CALLS FOR TOUGHER IMPORT DEFENCES

Originally from: David
                        
NATIONWIDE PETITION CALLS FOR TOUGHER IMPORT DEFENCES
3 September 2001

A petition calling on the Government to tighten controls on illegal imports and close the door on any chance of another foot and mouth disaster was launched by the NFU of England and Wales and NFU Scotland today.
The national crusade aims to unite the growing concerns of the public and farmers over the threat posed to Britain by the dismally under-funded and under-staffed controls on food, animal and plant imports at ports and airports.
Thousands of signatures are expected to be collected in the next four weeks leading up to the Labour Party Conference in Brighton on 1 October when the petition will be handed to MPs.
The presentation of the petition will coincide with a national day of demonstrations to raise awareness of the problem.
NFU Deputy President Tim Bennett said: "This country has been torn apart by foot and mouth. It has devastated our agriculture industry and our rural economy and inflicted serious wounds on our tourist sector.
"This has happened because not enough is being done to prevent serious animal diseases and plant pests being brought across our borders illegally or unwittingly. This is because of a lack of awareness among travellers and the failings of our current enforcement system.
"The Government needs to act now to defend us from this daily silent invasion that has already cost this country dearly."
Animal viruses such as Classical Swine Fever and foot and mouth disease have been brought into this country in recent months with disastrous effect. Potato Brown Rot and Rhizomania, which attacks sugar beet, and the South American Leaf Miner, which feeds on vegetables, flowers and plants, are other imported diseases and pests that have devastated our crops.
Tim Bennett added: "We know the public shares our concerns*. We need them now to join us in driving home the message to Government that the door must be closed on this very real and potentially fatal flaw in our defence system.
"Britain must learn from other countries that have successfully kept out potentially damaging animal and plant diseases and pests through stricter regulation and better enforcement of controls."
The petition will be made available at farmers' markets, shows and autumn fairs across the country and from NFU regional offices. The petition is supported by the Women's Food and Farming Union.
Notes to editors
NFU Scotland President Jim Walker and Vice President John Kinnaird launched the campaign in Scotland today. For further details contact James Withers on 0131 4724006. For information on the petition launch in Wales contact Leigh Roberts on 01792 774848.
*A survey of 1,000 people by the NFU in August 2001 found half of holidaymakers had no idea of the laws relating to the import of food and plants from abroad. Nearly 90% said they wanted more information to be made available.
Photographs of this morning's launch outside the Houses of Parliament are available from the NFU Press Office.
-ends-
                        
                                        Attachment:.
                                        message.html (text/html)

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Excellent Sue – Thanks for this! – Jane _______________________________________________________

Attachment:.
                                        message.html (text/html)

Originally from: Susan Staunton
                        

There are many WTO members for whom a valid negotiation on farm trade
is the only justification for participating in a new global
negotiation. Signals from Brussels, Tokyo, Seoul and Bern that the
name of the game must be more flexibility in farm policies, not less,
just will not do. The current regime is quite adequate to meet any
justified public health or environmental agenda.

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: Doha and the crisis in global trade: Preparations
for a new multilateral trade round are being put at risk by
unrealistic expectations and unfulfilled pledges, writes Peter
Sutherland
Financial Times; Sep 4, 2001
By PETER SUTHERLAND

We should be in no doubt; the new world trading system – which means
the World Trade Organisation – is facing the biggest crisis of its
young life. In less than three months, trade ministers from more than
140 countries will meet in Doha, Qatar, to try to accomplish what
they failed to do two years ago in Seattle: launch a new multilateral
trade negotiation. The consequences of a second failure could be
disastrous.

What is at stake in Doha is whether governments still have the will
to maintain and strengthen the necessary rule-based trade and
investment environment in which growth, development, poverty
eradication, a better environment, new jobs and, yes, improved
labour, social and political conditions can be encouraged.

I say encouraged. I do not say guaranteed. The WTO is a facilitator,
not a cure-all. It is part of the answer to many of the challenges
facing the world, rich and poor, at the beginning of the 21st
century. Yet in some ways, the difference between the foolish
activists on the streets who seek to destroy the institution and
those supposedly responsible political leaders who are prepared to
stand on the sidelines and allow the WTO to become moribund is
slight. Without a fully operational and fully relevant trading
system, economic recovery will take a longer time coming, solutions
for the problems of the world's poorest countries will be frustrated
and the many benefits global trade can bring will be denied.

That is the big picture. But looking at the preparatory process for
the Doha meeting it would be easy to imagine the stakes are
altogether less urgent or less significant. Despite claims to the
contrary, agreement on an agenda for a new trade round appears little
further forward than was the case at this stage before Seattle. The
problem is that while one failed ministerial meeting could be
regarded as an accident, a second would be a true disaster and
perhaps fatal for the WTO's credibility. It is not even clear that
the successful dispute settlement system could be sustained
indefinitely if political support for multi-lateralism among WTO
members is shown to be too weak even to make the compromises
necessary to launch a reasonably broad negotiation.

The fall-back – in some minds at least – seems to be to make the
final political decision on China's entry to the WTO the focus of
attention at Doha. That decision would be a huge step forward for the
system and for China. But China's imminent entry to the WTO, if not
accompanied by a much broader advance by the membership as a whole,
will seem a hollow achievement.

What is to be done? First we have to recognise that there are now
more active players in the game then ever before. The efforts being
made by Pascal Lamy for the European Union and Robert Zoellick for
the US to forge a transatlantic position are welcome. But, as both
trade officials point out, it will take far more to secure a
consensus to launch a round. Japan has to show leadership, as do some
of the advanced developing countries.

I do not subscribe to the notion that developing countries got
nothing out of the Uruguay Round – the record and the statistics
simply do not bear out that claim, even if it has become unchallenged
doctrine in some quarters. Bear in mind that the WTO offers
opportunities: it cannot deliver where other conditions – economic,
structural, even political – are not appropriate to encouraging trade
and investment in the first place.

But this is not to say the WTO cannot be improved in favour of poorer
nations. I find it scandalous that two years after a solid programme
of nearly 100 elements was tabled by developing countries in Geneva,
almost nothing tangible – bar some welcome market access benefits for
the poorest among them – has been agreed in response. It is just not
good enough for industrialised nations to proclaim a "development
round" when they have responded so woefully to the issues that
developing countries want addressed right now – before they accept a
further large negotiation and the inevitable new commitments that
will ensue.

Let us be clear: some of what is being demanded can be resolved only
as part of wider negotiations and some may be unrealistic. That said,
the quad countries – the EU, US, Canada and Japan – together with
other industrialised nations must deliver a worthwhile package of
"implementation" concessions in September or we can start to write
off prospects for Doha. Endless soothing words about a "development
round" have no credibility if the promoters cannot demonstrate good
faith up front; governments in poor nations can recognise empty
political spin.

My second point is that those countries that are dragging their feet
on defining the nature and objectives of the mainstream agricultural
dossier in a new round must now engage seriously in Geneva.

There are many WTO members for whom a valid negotiation on farm trade
is the only justification for participating in a new global
negotiation. Signals from Brussels, Tokyo, Seoul and Bern that the
name of the game must be more flexibility in farm policies, not less,
just will not do. The current regime is quite adequate to meet any
justified public health or environmental agenda.

Finally, let us be realistic about the breadth of the menu for a new
round. If most developing countries remain sceptical or opposed to
the full inclusion of investment and competition policy as
negotiating issues, it is pointless and patronising for Brussels to
continue to insist that such agreements would be in the interests of
the poor. If that is so, and it probably is, developing countries
will surely come to the same conclusion.

These three elements seem to me likely to make the difference between
success and failure in Doha. It is to be hoped that policymakers in
important capitals will now make the necessary adjustments to their
positions and get back to Geneva quickly and in good shape to
contribute to achieving a consensus on the agenda for a round. To do
otherwise will be to hand the smashers of the system a new victory on
a plate.

The writer is a former director-general of the WTO

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited

=========================================
"We believe consciousness is rising, including in the North, about
the inequality and insecurity globalization has brought about the
plight of the poor countries. The protests against the WTO, World
Bank and IMF were a sign of a changing atmosphere which a more
coherent Third World voice can take advantage of." -- Thabo Mbeki,
President of South Africa.

"I do not want my house to be walled on all sides and my windows to
be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about
my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet
by any of them." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Antonia Juhasz
Project Director
International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue #2
San Francisco, CA 94129
phone: 415–561–3490
fax: 415–561–7651
http://www.ifg.org

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/xYTolB/™;
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<...>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<...>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/