The former director-general of the World Trade Organisation on aid for trade, life after WTO and what to do about China
*What have you learnt in your career about the importance of trade, aid for trade, and the removal of trade barriers?*
I believe trade opening can work for development but under a number of conditions. For example, if I'm an African producer of cut flowers, I will have duty-free access to the US, Europe and Japan. But if those countries enforce pesticide standards that I can't match, I won't be able to sell my flowers. So the issue is how a developing country can access the necessary network of labs, Euro standards, and checking procedures that get these flowers to the market. And that's not rocket science, it won't cost zillions of dollars. It's a question of $4-$5m. If this network isn't there, trade doesn't happen. If they are there, the multiplier on the amount of trade - on the revenue for farmers - is absolutely gorgeous.
This is, in my view, where the focus should be now. If I try to dissect what works and what doesn't in this part of development assistance and support – i.e. aid for trade - it's cross-cutting coalitions that work best, coalitions between businesses, civil society, local authorities, and national authority. Network building is the solution for the future.
*The **World Trade Organisation** is by most public perceptions a very top-down, very command-and-control organisation. Is that an inaccurate perception?*
First, it depends on who you talk to. If you look at the world as a whole, most people will agree that trade opening works for development. If you look at the numbers, the countries who have opened up trade have developed more quickly than those who have not. So I don't think that's the point. The point is: how can trade opening translate into revenue, growth and poverty reduction? Opening trade is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and so more attention has to focus on how you make it work.
This is why the big thing is aid for trade, which I started in 2005 with the World Bank and the European Development Fund; bilateral European donors and others. But small structures, like the International Trade Centre and TradeMark East Africa, have in my view much better results on the ground.
*Can you share any best practices that the rest of the development community could replicate or learn from?*
I think that initiatives such as TradeMark East Africa – which is a UK, Belgium and Nordic-sponsored initiative – have done well because they are extremely 'on the ground'. Asia, Cambodia for example, with different political systems and strong political coordination has also had results. It's a different model.
*What can we expect from you post-WTO? What are you working on next?*
I have to finish lots of things that I had no time to do when I was chief of WTO. I'm working on a big report with the Oxford Martin School on challenges for the future, and how you break this terrible gap between the knowledge of challenges and our political capacity to address them. I have a few academic occupations in the US, Asia and Europe, and then next year I'll have a fresh look at what I want to do. It's a period of transition.
*In the time you've been at the WTO, what is your proudest achievement? Conversely what are the changes you had wanted to see but didn't?*
During this period, the WTO has done well with its core mission – keeping trade open. Trade is more open than it was eight years ago, it has benefited most developing countries, and we've resisted the protectionist temptation during the 2008 crisis. So, overall, it has played its role of being an insurance policy against protectionism.
What we haven't done is update the rule book. Notably to make it more development-friendly, such as removing agricultural tariffs and agricultural subsidies which distort trade against developing countries' comparative advantage. Also, industrialised, rich countries and emerging countries are not agreeing on what the rule of the game is for emerging countries. We know the rule of the game for rich countries, we know the rule of the game for poor countries. But WTO members have not made up their mind whether China is a rich country with many poor, or a poor country with many rich. Depending on how you answer this question, your trade regime will be different.
*The people who head up international organisations are often depicted as nation-neutral, as if they don't belong to a particular country. But you're a Frenchman. What are your reflections on your country's position to development?*
Most of what France does in this field now goes through Europe. In the EU, what member states do best bilaterally is a part of what the union as a whole does. True, France has a focus on Africa for historical reasons – which I think is justified – but overall I think the EU approach to development should, in the future, make Africa the priority. Not that there aren't issues in India, China, Latin America or central Asia, but I think the strategic priority for Europe should be Africa.
*There is the whole debate of Africa rising or falling, which view do you side with?*
Rising. 100%.
Pascal Lamy was director-general of the WTO from September 2005 to August 2013. Eliza Anyangwe caught up with him at the Convergences World Forum in Paris.
*This content is brought to you by **Guardian Professional**. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network* Reported by guardian.co.uk 13 hours ago.
*What have you learnt in your career about the importance of trade, aid for trade, and the removal of trade barriers?*
I believe trade opening can work for development but under a number of conditions. For example, if I'm an African producer of cut flowers, I will have duty-free access to the US, Europe and Japan. But if those countries enforce pesticide standards that I can't match, I won't be able to sell my flowers. So the issue is how a developing country can access the necessary network of labs, Euro standards, and checking procedures that get these flowers to the market. And that's not rocket science, it won't cost zillions of dollars. It's a question of $4-$5m. If this network isn't there, trade doesn't happen. If they are there, the multiplier on the amount of trade - on the revenue for farmers - is absolutely gorgeous.
This is, in my view, where the focus should be now. If I try to dissect what works and what doesn't in this part of development assistance and support – i.e. aid for trade - it's cross-cutting coalitions that work best, coalitions between businesses, civil society, local authorities, and national authority. Network building is the solution for the future.
*The **World Trade Organisation** is by most public perceptions a very top-down, very command-and-control organisation. Is that an inaccurate perception?*
First, it depends on who you talk to. If you look at the world as a whole, most people will agree that trade opening works for development. If you look at the numbers, the countries who have opened up trade have developed more quickly than those who have not. So I don't think that's the point. The point is: how can trade opening translate into revenue, growth and poverty reduction? Opening trade is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and so more attention has to focus on how you make it work.
This is why the big thing is aid for trade, which I started in 2005 with the World Bank and the European Development Fund; bilateral European donors and others. But small structures, like the International Trade Centre and TradeMark East Africa, have in my view much better results on the ground.
*Can you share any best practices that the rest of the development community could replicate or learn from?*
I think that initiatives such as TradeMark East Africa – which is a UK, Belgium and Nordic-sponsored initiative – have done well because they are extremely 'on the ground'. Asia, Cambodia for example, with different political systems and strong political coordination has also had results. It's a different model.
*What can we expect from you post-WTO? What are you working on next?*
I have to finish lots of things that I had no time to do when I was chief of WTO. I'm working on a big report with the Oxford Martin School on challenges for the future, and how you break this terrible gap between the knowledge of challenges and our political capacity to address them. I have a few academic occupations in the US, Asia and Europe, and then next year I'll have a fresh look at what I want to do. It's a period of transition.
*In the time you've been at the WTO, what is your proudest achievement? Conversely what are the changes you had wanted to see but didn't?*
During this period, the WTO has done well with its core mission – keeping trade open. Trade is more open than it was eight years ago, it has benefited most developing countries, and we've resisted the protectionist temptation during the 2008 crisis. So, overall, it has played its role of being an insurance policy against protectionism.
What we haven't done is update the rule book. Notably to make it more development-friendly, such as removing agricultural tariffs and agricultural subsidies which distort trade against developing countries' comparative advantage. Also, industrialised, rich countries and emerging countries are not agreeing on what the rule of the game is for emerging countries. We know the rule of the game for rich countries, we know the rule of the game for poor countries. But WTO members have not made up their mind whether China is a rich country with many poor, or a poor country with many rich. Depending on how you answer this question, your trade regime will be different.
*The people who head up international organisations are often depicted as nation-neutral, as if they don't belong to a particular country. But you're a Frenchman. What are your reflections on your country's position to development?*
Most of what France does in this field now goes through Europe. In the EU, what member states do best bilaterally is a part of what the union as a whole does. True, France has a focus on Africa for historical reasons – which I think is justified – but overall I think the EU approach to development should, in the future, make Africa the priority. Not that there aren't issues in India, China, Latin America or central Asia, but I think the strategic priority for Europe should be Africa.
*There is the whole debate of Africa rising or falling, which view do you side with?*
Rising. 100%.
Pascal Lamy was director-general of the WTO from September 2005 to August 2013. Eliza Anyangwe caught up with him at the Convergences World Forum in Paris.
*This content is brought to you by **Guardian Professional**. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network* Reported by guardian.co.uk 13 hours ago.