Our plan to hold this Forum at this period in time in Dhaka is not without reason. The Forum is taking place on the eve of a very important inter-governmental meeting. As we know this meeting brings together the Trade Ministers of the majority of the LDCs in Dhaka to deliberate on forging a possible common stance for our countries in the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Meeting to be held in Cancun, Mexico during September 10-14 of this year. Accordingly we are convening this Forum now and here, because we feel impelled to project the voices of civil societies from across the LDCs before the policymakers assembled at the Second LDC Trade Ministers' Meeting in the expectation that this will be given due consideration. Whilst we feel we have something important to say which needs to be heard at the same time we like to extend our support behind the good work of our Trade Ministers who have to reflect the interests of their fellow citizens.

the complex nature of the global polity, we recognise our governments are quite often constrained to adequately assert their rightful positions in the international fora. This is why our Forum seeks to strengthen the legitimacy of the LDCs' demands by demonstrating this solidarity with the common aspirations of our respective states and their citizens.

Marginalisation of the LDCs

We meet at an opportune moment when the multilateral trading system will be subjected to intensive scrutiny and important decisions. However, I would not be doing justice to our experience in recent years, if I fail to mention here that we feel both frustrated and betrayed by the global multilateral trading regime as it continues to evolve in our time and before our very eyes.

It is true that the theoretical arguments favouring the freeing of trade remains compelling, tempting many to argue that the advantages of international trade remain the only issue where there is a convergence of opinion among all economists! Empirical evidence, however, lends little credence to the assertion that more trade automatically translates into higher welfare for the greater number of people. The experience of the LDCs -- both in the GATT and in the WTO compels us to state unequivocally that the jury is still out on the question of whether trade ameliorates or accentuates poverty, and whether trade diminishes or deepens inequality, among countries and among people within countries.

We are meeting in a time when 800 million people of our world go hungry each day and 170 million children under five years of age suffer from malnourishment. Whilst it is true that some countries have indeed been able to take advantage of trade, for the 49 LDCs the experiment with liberalisation of trade, spanning three continents and as many decades, and the resultant outcome from this process, has been mainly one of disappointment, verging on disillusion. The LDCs have seen their combined share in global trade decline from 2 per cent in the 1960s to 1 per cent in the 1970s and then from 0.8 per cent in the 1980s to the current level of 0.4 per cent. During this period the ranks of the LDCs have almost doubled from 25, when such a substrata among the developing countries was first identified, to their current number of 49.

Our experience of these past years has been that the global trading regime is making our developmental effort more difficult -- the potential opportunities have remained largely elusive, compliance requirements have continued to be expensive, so that only the attendant risks have been too real. It is therefore clear that we in the LDCs do not need immiserising trade; we need a trading system that contributes to and enhances the developmental and livelihood opportunities of our countries and our people.

Double standards of global trading regime

An overwhelming number of the LDCs were induced to join the WTO because they were persuaded to believe that it is a rule based organisation with an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism. Who does not recognise that the rule of law is most needed by the weak and the vulnerable in the face of arbitrary and discriminatory actions by the arrogant and the powerful. However, we regret that these rules, which were supposedly approved through the mythical "one country one vote" based consensus, have delivered an imbalanced, inequitable, and, quite often, unethical global trading regime. Let me cite a few of illustrations culled from some recent authoritative studies.

-An average person in a developing country selling a product in the world market confronts barriers that are roughly twice as high as those faced by the counterparts in industrial nations.

- Tariff rates for textiles are usually among the highest in the developing world. Precisely because of this, France with its $24 billion of diversified exports to the USA pays $331 million as import duties per annum whilst Bangladesh, with its exports of readymade garments of $2.4 billion, ends up paying almost the same amount.

- Farm subsidies of more than $300 billion per year allow food crops exported by farmers in the OECD countries to be sold at prices which are 20-50 percent below the cost of production, thereby undermining farmers in developing nations.

- USA provides a cash subsidy to each rice farm household amounting to $75,000 a year.

- European citizens are supporting the dairy industry with subsidies of 16 billion Euros a year. This is equivalent to more than $ 2 per cow per day whereas half the world's population lives on less than this amount. EU surpluses of milk and milk products are dumped on world markets using costly export subsidies, which destroy people's livelihoods in some of the world's poorest countries.

- An increase in developed countries' quotas, on the inward movements of both skilled and unskilled temporary workers, equivalent to 3 per cent of the workforce of the importing countries, would generate an estimated increase in world welfare of over $150 billion per annum.

- Application of EU standards, which may reduce health risks by approximately 1.4 deaths per billion persons a year, could decrease African exports by 64 percent or US$ 670 million, in contrast to regulations set on the basis of an international standard.

As we all know not a single LDC has been successful becoming a member of the WTO since its establishment in 1995. You may know that the acceding LDCs are being pressured to take on obligations which are much higher than those accepted by the founding members of the WTO. In this context, the absurdity of such global rules is possibly best epitomised by the rejection of the WTO membership by the small island country, Vanuatu.

Post-Doha developments

As I have mentioned earlier, the need to keep the good fight going is also reemphasised by the fact that post-Doha developments have hardly been encouraging for the LDCs. We are seriously concerned with the failure to meet mandated deadlines set in Doha in most of the areas, including Implementation, TRIPS and Public Health, GATS and Agriculture. The WTO missed another December deadline for agreeing on a new package of "special and differential" measures which would have given the developing countries more leeway in implementing some of their Uruguay Round commitments. We are in great doubt about the commitments of the major developed countries to deal seriously and in a timely manner with these issues.

Our enthusiasm generated by the gains from the declaration on TRIPS and Public Health was rapidly dissipated when we found this gain was under threat because of interpretative ambiguities which constrained the developing countries from taking advantage of these gains, not least because of the pressure from the multinational corporations.

We have witnessed how the US Farm Bill introduced shortly after Doha Ministerial flouted both the letter and the spirit of the WTO and we have also seen the roll-back in the liberalisation of trade in agricultural goods through EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

We have also observed with alarm how the WTO rules are being undermined and often violated thanks to the increasing trend of bilateralism -- bilateralisation of the negotiations in the GATS within the WTO system as well as through various bilateral and plurilateral agreements. Often LDCs are faced with a no win situation -- they suffer both because of multilateralism and also from violation of multilateralism!

The less we talk about the much hyped integrated framework for trade related capacity building, the better it is. The "carrot" promised by trade related capacity building support which induced the LDCs to agree to the "single undertaking" in the Uruguay Round was never addressed in right earnest. I think the amount of $16 million (CF24 million) earmarked by the WTO for the year 2003 for capacity building for all developing countries, including the economies in transition, speaks volumes about the degree of commitment which the developed countries have invested in this issue.

Mainstreaming development in trade

We are seriously concerned with the fact that in the name of policy coherence the multilateral institutions are coordinating the mechanisms of pressure on the LDCs and the developing countries. By policy coherence, we understand removing conflicting demands of the multilateral institutions on the national governments which undermine the special status of the LDCs as well as appropriate their policy making space.

Similarly we do not disagree that there is a need to mainstream trade in development as proclaimed by the new hobby horse of the international financial institutions -- the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). However, we also think that mainstreaming development in trade is no less important than mainstreaming trade in development. The eighth goal of the Millennium Development Goals endorsed by all 189 member countries of the UN talks precisely about such an imperative and commits the global community of nations to the task of making appropriate use of trade policy to reduce global poverty. As countries are asked by the donor community to undertake their PRSP exercises as a precondition for availability of aid, we must re-emphasise the need to strengthen the development dimensions of the global trading regime.

Importance of Cancun

The forthcoming WTO Ministerial promises to be a jubilee of a sort: it is going to be the fifth of its kind; and it will also define how the first decade of the WTO will turn out.

There are at least five reasons, which make the forthcoming Cancun Ministerial so crucial as far as the LDCs are concerned. Firstly, Cancun provides us the first opportunity to put under scrutiny the negotiations that have been taking place in Geneva on the Doha Development Agenda. Secondly, the LDCs will be able to reflect on the feasibility of the conclusion of negotiations by 2005 on a number of agenda items. Thirdly, the Ministerial will provide scope to highlight once again the continuing practice of double standards by the developed countries when WTO rules conflict with their trade interests. Fourthly, it has become more important than ever before to demonstrate the unity of the LDCs as a group when the efforts to divide the group by providing arbitrary and discriminatory market access have become more pervasive.

Finally, the Ministerial is the ultimate chance to progress LDC interests in the ongoing negotiations agenda and change the course of negotiations so that they remain consistent with the promises of the developed countries as well as the ules recognising the disadvantages of the LDCs. It was a misperceived notion that 10 years of derogation or exemptions would be enough to enhance the capacity of the LDCs to enable them to compete with the developing and developed countries. The Cancun Ministerial must be the platform to focus on a positive and enforceable agenda and to demand further review of the WTO rules for effective integration of the LDCs in the global trading system.

We forget at our peril that Cancun is going to be the last Ministerial Meeting before the full phase out of the Multifibre Arrangement in 2005. For many LDCs it is difficult to ignore the possible negative impact of the MFA phase-out on their industrialisation efforts, employment creation, gender empowerment and export performance. Cancun gives us an opportunity to take a holistic approach of this issue with a view to come up with compensatory mechanisms to avoid any serious market dislocation as a result of total market integration of the textiles and clothing sector.

Notwithstanding the Iraq war, Cancun will definitely be different from post-9/11 Doha. If in Doha there was a collective urge to uphold the credibility of global economic governance after the terrorists attack in the USA, Cancun may witness a more savage expression of unilateral trade measures drawing inspiration from the attack on Iraq which was not mandated by the United Nations. Admittedly, this is not the finest hour of multilateralism.

It is often impressed upon us that the WTO countries get not what they deserve, but what they negotiate. The experience of the last decade shows that it is almost impossible to make trade work for the poor due to the lack of our capacity to negotiate and our inability to pursue forcefully and with determination the issues which are of interest to us. It is only if we remain committed to the unity of our interest that we may aspire to not only play successfully by the rules of the game, but, if required, change the rules of the game. The outcomes of the Doha Development Round must satisfy this question and in Cancun the Ministers must work, not only forget another rhetorical declaration, which may not be realised,but that this mean what they say and say what we want.

Ensuring outcome of the LDC ministerial

Though there are enormous political and socio-cultural diversities among our countries, common economic interests and shared perspectives and approaches to globalisation have tied our fortunes or rather our misfortunes, together. Our task is to translate the potential benefits emerging from closer cooperation among us into concrete benefits for our people. If our resolve does not match our frustrations, we are doomed as a group. Only through a concerted effort can we hope to effectively address our difficulties and advance our common interests in Cancun. Let the demand from and support for the LDCs be guided by a simple rule which should guide the spirit of the Ministerial Deliberations in Dhaka and ensure that it gets incorporated in the Cancun Ministerial Declaration: from each LDC according to its capacity, to each LDC according to its needs!

Together we must ensure that the word "development" which has been sprinkled all over the Doha Declaration, has not been inserted accidentally or by mistake. It is there by the choice of the collective will of all WTO members and it is there to stay, and be fully and faithfully pursed and implemented through concrete actions and meaningful initiatives. All of us here have a role and a responsibility to ensure that this is being realised.

As civil societies, as organised groups who seek to speak for the people, our task has been carved out as if by default -- which is to challenge the emerging state of affairs in the global system and it is this task that brings us all together today, in this International Forum. As member of civil society active in the LDC's and involved with issues of interest to the LDCs we cannot absolve ourselves of the historic responsibility.

Let our work in this Forum be a testimony to this shared responsibility.

Debapriya Bhattacharya is the Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD). The article draws on his introductory statement delivered at the inaugural session of the International Civil Society Forum "Advancing LDC Interests in the Fifth WTO Ministerial" held in Dhaka, May 29-30, 2003.