The WTO (World Trade Organization) wrapped up its first ministerial meeting in five years earlier this Friday. But despite partial agreement on vaccines and fisheries, governments have been unable to agree on the future of agribusiness, one of Brazil’s top priorities.
At the center of the debate was the ability of countries to conserve food stocks. In an attempt to stop a bid from India that was threatening Brazilian exports, Itamaraty proposed a permanent agreement to allow poorer and food-importing countries to maintain and create stocks of grain and other products, but this was not meant to be protectionist measures or trade distortions.
The fear of Brazil and other commodity exporting countries was that, without clear rules, diplomatic maneuvers by India and other governments would result in unfair competition for national products in the international market.
Discussions over food stocks left governments on opposite sides of the table. However, due to the war in Ukraine and the shortage of supplies in various sectors, the fear of international organizations is that the food crisis could spread around the world and, above all, affect the poorest population.
However, one of the main issues is cited by what food exporting countries see as India’s attempt to capitalize on the crisis to get some sort of blank check so they can subsidize its agriculture. on resources.
Today, Indians subsidize their $70 billion production, one of the largest volumes in the world. But they insist that the WTO must expand the capacity of developing countries to build up their own stockpiles.
But an understanding had to be established for Brazil. On the one hand, food importing countries should have guarantees that such stocks can be made and food safety should be ensured. However, as long as the conditions are met to prevent any maneuver of governments.
One of the criteria proposed by Brazil was that such stocking programs should only be used to ensure food security in one country. Stocks cannot disrupt the market or affect food security in another country. According to Brazil’s recommendation, the stocks cannot be used for export or used as animal feed.
For the Brazilian delegation, price support policies are the policies that disrupt the markets the most. For Itamaraty, such policies cannot happen without validation when government purchases are made to build up food stocks.
The Brazilian government also succeeded in some sort of liquidation of the Indian support network. Behind the scenes, Brazilian negotiators explained to Africans that India’s proposal would pose a threat to their production, not a way to combat hunger.
The strategy worked, and in part African support for the Indians was softened. In addition to support from the United States and other agricultural exporting countries, there was also the mobilization of Latin American governments.
But the Brazilian project was not accepted by India, who insisted that its own plan was the only solution to the inventory problem, it was rejected by others.
Without an agreement, the chapter on subsidies was not included in the final deal package announced early Friday morning. However, in the opinion of some exporting countries, at least India’s proposal was prevented from achieving success.
Countries sign agreements to deal with food crisis
If the subsidy sector failed in the face of a stalemate, governments closed other agreements that allowed the WTO summit to declare the organization had entered a new cycle. For many, the risk of an institution’s collapse was averted by an understanding of e-commerce and vaccines and a commitment to reform the institution.
In a bid to turn the meeting into a public relations success, WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala described the result as “unprecedented”.
One of the agreements was a commitment to try to secure the food supply in the poorest countries. At the World Trade Organization, countries have agreed not to impose export barriers on agricultural products for humanitarian programmes.
Since inflation and the outbreak of war in Ukraine, fears of famine have driven the government’s grain and other commodity producers to prevent their farmers from exporting their produce. The aim will be to guarantee lower domestic prices.
However, the measure is considered dangerous to global supply and, if it becomes widespread, could lead to a deterioration in international prices. According to analysts, the result will be an even greater increase in food prices.
The compromise was that no government imposed a barrier on grain exports to the World Food Programme.
WTO closes hollow deal on vaccine patents; beings criticize
The WTO also celebrated its agreement to make patents for vaccines against covid-19 more flexible. However, due to the tough requirements and rules, health organizations warn that the protocol will not be implemented much.
Since mid-2020, India and South Africa have been pressing for the suspension of vaccine, treatment and diagnostic patents for products related to the fight against covid-19. The impact, they say, will be the possibility that generic versions of products can be produced in various parts of the world.
The Europeans, however, refused to accept the offer, insisting on the protection of intellectual property on the products. Brazil and the United States initially took the same stance, but eventually accepted and encouraged the idea of certain flexibility.
After 15 million deaths and hundreds of hours of negotiations, the governments finally came to an agreement. However, the agreement, which was closed to strike a balance between the demands of the countries, dampened the ambition of the first project.
The deal is limited to vaccine patents, not to mention treatments or diagnoses. In addition, only countries that export less than 10% of their doses can file for patent infringement.
Organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières and experts denounced the agreement as inadequate and far from the first proposal backed by more than a hundred countries. The fear is that the project will never be implemented and will not practically serve to increase the world’s supply of vaccines.
During the peak of Covid-19, lack of doses in developing countries paved the way for an unequal world and technology to be controlled by only a handful of large economies.
“Simply put, this is a technocratic hoax designed to save reputations, not lives,” said Max Lawson, president of the People’s Alliance for Vaccines.
Christos Christou, MSF’s international head, made no secret of his criticism. “We are disappointed by the inappropriate outcome of waiving intellectual property for COVID-19 medical devices as a result of more than 20 months of negotiations,” he said.
“We acknowledge that some changes were made to the agreement that alleviated some of the more disturbing elements of the previous text submitted in May 2022, but overall we are disappointed that a true intellectual property waiver decision could not be made even during a pandemic that has cost the lives of more than 15 million people.” .
According to him, the agreement does not offer an “effective and meaningful” solution to help increase people’s access to the medical devices they need during the pandemic, because it does not properly waive intellectual property over all essential COVID-19 medical devices and is not valid. to all countries.
“The measures outlined in the resolution will not appeal to drug monopolies or provide access to life-saving medical devices and will not set a negative precedent for future global health crises and pandemics,” he said.
According to the agency, it has been discouraging that, despite high political commitments and promises of solidarity, rich countries have not been able to resolve the blatant disparities in access to medical supplies to save the lives of people in low- and middle-income countries. .
US Trade Representative Katherine Tai chose to celebrate. The deal “could facilitate a global health recovery,” she said. “Through difficult and protracted discussions, countries have succeeded in closing the gaps and achieving a tangible and meaningful outcome to achieve safer and more effective vaccines for those who need it most.”
source: Noticias
[author_name]
