Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 5 • Number 19 • 28th October 2005

WTO Members Propose Enhanced Liberalisation of Forest and Fish Sectors

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Thailand and the US on 14 October presented a proposal to initiate sectoral negotiations for enhanced liberalisation of the forest product sector to the WTO Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) (TN/MA/W/64) (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 24 June 2005). Also on 14 October, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and Thailand submitted a proposal calling for accelerated liberalisation of trade in fish and fish products (TN/MA/W/63). Both proposals highlighted that developing countries could benefit from enhanced market access if tariffs were dramatically reduced in the sectors. They also pointed to problems such as tariff escalation — which involves higher tariffs on imports of processed products than raw products, thereby creating an additional obstacle for exports of value-added products. Moreover, the proposals suggested that trade liberalisation was consistent with conservation and sustainable development objectives, in particular arguing that forestry liberalisation would be an “important contribution in facilitating further economic development within a sector of particular export interest to many developing countries”. Liberalisation would also “increase forests’ intrinsic value and foster long-term planning focused on sustainability, providing substantial commercial, social and environmental benefits”. In response to arguments that tariffs are necessary to protect forests, the proponents argued that “sound forest policies that encourage law enforcement, good governance and sustainable forest management are far more effective tools to protect the environment than tariffs”. The papers had been submitted in advance of the 25 October meeting of the NAMA Negotating Group. However, discussions at the 25 October meeting were dominated by concerns regarding the failure to agree on the formula to reduce tariffs on industrial goods overall.

In the past, Japan (TN/MA/W/15/Add.1), Korea (TN/MA/W/6/Add.3) and Chinese Taipei (TN/MA/W/19/Add.2) have strongly resisted accelerated, across-the-board tariff liberalisation in fish and/or forest products. Japan has argued that Members should retain the flexibility to set tariffs based on their forest and fisheries managements schemes. Korea has warned that tariff elimination would provide an incentive for increased fishing efforts, which would likely lead to over-fishing in exporting countries without proper management schemes. For its part, Mauritius (TN/MA/W/21/Add.1) has raised concerns that accelerated liberalisation could lead to the erosion of preferences currently being enjoyed by a number of poor countries, in particular in sectors such as fish and fish products that are of specific interest to the preference beneficiary countries.

ICTSD reporting.