Jill Evans was in Cancun, Mexico for the World Trade Organisation ministerial summit. This is the last of her reports, which appeared in the Western Mail on 24 September. She argues that the collapse of the talks was a positive sign and underlines the fact thst the west can no longer take poor economies for granted.

WTO Fifth Ministerial Conference
CANCUN, Mexico
September 10 – 14 2003

As repercussions and reactions continue following the dramatic collapse of WTO trade talks in Cancun, opinions vary starkly about the precise implications of the failure to reach agreement. The conference came to an abrupt close when all night talks failed to resolve the significant differences between rich and poor countries. It had been widely expected that the Cancun summit would produce a deal on global trade liberalisation, something that had been backed heavily by the US and the European Union.

But poorer countries refused to be pushed around and held firm on their refusal to open more rounds of talks on new issues like investment and public procurement. They didn't want to start talking about a whole host of new issues before the WTO has resolved issues currently on the table, fearing an outcome that would see them get the worst of both worlds. Neither would they accept European Union proposals on investment by multinational companies in the developing world, fearing a loss of control over their industries and arguing that the WTO wasn't the right place for such talks.

Earlier, a group of 21 developing countries led by Brazil (the so-called G21) had made clear its rejection of America and the EU's position on farm subsidies, demanding radical reform in the west. Apart from some minor concessions, the EU and US wouldn't budge, thus leading to the impasse that finally saw the whole conference collapse amid acrimony and recrimination.

But is this a good or bad outcome for the developing world? And what does this mean for us here in Wales?

On the Friday I had travelled to the heavily fortified convention centre with a delegation of parliamentarians who share my opposition to unbridled globalisation. We had a meeting organised with the Conference Chair - the Mexican Foreign Minister - to set out our concerns and proposals. Our joint declaration called for the democratisation of trade negotiations, and the addition to the agenda of the protection of public services, workers rights and environmental protection. We also called for the postponement of talks on 'new' issues until deadlock on the existing issues had been overcome. We, like the G21 and the group of African countries were exasperated with a set-up that existed to railroad through the demands of the rich developed world at the expense of some of the world's poorest nations and most disadvantaged small farmers. But it soon became clear to us all that the entrenched position of the EU and US wasn't going to change.

I am convinced that for now no deal at all is far preferable to a bad deal that would do little to help the world's poorest countries. Indeed, that developing countries have managed to block a deal that would be so bad for them is quite historic in terms of global trade negotiations, which have for so long been manipulated and controlled by the richer, more powerful nations. They have quite rightly said that they intend to be taken seriously and this outcome can only give them far greater clout in the WTO.

The often bewildering detail and complexity of trade talks sometimes makes it easy to lose sight of the real people whose livelihoods depend on their outcome. Whilst in Mexico, I was struck by the passionate protests of Mexican farmers' movement, Via Campesina. They are for the most part subsistence and small family farmers struggling to defend their way of life in the face of the massive pressures of free trade. We in Wales have a lot in common with these people with so many of our own farmers struggling to survive from day despite their tremendous hard work, long hours and first class produce.

It is these people, farmers in Wales and in Mexico, along with the communities dependent upon them, that suffer when rich superpowers in the WTO try to cut deals independent of moral or social responsibility.

These powers have been told in no uncertain terms that enough is enough. Now we must move on from here and when the WTO's 146 members are forced back to the negotiating table, richer nations will not be able to treat the concerns of the developing world as lightly as they have done in the past.

I support the calls by Christian Aid and other organisations for the European Union to drop demands to open negotiations on investment and competition - so much opposed by the developing world and quite unnecessary at this time. And we also need a compromise on agriculture that acknowledges the vital role of the family farm in community development.

There may have been no deal in Cancun but I return from Mexico in a far more positive spirit that I'd dared expect. Poorer countries have stood up to the bullying of the rich and laid down a marker for future talks. Fair trade now seems a more realistic prospect and that is something we in Wales as in the developing world have cause to cheer.

Jill Evans MEP