Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 7 • Number 43 • 17th December 2003

WTO: Members Decide On Way Forward In Doha Round

Do More

Subscribe to Bridges

* required

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector: *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

WTO Members met from 15-16 December in the last General Council (GC) session of the year. WTO ambassadors devoted most of the session to follow-up to September’s Cancun Ministerial, ultimately agreeing to reactivate the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) and the negotiating bodies under it. The mood of the meeting was reportedly positive. While the outcome of the meeting was limited and focused on procedure rather than substance, no one had expected more.

Since the collapse of trade talks in Cancun, GC Chair Carlos Perez del Castillo and WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi have been conducting informal consultations on four key issues: agriculture, industrial market access, cotton, and the Singapore issues (investment, competition, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation). However, at a Heads of Delegation meeting on 9 December, Chair Perez del Castillo concluded that Members were not yet ready torelaunch talks (see BRIDGES Weekly, 11 December 2003).

GC Chair, D-G outline progress and plan

Chair Perez del Castillo started by outlining the process since Cancun and developments so far, noting that while Members have been willing to engage in substantive discussions, differences persisted and there had been little real negotiation, nor a sense of urgency to move forward (to see the speech, visit http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news03_e/stat_gc_chair_15dec03_e.htm). He highlighted, in particular, a divergence between political statements of commitment that Members had made, and their lack of willingness to put that political willingness into play in actual negotiations. He went into more detail with regard to the state of play of the four key issues, noting areas that should be dealt with as a matter of priority. On the Singapore issues, he said the idea of unbundling was generally accepted, but there was no consensus on the way forward. Therefore, he suggested moving ahead by exploring possible modalities for trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement, without prejudice to the outcome.

On future work, he suggested all negotiating bodies should be reactivated — once their Chairs had been selected — in order to ensure the transparency and inclusiveness of the negotiating process. He said the horizontal integration of the issues remained key, and said the TNC played an important role in this regard. He also indicated that objectives and indicators for the work in 2004 would be set by the GC and TNC. He concluded by stating that while some progress had been made in getting the round back on track, "we are not there yet," and the window of opportunity to do so early next year should be used to its fullest.

The Director-General then addressed delegates, saying that while the talks are not at a point where they could resume full momentum, there was no reason to be disheartened (see http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news03_e/stat_gc_dg_15dec03_e.htm). He highlighted his meetings with key ministers, who had confirmed their commitment to the Doha round, and said that in order to move ahead, the political will shown by ministers should be translated into concrete work and flexibilities in Geneva. He noted that, "our collective task is indeed to find that elusive link between political will and concrete progress".

Members react

In response to the Chair’s report, a number of delegates expressed their support for his approach to moving forward. Many noted a lack of urgency in talks, and reiterated their commitment to the round, with some saying they wanted to see it concluded on time by the start of 2005.

Brazil, for the G-20, stressed that concluding the round — by the 1 January 2005 deadline — was in the interest of developing countries. Brazil stressed agriculture as the cornerstone and basic reason for the entire round. While welcoming the reactivation of the TNC, he called for more interactive talks and real negotiations. The US also called on Members to stop negotiating with the Chair, and start negotiating with one another. China cautioned that reactivating the negotiating groups was no guarantee for success, but that real negotiations were needed.

Mauritius, speaking for the African group, stressed the importance of a transparent process and attention to development issues. India, supported by Kenya, called for the creation of a separate body to deal with implementation issues and special and differential treatment (S&D) for developing countries.

The US said it remained fully committed to the round, and supported basing talks on the Derbez text. Bangladesh, speaking for the group of least developed countries (LDCs), said the group could accept the use of the Derbez text in most areas, but would like to see major changes in how it dealt with cotton, and some small changes in the areas of agriculture and industrial market access. India stressed the need to avoid wasting time on procedural questions and called on Members to base work on progress so far. South Africa agreed that not too much time should be wasted on procedure, and said that once movement was seen in agriculture, the rest would follow.

The EC said it had shown flexibility in its negotiating position, and called on other countries to reciprocate. The EC representative warned that without a framework for talks and concrete commitment to them, 2004 might become a lost year in the Doha round.

The US and several other countries highlighted concerns with the current draft related to industrial market access. While the US and Korea said they would prefer a more ambitious approach, China and other developing countries said they were looking for less than full reciprocity of commitments between developed and developing countries.

On cotton, the US and Japan said the issue should be dealt with as an integral part of agriculture negotiations. The African group, Benin, Burkina Faso and others felt it should be dealt with on a stand-alone basis.

On the Singapore issues, the EC said it accepted the unbundling of the issues, and said it could accept one or more issues falling outside the current negotiating structure. Bangladesh raised concern with the undue emphasis falling on the Singapore issues, and called for more focus on development issues. India supported a multilateral deal to enhance the power and abilities of customs authorities. South Africa said the Singapore issues should not hold up talks in other areas, said investment and government procurement no longer were part of the single undertaking, and opposed a plurilateral approach to the Singapore issues. Korea wanted negotiations to proceed on all four issues.

Brazil and Chile reported on the positive outcome of a recent G-20 meeting in Brasilia (see related story, this issue). The EC said the meeting it had had with the G-20 provided a good basis for further talks.

Numerous developing countries call for three Singapore issues to be dropped

Just prior to the GC meeting, Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC group and along with 15 other developing countries including China and India, submitted a communication on the Singapore issues (WT/GC/W/522, available at http://docsonline.wto.org). In the communication, the countries requested that investment, competition and transparency in government procurement be dropped. They stressed that "due to continued division over such a long period among Members on the status and substance of the Singapore issues and in the interest of early completion of this round of negotiations, we should concentrate our efforts first and foremost on issues of core competence of the WTO, namely agriculture, non-agricultural market access, services and development issues". They rejected a plurilateral approach to talks, and felt that while clarification of trade facilitation could proceed, Members are not ready to start negotiating yet.

Civil society reactions

Some civil society groups cautioned against a decision to reactivating the negotiating groups at the WTO. Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said that Members had no business discussing the Singapore issues, as their mandate had expired in Cancun, where no decision had been taken to start negotiations based on "explicit consensus". Friends of the Earth International, in anticipation of the GC meeting, said that no deal would be better than a bad deal. According to Ronnie Hall, "WTO negotiations have stalled again and again because they cannot deliver what people really need — healthy, thriving local economies everywhere and sustainable levels of natural resource use". She said "now is the time for the EU and the US to realise that they must give up their corporate-driven market-opening agenda, exchanging it for a progressive approach to developing fair and sustainable economies that work for everyone," suggesting that an independent review of the outcomes of the Uruguay round be undertaken, that the Singapore issues be rejected outright, and exported-oriented agricultural policies be replaced by a focus on food sovereignty and sustainable agriculture.

Over forty civil society groups issued a joint letter on 15 December, demanding that the WTO stay out of the food and agriculture sectors. According to the letter, a number of groups representing peasants, family farmers, fisherfolk and their supporters would like to see the concept of "People’s Food Sovereignty" embraced as an alternative to US/EU and G20 positions. Speaking on this concept, George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm Coalition, said "food sovereignty is a commonsense idea that every one can understand," adding that "the values embodied in the traditions of farm communities around the world - respect for nature, history, families and neighbours - cannot be measured in dollars or economic efficiency, and should not be sacrificed for the profits of multinational grain traders, processors, and retailers".

The civil society statement is available at http://www.viacampesina.org/art_english.php3?id_article=286

In 2004, GC Chair Perez del Castillo will spend much of the first two months on the selection process for new chairs for the various WTO working groups, after which negotiations can resume. The first GC session is tentatively scheduled for 11-12 February.

ICTSD reporting; "WTO Geneva Meeting: No Deal Better Than A Bad Deal," FOE RELEASE, 15 December 2003; "World Trade Talks to Restart, Peasants Want WTO Off the Farm," ENS, 15 December 2003.