The World Trade Organisation, which is designed to ensure a level playing field to all countries so that every country has an opportunity to earn more through enterprise and innovation, is yet to develop a strategy which can foster trade which is not only free but also fair. The Seattle Round of WTO should keep in view what John Gray of the London School of Economics recently wrote, and I quote, ``there is nothing in today's global market that buffers it against the social strains arising from highly uneven economic development within and between the world's diverse societies. The swift waxing and waning of industries and livelihoods, the sudden shifts of production and capital, the casino of currency speculation - these conditions trigger political counter movements that challenge the very groundrules of the global free market''.

During the last 20 years, global domestic product rose from $10 trillion to over $30 trillion. Most of the additional $20 trillion has gone to just 15 countries, most of which fall under the category of industrialised countries. In contrast, the increase in population by an additional 1.5 billion during these 20 years has taken place mostly in developing countries. There is now increasing acceptance of the need to give the highest priority to poverty eradication in the global political agenda.

The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) as well as many bilateral development assistance agencies of industrialised nations have announced that they plan to accord poverty eradication the highest priority.

According to ADB, about 900 million of the world's poor (ie, those who survive on less than $1 a day) live in the Asia-Pacific region. Nearly one in three Asians is poor. South-Asia, one of the poorestsub-regions in the world, now has more than half a billion poor people. Both the World Bank and ADB have identified micro-enterprises supported by micro-credit as the most effective pathway for the economic empowerment of the poor.

It is in this context, the Seattle Round of World Trade negotiations assumes particular significance. If the industrialised countries are sincere about their resolve to contribute effectively to poverty eradication, the Seattle Round provides a unique opportunity to develop global trade policies which can contribute significantly to the elimination of poverty and hunger.

What are the pathways open for achieving a sustainable end to hunger and poverty? In India, the rural on-farm and non-farm sectors employment will have to provide livelihoods for nearly 70 per cent of the population. Poverty can be overcome only if there is value addition to the time and labour of the poor.

Such value addition takes place when there is a transition from unskilled and skilled work. Such atransition implies the transfer of large numbers of men and women from the primary sector of farm operations to the secondary and tertiary sectors of economic activity. There are thus opportunities for the growth of green belts and food processing industries in villages adjoining towns and cities.

To confer on small-scale producers the power of scale in processing and marketing, cooperatives or other methods of group cooperation can be organised. The dairy sector has shown how a cooperative model of organisation of millions of small producers can take us to the first position in the world in the area of milk production. The textile and dairy industries provide livelihoods to over 100 million women and men. In addition, these sectors provide jobs in urban areas for many more millions of individuals engaged in the marketing sector.

Scientific agriculture involving precision farming methods also provides opportunities for farm graduates to take to a career of self-employment by organising a wide range ofservices including the setting up of computer-aided and Internet-connected knowledge centres. Although we occupy the first or second position in area and production in a number of agricultural commodities, our position in terms of yield per hectare is very low in the same crops. Thus, opportunities for harnessing the vast untapped production reservoir available even with the technologies now available on the shelf, are great. All these opportunities will vanish, if our markets are flooded with cheaper imported farm products like pulses, milk powder and processed foods.

It is not commonly realised that the import of pulses and oilseeds is an index of the extent of neglect of dryland farming. Thus, indiscriminate agricultural imports of commodities grown in dry farming regions will perpetuate the stagnation of dry farming and thereby the poverty of the rural families living in such areas.

It is in the above context that the trade policies relating to the import of agricultural commodities and processed andsemi-processed foods have to be assessed. Policies which lead to the destruction of the livelihood opportunities of the poor will obviously be anti-poor and pro-unemployment.

Therefore, the Seattle Round should by agreement between industrialised countries, who in public pronouncements and bilateral aid polices are committed to poverty eradication, and developing countries where rural farm and non-farm employment holds the key to fighting poverty, should develop trade policies with a ``human face''. As far as India is concerned, the import of policies in the farm sector should be based on an analysis of their impact on the livelihood security of the poor.

There is no level playing field in agriculture. Our infrastructure for sanitary and phytosanitary measures is poor. Our investment in post-harvest technology in most agricultural commodities is a minute fraction of the investment already made in industrialised countries. In several parts of the country, the road and/or the roof still remain the primaryplaces where the harvested crops are dried. Grain drying is uneven and inadequate with the result mycotoxins are often detected, particularly in crops like groundnut.

Therefore, if we are to take advantage of the additional opportunities for agricultural exports which may occur as and when industrialised nations eliminate their huge agricultural subsidies, we should not lose any further time in improving post-harvest technology and sanitary and phytosanitary facilities.