NGO Letter to WTO Heads
9 July 2004
Author:
Third World Network
Oxfam International
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Public Services International
Centre for International Environmental Law
Dear Sirs,
We are writing because of deep concern about substantive and procedural issues relating to the "July package" now under preparation.
The Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) meeting held on 30 June revealed sharp differences of position among the members, especially between developed and developing countries. The temptation to paper over these differences in key areas of contention could lead to procedural irregularities and more importantly, to the abandonment or downgrading of substantive development concerns in the July package. For example, one delegation at the TNC meeting highlighted the inaccuracy of the Chair's report which suggested that there had been progress on services negotiations.
Agriculture
In spite of the detailed report of the Chair of the Special Session on Agriculture,
several key concerns of developing countries appear not to have been given due
prominence. This is in part due to the fact that the Non-G5* discussions have
overshadowed the normal process so far. This has prompted some members to underscore
the need to have their concerns feature prominently and in detail in the Framework
agreement. The concerns that members feel are not correctly addressed include
the net food-importing developing countries (NFIDCs)/ least-developed countries
(LDC) issue, exemptions (especially from tariff reductions) for LDCs and weak
and vulnerable countries, LDC access, long standing preferences, and Special
Products and a Special Safeguard Measure (SP/SSM).
We ourselves are worried that the interests of small farmers, especially those
in developing countries, remain largely absent from the debate. We would like
to see the elimination of all forms of support and policies that contribute
to dumping - the sale of products at prices below the cost of production. Furthermore,
developing countries should be given the right and the means to protect their
farmers from imports that threaten food security, livelihoods and rural development.
NAMA
The Chair of the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) Negotiating Group is insisting on using Annex B of the Derbez text as the basis for further work on a framework in the July package. This is despite the clear rejection of this option by many developing countries during the TNC meeting and despite the fact that it no longer reflects the political and technical realities of current work on NAMA. African trade ministers, meeting recently in Kigali, Rwanda, explicitly highlighted the inappropriateness of the Derbez text stating that the "proposals contained in the Derbez text and its annex on NAMA are in contradiction of the principle of less than full reciprocity as enshrined in the Doha mandate and as such would deepen the crisis of de-industralisation and accentuate the unemployment and poverty crisis in our countries."
We are therefore deeply disappointed with the decision of the Chair to submit Annex B of the Derbez text to form the basis of NAMA in the July package, announced during the informal meeting of the Negotiating Group on Market Access held on 8 July 2004. This blatant disregard for the articulated concerns and positions of members cannot be tolerated nor condoned.
We believe that the July package should recognise the right of developing countries to decide for themselves the appropriate rate and scope of liberalisation in non-agricultural products. Developing countries should therefore not be subjected to a non-linear formula approach, or any formula approach that would not provide them with the sufficient flexibility required for the viability and development of their industries. In this regard, they should also be allowed to choose the scope of their tariff bindings. The sectoral approach should also not apply to developing countries. Subjecting developing countries to a formula approach or a sectoral approach that would not provide sufficient flexibilities would be inconsistent with the pledge by Ministers at Doha to put development at the centre of the work programme.
SDT and Implementation Issues
Many developing country members have also registered their widespread disappointment during the TNC meeting over the marginalisation of the development issues of implementation and special and differential treatment (SDT). We share this serious concern, and ask that a remedy be found.
Many developing countries have proposed that a comprehensive work programme be set up, with clear benchmarks on what needs to be done at each stage. Their submission of TN/C/16 dated 5 April 2004 on SDT could be used as a practical guide in this respect, and for the Committee on Trade and Development to prepare its July package report and future work.
With regard to implementation issues, one member had stressed "they seem to be in an orphaned state at present." This has led some developing country members to propose that a specific negotiating group under the TNC be created to discuss the implementation issues. We support this suggestion.
Singapore Issues
On the Singapore issues, the great majority of developing countries have made themselves clear: competition, investment and government procurement should be taken out of the WTO work program completely. This position is in line with what had been offered in Cancun by the key proponent of the Singapore issues.
There should not be negotiations nor a re-starting of discussions on these issues. The removal of these three issues would be a major step forward for the WTO, as these controversial issues have divided the organisation for so many years.
Many developing countries have asked for further clarification on trade facilitation, especially with regard to the cost of implementation and who would finance these costs, and with regard to the applicability of the dispute settlement system. We are of the view that the benefits and necessity of multilateral rules on trade facilitation in the WTO are neither self-evident nor substantiated by its proponents.
Summary of substantive points
In preparation for the July package, we urge you:
o to reflect all proposals that have been submitted on NAMA, in particular those
by the developing countries
o to deal meaningfully with the SDT and implementation issues as a matter of
priority
o to address the development concerns in agriculture and allow developing countries
the policy space to pursue agricultural policies that are supportive of their
development goals, poverty reduction strategies, food security and livelihood
concerns.
o to state explicitly in the July package that the Singapore issues are dropped
from the WTO work program.
On Issues of Process
We are also concerned about the inadequate levels of transparency and participation in the current process. We believe that the exercise of drafting the July document should be done collectively and openly by members, and not by a few individuals acting "on their personal responsibility."
As pointed out by one member-state during the TNC, "several chairpersons had [in the past] made genuine and well meaning efforts to produce texts to help the negotiations forward…. But experience had shown that a text that did not "fully reflect the sensitivities and concerns" would fail to help make progress."
We would also like to remind you of our recommendations in the "Memorandum on the Need to Improve Internal Transparency and Participation in the WTO" which we presented to you (Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi) last year, in particular:
o there should be proper notice of meetings and documents distribution;
o there should be procedures for smaller, issue-based meetings;
o the role of Chairs should be to facilitate discussions among the Members;
o texts should be drawn up in a transparent and fair manner by Members. Members
must agree on the latest text, which can contain the different position of the
Members. The practice of a Chair producing a draft text "under personal
responsibility" should stop;
o there should be a fair reflection of diverse views in texts;
o decisions should not be made until all Members are technically ready;
o developed countries should be ready to resolve development issues without
exacting a new price;
o there should be adequate and appropriate time required to consider and discuss
texts;
o views of every Member must be respected in a decision involving consensus
and explicit consensus;
o meetings and schedules for meetings should be open;
o the Secretariat must maintain neutrality.
We urge you to follow the demands made by members for the negotiating process to adhere to the principles of transparency and inclusiveness. We support the request made by the African Group during the TNC meeting that the preparation of the July package should be undertaken in "an all inclusive and transparent process and it should be consensus-based. In addition, development should be a key element in all aspects of the negotiations to ensure a balanced outcome."
The July package should not be dictated by deadlines, but propelled by the ability to deliver a genuine developmental agenda.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of the above matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Non-G5 consist of the US, EU, Australia, Brazil and India