Roughly one fifth of the world's population currently lives - or tries to - on less than one dollar a day. That is a crude measure, but it translates into a daily grind of hunger, misery and disease, which no human being should have to endure.
Last September, at the UN Millennium Summit, world leaders resolved to "spare no effort" to free their fellow human beings "from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty". Specifically, they pledged to halve the proportion of the world's people living in those conditions by 2015.
Probably no single change would make a greater contribution to fulfilling that pledge than fully opening the markets of prosperous countries to the goods produced by poor ones.
At present, farmers in poor countries not only have to compete against subsidised food exports. They also face high import barriers. The tariffs imposed by industrialised counties on staples such as meat, sugar and dairy products are almost five times those on manufactures. The EU's tariffs on meat products peak at 826 percent.
Also, the more value developing countries add to their products, by processing them, the higher the tariffs they face. In Japan and the EU, for instance, fully processed food products face tariffs twice as high as those on products in the first stage of processing.
In other words, the already industrialised countries, while preaching the virtues of free and fair trade, are practising protectionist policies which actively discourage poor countries from developing their own industries.
Such barriers are huge obstacles for developing countries to overcome. Yet even in these conditions their export earnings are over $1500bn.
Obviously, they could earn much more if the barriers were lifted. The minimum net gain would be over $100bn - more than twice the amount of annual aid flows. Over time, as producers adjust to the new export opportunities, the gain could be much greater. And besides the direct value of export earnings, these opportunities would attract an increased flow of foreign direct investment (FDI). At present, this is less than $200bn a year, and goes mainly to a few of the most successful developing countries.
The least developed countries (LDCs), which are home to more than ten per cent of the world's population, are at present missing out almost entirely on global trade and investment. Between them they receive only $12bn in annual aid flows, only $25bn in export earnings, and a paltry $5bn in FDI.
In two months' time the UN will hold a conference in Brussels, devoted specifically to the problems of these 49 countries. Market access will be at the top of the agenda.
Its importance in the struggle against poverty was clearly recognised by last year's summit. World leaders called on the industrialised countries to adopt, preferably by the time of the Brussels conference, a policy of duty- and quota-free access for "essentially all" exports from the LDCs.
I am delighted to see that the EU, which is hosting the Brussels conference, has taken the lead in responding to that call. On Monday, by adopting the "everything but arms" initiative, it agreed to give full duty- and quota-free access to its markets for all products from the LDCs, other than weapons.
To reach this decision, Europe's leaders had to overcome resistance from powerful producer lobbies within the EU. They also had to reassure African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which at present enjoy preferential access to the EU market, that they will not suffer unduly from the concession made to other LDCs.
But they got their priorities right, and by so doing gave a vital political signal. Their decision shows that Europe really does want a fair international trade system, in which poor countries have a real chance to export their way out of poverty.
This should give all of us new confidence in the ability of the multilateral trade system, and the World Trade Organisation, to respond to the needs of all countries, not only the richest and most powerful. As such, it augurs well for a new round of trade negotiations, which this time must really be a "development round".
Of course, the EU's decision by itself will not abolish world poverty. Its direct economic impact will be quite small, since most LDCs already have relatively favourable access to the EU's market.
Also, at present the LDCs have neither the surplus of exportable goods, nor the production capacity, to take immediate advantage of new trade opportunities. They will need substantial investment and technical assistance in order to expand their production.
But giving them access to the market is a crucial first step. I appeal to the other industrialised countries - starting with the US, Japan and Canada - to follow Europe's lead, without restrictive provisions or reservations. In the battle to rid the world of abject and dehumanising poverty, the Brussels conference must mark a turning point.
Last September, at the UN Millennium Summit, world leaders resolved to "spare no effort" to free their fellow human beings "from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty". Specifically, they pledged to halve the proportion of the world's people living in those conditions by 2015.
Probably no single change would make a greater contribution to fulfilling that pledge than fully opening the markets of prosperous countries to the goods produced by poor ones.
At present, farmers in poor countries not only have to compete against subsidised food exports. They also face high import barriers. The tariffs imposed by industrialised counties on staples such as meat, sugar and dairy products are almost five times those on manufactures. The EU's tariffs on meat products peak at 826 percent.
Also, the more value developing countries add to their products, by processing them, the higher the tariffs they face. In Japan and the EU, for instance, fully processed food products face tariffs twice as high as those on products in the first stage of processing.
In other words, the already industrialised countries, while preaching the virtues of free and fair trade, are practising protectionist policies which actively discourage poor countries from developing their own industries.
Such barriers are huge obstacles for developing countries to overcome. Yet even in these conditions their export earnings are over $1500bn.
Obviously, they could earn much more if the barriers were lifted. The minimum net gain would be over $100bn - more than twice the amount of annual aid flows. Over time, as producers adjust to the new export opportunities, the gain could be much greater. And besides the direct value of export earnings, these opportunities would attract an increased flow of foreign direct investment (FDI). At present, this is less than $200bn a year, and goes mainly to a few of the most successful developing countries.
The least developed countries (LDCs), which are home to more than ten per cent of the world's population, are at present missing out almost entirely on global trade and investment. Between them they receive only $12bn in annual aid flows, only $25bn in export earnings, and a paltry $5bn in FDI.
In two months' time the UN will hold a conference in Brussels, devoted specifically to the problems of these 49 countries. Market access will be at the top of the agenda.
Its importance in the struggle against poverty was clearly recognised by last year's summit. World leaders called on the industrialised countries to adopt, preferably by the time of the Brussels conference, a policy of duty- and quota-free access for "essentially all" exports from the LDCs.
I am delighted to see that the EU, which is hosting the Brussels conference, has taken the lead in responding to that call. On Monday, by adopting the "everything but arms" initiative, it agreed to give full duty- and quota-free access to its markets for all products from the LDCs, other than weapons.
To reach this decision, Europe's leaders had to overcome resistance from powerful producer lobbies within the EU. They also had to reassure African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which at present enjoy preferential access to the EU market, that they will not suffer unduly from the concession made to other LDCs.
But they got their priorities right, and by so doing gave a vital political signal. Their decision shows that Europe really does want a fair international trade system, in which poor countries have a real chance to export their way out of poverty.
This should give all of us new confidence in the ability of the multilateral trade system, and the World Trade Organisation, to respond to the needs of all countries, not only the richest and most powerful. As such, it augurs well for a new round of trade negotiations, which this time must really be a "development round".
Of course, the EU's decision by itself will not abolish world poverty. Its direct economic impact will be quite small, since most LDCs already have relatively favourable access to the EU's market.
Also, at present the LDCs have neither the surplus of exportable goods, nor the production capacity, to take immediate advantage of new trade opportunities. They will need substantial investment and technical assistance in order to expand their production.
But giving them access to the market is a crucial first step. I appeal to the other industrialised countries - starting with the US, Japan and Canada - to follow Europe's lead, without restrictive provisions or reservations. In the battle to rid the world of abject and dehumanising poverty, the Brussels conference must mark a turning point.