Today started with meetings with both commission representatives and Alan Johnson, Britain's minister for trade, which gives MEPs the opportunity to get first-hand information about the state of play of the negotiations, and a chance to try, at least, to influence them, writes Caroline Lucas.
Mr Johnson began by expressing a mixture of bemusement and indignation that the EU is increasingly being seen by the developing countries, the media and the NGOs as, in his words, "the villain of the piece". With considerable justification, I'd say. I put it to him that there were very good reasons for this growing, if unflattering, perception – not least the commission's aggressive strategy of forcing market opening on poorer countries.
I'm pleased that more people are beginning to see through the EU's hypocritical position. The more its double-speak on development is exposed (and that's part of my reason for wanting to be here), the greater the possibility that it can be changed.
My first real challenge of the day, however, was finding my way to the conference centre across a maze of flyovers, underpasses, and bridges. My sense of direction is non-existent at the best of times, and finding my way round this city has been challenging, to say the least – not helped by the fact that roads are frequently closed at short notice, as police divert people away from potential demonstrations. Later I try to join one of the protests, but – since more and more roads are being suddenly closed off - find myself instead uncomfortably wedged between two lines of Hong Kong police, complete with batons and riot shields, whose actions are being directed by two burly British policemen.
Anyway, I finally make it to the conference centre, talk to some journalists, meet some NGOs, and squeeze myself into the opening ceremony. During a slightly less than riveting moment, I busy myself with some primary research. Leafing through the large list of registered delegates, I decided to make some comparisons between the different sizes of the negotiating teams here in Hong Kong. It made for some sobering conclusions. The EU, admittedly including all 25 member states and the Commission – but still just one negotiating position (in theory at least) – boasts over 800 people here, while the US has just over 350. While you're still trying to absorb those figures, spare a thought for Djibouti, with one negotiator, Gambia with two, Burundi with three, or Mauritania with four.
Little wonder, then, that the agreements reached at meetings like these are so heavily stacked against developing countries, when many of them can't even afford to send a proper negotiating team to the ministerials to argue for their interests. And yet another reason to completely transform the way trade policy is made, and replace the WTO with a fairer, more democratic and transparent institution.
The day ends with a frustrating debate, at which a World Bank representative tries (and, gratifyingly, fails) to make the case that trade liberalisation is self-evidently good for the poor. I have to say that those of us with a critical, anti-globalisation stance do have all the best arguments!
Take this, for example. According to one UN study, "in almost all developing countries that have undertaken rapid trade liberalisation, wage inequality has increased, most often in the context of declining industrial employment of unskilled workers and large absolute falls in their real wages, on the order of 20-30% in Latin American countries."
Or this: new projections on the gains from world trade come to the conclusion that in the Doha scenario of trade reforms, developing country gains would amount to less than a penny-a-day per capita, with 70% of all gains going to developed countries.
So much for a development round, then.
Caroline Lucas is the Green party MEP for south-east England. Read her blog post from yesterday.
