Campaigners unimpressed with 'betrayal of promises'

Aid agencies praised a number of minor successes in the Hong Kong world trade deal yesterday but overall they were unimpressed with the outcome which, Oxfam said, was a "betrayal of the promises" that this round of talks would promote development for the world's poorest countries.

The deal to eliminate rich countries' subsidies on farm exports by 2013 was "a step forward," said Christian Aid, but export subsidies constitute less than 5 per cent of the total amount that the EU and others pay to their farmers. These subsidies - on products like sugar and cotton - lower the world prices for such goods, damaging the economies of Third World countries which often can produce little else.

"The real issue is about the €55bn (£37bn) that [the EU] gives in other forms of domestic support," said a spokesman for ActionAid.

Originally, the Hong Kong talks were set to address the overall issue of EU and US farm subsidies. But when it became clear that no agreement would be reached - after an EU offer proved too modest to secure large concessions from others - trade negotiators lowered their ambitions and went for smaller targets.

"As expectations were scaled down during the past week, the one thing many believed might come out of this meeting was a deal on granting market access to products from the poorest countries," said a Christian Aid spokeswoman. "But in the end, even that failed to materialise."

Though some modest cuts were made in trade barriers, the deal fell short of the hope that the poorest countries would be given duty-free and quota-free access on 99.9 per cent of what they sell to the rich world. The US, frightened of textile imports from Bangladesh, insisted that this be restricted to 97 per cent.

"Justice has not been delivered in Hong Kong," said the Catholic relief agency, Cafod. It was, one activist said, "a sorry return for a year of global campaigning".

But the week's negotiations had produced "a few glimmers of hope," said Christian Aid. The deal included what Oxfam called "a welcome commitment to ensure developing countries have the right to protect products of vital importance to poor farmers". And some progress had also been made on reducing cotton subsidies, campaigners agreed.

Some agency judgements were unduly pessimistic. Oxfam said that there was "little new money" in aid targeted at helping poor countries improve their capacity to trade, even though EU member states have pledged an extra $1bn (£564m) for this, with the same amount promised by the European Commission. And ActionAid's conclusion on the lack of progress on service sectors (including education, health care and water) and on non-agricultural market access relies on reading bleak suppositions into the text.

The truth is that, in the toughest issues, the deal does little more than tread water, postponing decisions until another meeting, which starts in Geneva in April.

Even so, it is hard to disagree that, as Oxfam's Phil Bloomer puts it, "unless rich countries fundamentally change their attitudes to these negotiations, no amount of extra time will make a difference".