In the main, the conference membership was divided in two camps, the rich developed economies and the developing ones.

One critical factor in the economic demise was the insistence on U.S. and the European Union of maintaining substantial subsidies for their farmers, backed by strong support by business lobbyists from these countries. These lobbyists are ready to reap advantages and opportunities from trade liberalisation, as a means of gaining an even greater level of direct foreign investments in these lesser-developed economies. They were equally disappointed at the collapse of the conference.

On the other hand the LDCs insisted on the removal of the massive subsidies paid by U.S. and member countries of the European Union to their farmers, thereby giving increased market opportunities by the LDCs in these lucrative markets of the rich countries. Under these extreme economic convergences "the twain could never meet".

LESSONS LEARNT

In reality, one should never forget that the WTO, as an institution, is designed to foster marketing arrangements within the global market. Its mandate is to foster trade liberalisation in all its forms, and as such, its scope is market-driven and not necessarily development-driven. In its present form, in reality the WTO therefore is not mindful of the peculiarities or economic idiosyncrasies of developing economies or even LDCs. The stark reality of this was the recent ruling against the preferential treatment received by Caribbean banana producers by the said WTO, when countries including Mexico and the U.S. (the U.S. is not a banana producing country) raised objections. Notwithstanding the fact that such a ruling would cause economic and financial ruin of these Caribbean nation states that continue to depend on banana export as a major source of economic and financial well-being, as well as a major foreign exchange earner.

In the second instance, WTO by nature is market-driven, and at present the world economy is moving away from commodities that are primary products to manufactured goods, and even more so to finished goods that attract lower prices in a globalised economy. As such, the WTO is therefore seen as a market-driven institution. For this reason the WTO is criticised for giving greater support to those Asian economies that are low-cost producers.

For its own relevance and continuity, the WTO as an institution, must begin to be mindful of the needs of both developed and developing economies, and strike a balance such that both groups will benefit within the global economy. It must examine those factors and institutional arrangements that are militating against developed economies; some of these include factor inefficiencies in land, labour, capital and enterprise, or even the underdeveloped nature of some aspects of direct foreign investments in developing economies. Before global trade liberalisation can be an economic reality there is the need for the WTO to begin identifying and addressing some of those inequalities that continue to militate against developing economies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR JAMAICA

Within the global economy, Jamaica is constrained by two key factors:

It continues to be a producer of primary products (sugar, bananas, citrus, bauxite and alumina ore, among others) with relatively little value added;

The country is small in terms of geography, population, and economic base.

For Jamaica to survive in the changing global economy in which exist WTO-type economic and financial institutions, then Jamaicans must begin to seriously think of having greater economic alliances with other developing economies or becoming a member of some type of economic bloc.

Such arrangements could give greater negotiating and economic clout in dealing with the realities of the globalised economies.

As a country, we need to begin thinking about those types of institutional arrangements to foster joint marketing of the resources of the CARICOM region, including commodities such as sugar, bananas, and even tourism.

Consideration should also be given to the joint procurement of raw materials and spares. These would provide economies of scale in the form of better-negotiated prices and better terms and conditions for the exports of the region as a whole. When these tangible economic and financial results begin to accrue to Jamaicans, then Jamaica will begin to support the notion of economic integration within the CARICOM region.

In the second instance, as a country we need to seriously begin to change our mode of economic development. We need to move into increasing the gains from value added from our primary products. For example, in terms of its mode of production deliverables, the sugar industry in Jamaica has not progressed considerably since slavery, we continue to produce sugar in its crystal form despite the fact that the market is dictating the demand for a liquid sweetener. The housewife will convert the crystal sugar in liquid form, to sweeten the coffee.

The manufacturing companies, and specially those in the food drink/beverage industry continue to convert sugar in its crystal form to make a drink. It is doubly expensive in energy consumption terms, for the country to have the sugar industry convert liquid sugar to crystal, while the manufacturing companies reverse the process by converting the said crystal sugar to its required liquid form. In terms of agri-business we need to explore the option of producing and selling sugar in its concentrated form.

Secondly, we continue to export banana as a commodity. We need to move our energies into agri-business by processing banana flour, and other economic derivatives from banana, at least the 'banana chips' sub-sector continues to expand and create business opportunities for the micro and small business sector.