First, food and fuel prices skyrocketed, causing serious problems for families in the developing world. Now, the worldwide credit crisis has delivered yet another serious blow to the economic outlook for low and middle-income countries.

At the start of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meeting, World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that the triple threat is potentially a “tipping point” that would “push poor people to the brink of survival.” World finance and development ministers urged wealthier governments not to ignore aid commitments in the midst of their own economic woes. The World Bank has developed a list of 28 of the countries most vulnerable to the triple threat of increased food and fuel prices and the financial crisis.

Not suprisingly, 13 out the 28 countries on this list are in Africa. But sub-Saharan Africa may avoid the worst of the global financial meltdown. A recent article in the Economist points out that the region has a number of things working in its favor. These include a highly regulated banking sector that is relatively unlinked to the Western financial system and natural resources that are drawing investment from countries like China, India and the United States.

Back in January, two IMF staffers noted that investor confidence in Africa was on the rise. Still, it's hard to argue that Africa can continue to make as much progress without outside help, like the promised $350 million more in agricultural loans from the 185-country-owned World Bank. “The stark reality," Zoellick says, "is that developing countries must prepare for a drop in trade, capital flows, remittances, and domestic investment, as well as a slowdown in growth."

WTO talks fail after seven years of negotiations with mixed reception. Photo: Strauber (flickr)

World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in Geneva collapsed last week, ending the hope of many for a new global deal to open markets, reduce farm subsidies and strengthen the international trading system.

This meeting was the latest attempt at talks, which began at Doha, Qatar, in 2001. Supporters of the Doha round, including the World Bank and European Commission, say that a deal would have been a defense against the protectionist strategies they fear will occur as economies struggle globally.

Now they worry that Doha’s failure hurts the credibility of the WTO, which has traditionally determined and enforced the rules of international commerce. The current failure may also damage other international agreements, including those related to global warming. Some economists predict that after the failure of these negotiations, hopes of small countries for gaining better access to consumers in the developed world may be dashed — another deal won’t come for years, if ever.

But others say a Doha conclusion would have been terrible for developing countries.

From the beginning of the Doha Round, through Cancun, Hong Kong to Geneva, the definition of "successful" negotiations has depended on where you sat at the trade table. Of course the USA and EU have some of the largest farm subsidies in the world, and refused further farm subsidy cuts, despite developing countries insistence on protecting their countries' food self-sufficiency from foreign dumping of subsidized agricultural surpluses during a time of rising food prices and global food shortages.

Deborah James, Director of the International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) says of Doha, “The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival.”

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates that only corporations in developed countries would have profited from the Doha Round, leaving developing nations with most of the cost and none of the benefits. Bolivian president Evo Morales warned, "The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."

Morales' fears were not unfounded as the U.S., India and China reached an impasse in the failed talks over measures to protect farmers in developing countries from competition from imports.

The global press has responded by exaggerating the conflict and attempting to assign blame for the failed talks. Representatives from the countries involved have joined the fray, trying to spin the outcome to paint themselves in a favorable light.

In some articles, China and India are being blamed for their overconfidence in their new development and therefore too aggressive in advancing their interests to reach a compromise. In others articles, rich industrial powers like the United States and the EU are being blamed for refusing to share with the new powerhouses and refusing to compromise, even though they no longer have the power to push deals through unilaterally.

What is clear is that what is needed now is a new approach for global trade agreements that fairly promote both sustainable commerce and communities worldwide.

Interesting article about migration from one low-income country to another. In 2005, two World Bank researchers determined that an estimated two in five migrants traveled to urban areas of relative wealth outside rich countries.

One reason why outsiders pay little attention is that most poor migrants do not move far. Roughly half of all South-East Asian migrants are thought to have remained in the neighbourhood, and nearly two-thirds of migrants from eastern Europe and Central Asia have stayed in their own region. Nearly 70% of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa remain on their continent.

Migration experts believe climate change is a key contributor to such high migration rates:

“There is a direct impact on migration. You see people leaving sub-Saharan Africa in search of more habitable land,” says Mr Ameur, the minister for Moroccans abroad.