developed country regulatory measures to address health, safety, and quality goals have come to close off market opportunities. Admittedly, the authors note, from fishing industries in Bangladesh and India, to the groundnut sector in Brazil, developing countries successfully coped with health and safety related conditionality. But despite that, a maize of regulatory measures are making exporters marginalised. "It is a daunting task for the small-holder economies of many poor nations to implement food safety standards that can be traced and monitored from "fork to farm." New institutions and resources are needed to make it happen. Thus regulations that are well intentioned in some dimensions can have damaging effect of reducing income opportunities or blocking technology adoption that would benefit the poor."

Fair five
An end to the impasse calls for rounds of negotiations based on rules, respect, and realities. In bullet point brevity, the agenda for agricultural reform must comprise five fair judgments: (a) an end to any types of export subsidies; (b) reductions in systematically high tariffs that close off market access; (c) disciplines on domestic subsidies and bound tariff rates so that the beggar-thy-neighbor subsidisation and high protection of the late 1990s are not repeated; (d) ongoing efforts to keep trade open while accommodating legitimate regulatory goals; and (e) scaled-up investments in development assistance to strengthen agricultural markets in low income countries.

New dividing line
Joachim et al also reckon that, for trade policy and development aid, the traditional distinction between "developed" and "developing" countries should no longer hold. A finer classification is needed for rule based graduation process from exemption to trade rules and allocation of development assistance. "One useful principle would be that as per capita income rises and internal market become increasingly efficient, a country should reduce its agricultural trade barriers and subsidies. This principle would reverse the current pattern of protection and subsidisation worldwide."

Last words
For the sake of a fair play in agricultural trade -- the sources of income of millions of small farmers -- multilateral negotiations based on rules-based agenda could, possibly, provide a solution to the impasse. The developed countries could afford to keep off from coming to the tables; as they have bilateral agreements, and also the less they they talk on agricultural trade, the more they gain. But developing countries in their own interest should see that the world trading systems follow a rule based games. No matter that the Doha Round did not deliver, or Cancun concluded in clouds, the efforts at negotiations must continue for the sake of a peaceful and prosperous world.

Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.