Doha round must deliver commerce with a conscience

Every five seconds a child dies from hunger and malnutrition - more than six million this year. It is a silent holocaust of indifference in a world now so rich in food that a billion people are overweight. Paradoxically, the European Union, Japan and the US compete to see which can lavish greater subsidies on its farmers to produce even more food, smothering agriculture in the developing world in the process.

In theory, at least, the World Trade Organization (WTO) should address some of these imbalances and offer long-term economic hope for millions of hungry children. The so-called Doha Round bills itself as 'pro-poor', but the 'poor' were not at the negotiating tables in Doha, nor will they be in Hong Kong.

It is true that Doha's promise to dismantle rich countries' subsidies for agricultural goods and open markets could bring significant benefits for tens of millions of developing country farmers. But a poorly designed agreement could worsen the plight of the world's hungriest families.

How? Some WTO members, especially the EU states, believe that in-kind food donations distort world trade. In practice, we are talking about rations of a few kilos of beans, wheat and cooking oil that poor people in refugee camps, feeding centres and schools need to survive. Opponents charge that gifts of food rather than cash help wealthy countries dump food surpluses. A ban on in-kind donations of food has been proposed.

The reasoning is flawed and the impact could be devastating. A Zambian AIDS widow with six malnourished children cares little if the food aid she receives is purchased or provided in kind. What matters is whether her children have to beg for food to survive.

Cash is definitely a more flexible instrument than donations in kind. And it is a good idea when donors' cash buys food in developing countries. I applaud the EU for promoting it. But last year three out of four tons of food aid were purchased in the donating country - essentially in-kind donations. Will the aid keep coming if we outlaw food donations? I doubt it. Who suffers then?

The UN distributes half of the world's food aid. Most of this aid is given to the UN World Food Programme (WFP) as in-kind donations. If trade negotiators restrict that, tens of millions who rely on the WFP for food could miss out. The consequences of not getting enough to eat are low productivity, illness and even death. Officials at the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which struggles with chronic shortfalls of food in refugee camps, and WFP have both expressed alarm about restrictions on food donated through the United Nations.

Proposals to ban in-kind food donations come as the Food and Agriculture Organization at the UN reports that the number of hungry people is rising. After significant progress in the 1980s and 1990s, the number of hungry people in developing countries is now rising by 6 million a year. The World Health Organization tells us that undernutrition is still the world's biggest risk to health. More people die from hunger and malnutrition than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

Food aid is already declining sharply, dropping more than 25% last year. Even for high-profile crises in Darfur or Pakistan, aid organisations struggle to raise the funds and food needed to save lives. Funding for the millions of people who die from chronic hunger, unseen on CNN or the BBC, is even more scarce. There is clearly not enough food aid to go around. Is it reasonable for the EU and US to squabble over how it is given? Why haven't they made a proposal at the WTO to guarantee more food aid when there is not enough for people in Niger, Darfur and Guatemala? This debate is not about the hungry, but about commercial advantage.

Suggestions that donors will simply replace their food donations with cash are naive. And while some new food donors - like Kenya, India and Vietnam - can offer commodities, they cannot make equivalent donations in cash.

WTO members claim to respect the basic principles of the United Nations. What more basic human right is there than the right to food? The United Nations is also about giving everyone a political voice - yet the hungriest of the world are not represented at the WTO rich man's club. Last year, 45% of all food aid went to countries which are not WTO members. Poor countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia simply have no say in the negotiations.

Is it fair to curb food rations for famished mothers and children who play no role in commercial markets in the name of economic liberalism? Food aid accounts for just 0.3% of global cereal production. With so many other things wrong with agricultural trade, why focus on an issue so incredibly marginal, yet so vital to millions of hungry people?

The Doha Round should not discourage food aid. We need the WTO to promote commerce with a conscience - or millions of hungry children could pay the price.

• Jean Ziegler is the UN special rapporteur on the right to food.

Major commentary feature in which the author, who is the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, suggests that a poorly designed agreement at the World Trade Organisation's 2005 Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong could worsen the plight of the world's hungriest families. Article is part of a European Voice Special Report: 'WTO negotiations'.

WTO: The WTO: Ministerial Conferences: The Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference, Hong Kong, China, 13-18 December 2005 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/min05_e.htm

---