Seattle 1999 • Volume 2 • Number 6 • September 1998

WTO General Council Hears Country Positions on Post-2000 Negotiations

Do More

See also

The Special Session of the WTO General Council from 24 to 25 September provided a first occasion for countries to state their positions and priorities with regard to the upcoming round of multilateral trade negotiations. In part, the agenda of those negotiations is set by the WTO agreements themselves: both the Agreement on Agriculture and the General Agreement on Trade in Services call for further trade liberalisation negotiations to start by end of 1999 and 2000, respectively. The Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights also specifies that provisions relating to the patentability of plant varieties and life forms, as well as damage resulting from ‘non-violation’ intellectual property agreements must be reviewed before the end of 1999. Several other reviews of existing agreements and their implementation are also scheduled around the turn of the century. The main question is whether WTO Members will agree to go beyond this ‘built-in agenda’ and launch a comprehensive round of trade liberalisation negotiations comparable to the Uruguay Round.

The initial statements aired in September indicate that there is a long way to go before agreement is found on the scope of the new negotiations. India made the most detailed case for limiting the scope of the negotiations to the built-in agenda and a thorough review of the implementation of the WTO Agreements, particularly provisions concerning ’special and differential treatment’ for developing countries. Like Egypt, Sri Lanka and other developing countries, it singled out the implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, technical barriers to trade, services liberalisation, food security issues in agricultural liberalisation and the Dispute Settlement Understanding as areas where special treatment clauses had not been honoured. Egypt stated that it would ‘not accept negotiations or consideration of any extra-trade related issue such as labour standards.’ India and Egypt also highlighted movement of natural persons as a priority in the future work programme. Echoing concerns of African and other deloping countries, both emphasised that the implementation burden of the Uruguay Round Agreements was already high for developing countries, and that trade liberalisation should not contribute to further marginalisation of developing and least developed countries.

The European Union was the most vocal advocate of a full-blown Millennium Round: ‘As in the Uruguay Round, we envisage future negotiations as a single undertaking, with a single timeframe as the best means to achieve results of interest to all Members. In our view, we should seek to conclude within a relatively short period of time - say, for example, within three years.’ Other countries expressing support for a comprehensive round that would cover further reductions of industrial tariffs, and possibly investment and competition policy, included the Czech Republic (speaking on behalf of a number of East and Central European countries), Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Brazil and Japan. The United States and Canada said that while they were still consulting with domestic constituencies on the scope of the new negotiations, they were opposed to long talks. ‘We should explore whether there is a way to tear down barriers without waiting for every issue in every sector to be resolved before any issue in any sector is resolved,’ the American Ambassador said. Canada suggested that consideration be given to ‘packaging groups of issues together for concluding negotiations at different times’ to allow an ‘early harvest’ of sectoral deals to be made and implemented before the conclusion of broader negotiations. Australia - which stressed the importance of achieving ‘very significant’ industrial tariff reductions - said negotiators ’should be open to early harvests within the framework of a single undertaking.’

Environment and transparency

India and the EU were the only ones to touch upon trade and environment. Together with Canada, both also mentioned transparency in their interventions. ‘Until the developed countries have proved the genuineness of their intentions by engaging themselves in commitments in the area of international environmental conventions, no weight could be given, in our view, to their professed interest in safeguarding the environment through action limited to the trade and environment interface,’ the Indian statement said in part. The statement continued: ‘As regards new issues to be raised by Members, such as the proposals for initiating a new round of reduction of industrial tariffs, a High Level initiative in the sphere of Trade and Environment, an initiative to introduce greater transparency in the WTO functioning, inter alia, through greater involvement of “stakeholders”, or the proposal for launching of a comprehensive round of trade talks, it is our perception that these initiatives are premature [...]. Let us first address implementation problems and the built-in agenda.’

The European Union, on the contrary, defended the proposed highlevel trade and environment meeting as a ‘useful, freestanding exercise aimed at moving the trade and environment policy debate forward at political level’. It denied wishing to ‘devise new means to restrain trade through the environmental backdoor’, but stressed the advantage of clarifying such issues as the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements or product labelling. The EU also highlighted the role of civil society as a ’systemic issue’ for the WTO, together with coherence in international economic policy-making, the relationship between trade and sustainable development and the need for cooperation between the WTO and the ILO on relevant trade and labour issues. Canada stressed the importance of taking into account the views of civil society when developing its detailed positions on issues, and tabled a proposal on transparency and document derestriction. Canada proposes that the WTO move quickly on deresticting draft agendas (airgrams); official minutes (’M’ series); Secretariat working documents (’W’ series); and Members’ formal contributions (’W’ series), unless the Member in question objects (the EU and the United States made similar proposals at the 15 July General Council meeting, see Bridges Vol.2 No.5, page 1). Canada also proposes that the WTO’s regular budget be increased to cover enhanced outreach to civil society in the form of symposia and workshops. Document derestriction, and possibly other transparency issues, are on the agenda of the General Council’s regular session on 14 October.

Talks on the scope and timetable of the post-2000 negotiations will continue in monthly special sessions of the General Council, as well as informal meetings of Heads of Delegations. The negotiations agenda will be finalised during the third WTO Ministerial Meeting, scheduled for 30 November to 3 December 1999 in the United States.