• Forests, crucial to the livelihoods of over 1 billion of the world's poorest people and essential for stabilising our climate. By threatening forests, WTO proposals in NAMA jeopardise all this and economies world wide [3].
• Agriculture, where intensive agricultural practices and liberalised international trade are leading to social disruption, environmental damage and even hunger, particularly in developing countries. Small scale farmers are particularly vulnerable to market opening pressures and are often forced from their land when it is converted to plantations or export crops;
• Global fisheries, minerals, water and biodiversity, are all threatened to an alarming degree.

• non-agricultural market access (NAMA)
• general agreement on tariffs and services (GATS)
• trade in intellectuals property rights (TRIPs), and
• agriculture

as well as continued deficiencies in process and transparency. It highlights why, without significant improvements, any deal struck in Hong Kong will fail to deliver either poverty reduction or the environmental protection upon which it relies.

Campaigners say the package on the table now demonstrates that the current talks are not the "development round" promised by WTO members. They see it as little more than the aggressive ambitions of companies from the UK, EU and others, who hope to gain increased market access in the expanding markets of the developing worlds. UK and EU support for such an approach betrays public rhetoric on poverty alleviation, climate change and sustainability made in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, at the G8 summit and elsewhere.

Friends of the Earth's Trade spokesperson Eve Mitchell said:

"The WTO is taking the world in the wrong direction. It threatens to increase poverty by accelerating the degradation of the natural world that we all rely on. The World Resources Institute, United Nations and World Bank all agree that tackling poverty should begin with natural resources. The UK and EU have got to do better than repeat to us that they will 'bolt on' the environment after a trade deal is done - it simply doesn't work like that."

Peter Hardstaff, Head of Policy at the Worlds Development Movement added:

"The closer we get to the end of this WTO round, the further we get from an agreement that could benefit the poor. It would be better to see no deal in Hong Kong than the kind of deal the EU and US are seeking."

Matthew McGregor, Senior Campaigns officer at War on Want, said:

"Even by the WTO's low standards, this deal would be a devastating blow for the world's poor. By reneging on their previous promises to put the interests of developing countries first, the EU and US will lock in poverty around the world. The current deal would be a bonanza for the world's corporations, but a disaster for the world's poor."

Sarah Waldron, Trade Campaigner at People Planet said:

"The draft text for Hong Kong makes a mockery of the idea that this is a development round and leaves the UK Government exposed to the charge of hypocrisy. For example, the deal already wrapped up on TRIPs reinforces a position which effectively restricts access to essential medicines. Success at Hong Kong cannot be measured by whether `a deal' is reached, but by whether it is a deal that prioritises the interests of people and the environment over that of multinational corporations and rich countries. That is not what is on the table."

Greenpeace's Chief Policy Adviser, Charlie Kronick, said: "Our government and the EU must not be allowed to sell out the environment at Hong Kong. They must halt the NAMA negotiations in order to prevent further harm to poor people, forests and oceans. Only if government agree a complete social and environmental review of the global trade system can Hong Kong be called a success."

Notes for Editors:

[1] For a copy of the full statement, please contact Friends of the Earth's Trade Campaigner, Eve Mitchell

[2] UK government, Securing the Future: Delivering UK sustainable promises actions and Challenges, March 2005. Among these is the "promise" that DTI and others will develop a "one planet economy" that does not shift our environmental burdens onto other countries. However, the government's trade policy continues to betray these goals, calling into question their commitment to the Strategy. Friends of the Earth requests for the information providing the foundation for their assertion that further liberalisation will produce the right result, and to explain fundamental contradictions in the government's 2004 White Paper on trade, have yet to be supplied.

[3] Friends of the Earth's report Can't see the Forest for the Trees, published 16 November 2005.

The World Resources Institute, United Nations and World Bank all agree that, 'The building blocks of a pro-poor growth strategy begin with natural resources.' World Resources 2005 - The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystmes to Fight Poverty. United Nationas Development Programme, United Nationa Environment Programme, The World Bank World Resources Institute

Joint Press Release From Friends Of The Earth, War On Want, World Development Movement, Greenpeace And People Planet