WTO Ministerial Section • Volume 5 • Number 38 • 6th November 2001

Ministerial Texts Make Their Way To Doha, But Great Disparities Remain

Do More

See also

Ministerial Texts Make Their Way To Doha, But Great Disparities Remain The 31 October-1 November General Council session provided delegations an opportunity to offer comments on the 27 October draft Ministerial texts released by General Council Chairperson Stuart Harbinson (see BRIDGES Weekly, 30 October). Complaints from both developed and developing country Members, who felt these texts still did not meet their needs sufficiently, marked the session. While the EC detailed its perception of deficiencies, it was a number of developing countries that expressed their discontent most vehemently - both on substantive and procedural grounds.

Since the release of the first drafts on 26 September, both Harbinson and WTO Director General Mike Moore have engaged in numerous consultations and informal meeting with delegates. As such, it was hoped that the second draft would come a long way in bridging Members’ seemingly divergent perspectives — something many trade sources said is needed if the upcoming Ministerial Conference in Doha is to move the trade liberalisation agenda forward.

Procedural concerns

At the meeting, Harbinson announced that he and the Director-General did not plan to revise the draft texts further and that they intended to transmit them to the Ministers "on [their] own responsibility". Harbinson indicated that "[as] far as the process in Geneva is concerned, it is our judgment that we have taken it as far as we possibly can, and that further consultations will not take us any closer to improving the texts".Several developing country Members criticised Harbinson’s decision, questioning whether he was allowed to forward the texts without approval by the General Council. India, following up on claims made against the lack of divergent views expressed in the texts, pointed out that the texts should not be sent "without reflecting the concerns and objections from a large number of countries". Some countries, such as Tanzania (representing Least-Developed Countries) and India, called on the Chairperson to at least attach a covering note that highlighted the points of disagreement and the rationale for the text included in the drafts. Harbinson agreed to compile a note to be sent directly to Ministers in Doha without further consultations at the WTO.

Covering notes

The two covering noted (available at http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/relevantdoc.htm), one each preceding the draft Ministerial Declaration and the draft Decision on Implementation-related Issues, go to fair lengths to outline the long process of consultations involved in drafting the texts and note that some areas were "more fleshed out than others". They also indicate the Chair and Director-General’s belief that the direct transmittal of the texts to Doha without approval from the GC is "in line with the approach adopted from the beginning". However, there is scant mention of specific areas of disagreement. The draft Declaration note makes but one reference to "others [expressing] a preference for a text which would have reflected more fully the diversity of views on the various elements." The draft Decision note goes so far as to state that it is "our assessment […] that most of the elements contained in the draft Decision are acceptable to all Members". Some sources indicated that the level of ambiguity of these letters would not satisfy developing countries’ requests, and perhaps would fuel a sense of exclusion, rather than effectively communicating their concerns regarding the text.

Developing countries react to the drafts

Several developing country Members expressed their frustration and disappointment that their concerns had not been taken into account in the latest ministerial texts, not as secondary options or even as bracketed text (i.e. for further negotiation). Instead, according to Egypt, the so-called ‘development round’ "appears to be mere lip- service". Particularly strong criticism was voiced by not-often vocal Nigeria, which described the revised draft Declaration as "one-sided", adding that it "accommodates in total the interests of developed countries while disregarding the concerns of the developing and least- developed countries". India echoed these sentiments. "If we have no say in setting the agenda, why should we be there," asked India’s Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran.Pakistan, historically one of the more outspoken Members on the need to resolve outstanding imbalances before broadening the agenda, pointed out that while the draft Declaration did not adequately reflect their position, "in the spirit of pragmatism and compromise, [Pakistan is] prepared to accept the approval of the draft Decision [at the GC] without any further change". They went even further by offering to accept that proposals listed in Annex III (Compilation of Outstanding Implementation Issues, to be addressed after Doha) "could constitute part of a Single Undertaking if such a Single Undertaking is decided upon in the context of other negotiations to be initiated at Doha".

Regarding the Singapore issues (i.e. competition, investment, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation), developing countries retained their strong resistance to bringing new issues to the WTO before the old issues are resolved. Citing agreements made at the 1996 Singapore Ministerial that these issues would only move to negotiations under "explicit consensus", which is clearly not present, they expressed surprise and disappointment that the revised draft Declaration no longer included the option for further study of these issues. Instead it now calls for negotiating modalities (frameworks) to begin at the Fifth Ministerial. Trade sources say the removal of the ‘further study’ options has especially enraged developing country Members as it further reinforces their belief that the latest drafts have only moved further in favour of developed country interests - who see these issues as critical elements of a comprehensive new round. Once again India’s Maran noted resolutely that "[we] stand firm in opposing negotiations on new issues even if we are isolated".

Developing countries, including Nigeria, Tanzania, Pakistan and Egypt, also voiced their frustration that — despite repeated requests by almost all developing countries (making up over 80% of the WTO’s membership) — references to core labour standards and the environment were still included in the text. Again, not only were these references not removed, in the case of labour standards they had according to Egypt been "substantially strengthened". In the case of the environment, provisions had been marginally weakened, but broadened in scope by removing references to sustainable development in Par. 27.1 while including references to labelling and trade-related intellectual property rights.

EC position

The EC did not share the developing countries’ negative view of the draft texts, but rather stated "we are moving decisively towards a real development agenda" and that the draft texts recognised the needs and interests of developing countries "comprehensively". "The development dimension of the WTO is the one aspect that has been comprehensively covered in every paragraph of the text," said EC Ambassador Carlo Trojan. He did voice disappointment and concern, however, that many of the EC demands had not been included in the texts. In particular, he said "the environment approach falls far short of what would be acceptable to the EC in an overall package" as it simply calls for continuation of CTE working programme. Similarly, the text on agriculture was unacceptable. Reference to investment and competition were also "a big disappointment", he said, noting the text is "unclear" and "ambiguous".

US position

US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick called on other WTO Members to "cooperate and compromise", or the Ministerial Conference could fail. "Given the size and innovation of the US economy, we can be an attractive partner for others who seek to liberalise trade." Furthermore, "[as] much as developing countries may need debt relief and development aid, a prerequisite for their long-term growth is full participation with the global economy" and that "Doha is the best opportunity we will have in the next 10-15 years to expedite this integration. It is an opportunity neither we nor the developing world can afford to miss." Finally he added that if the WTO falters, the US would revert to regional and bilateral negotiations.

"US officials criticise WTO draft Declaration on trade remedy rules," Inside US Trade, 2 November 2001; "USTR says other nations must ‘compromise’ or WTO meeting in Doha could end in failure," WTO Reporter, 31 October 2001; ICTSD Internal Files.