NAMA Talks Probe Non-tariff Barriers
Given the absence of progress in the Doha Round, Members have focused on ways to reduce nontariff measures that distort trade in the WTO talks on non-agricultural market access (NAMA).
The current situation in the negotiations is unclear, NAMA Chair Don Stephenson told Members on 30 March. As long as cutting agricultural tariffs and subsidies remain deadlocked, Members are unlikely to make any changes in their long-standing negotiating positions on industrial goods.
Members Discuss Specific NTBs
As one trade diplomat explained, Members have already carried out detailed mathematical calculations for the three core NAMA issues: the numbers plugged into the tariff reduction formula that will determine the depth of cuts; flexibilities for developing countries to shield some products from tariff reduction; and the treatment of unbound tariffs. With this ‘homework’ done, they know how a wide range of different figures and formulae will affect them. However, equivalent work has not been done on non-tariff barriers and sectoral liberalisation.
For instance, countries have notified several NTBs to the WTO, arguing that different standards, labelling systems, and other policies are serving to unjustifiably restrict their exporters’ market access. What they have not sufficiently done, the delegate said, is describe the new multilateral rules that they want introduced to reduce these barriers. This, in turn, has left other Members unable to fully assess how they stand to be affected by new disciplines.
Discussion started to become more specific in the last week of March, when Members looked at a variety of text-based country submissions (compiled into a single document by the Secretariat) spelling out what future rules might look like. The chair emphasised that this was not a text-based negotiation on a future agreement – such negotiations are typically the final stage – but merely a discussion.
To take one example of the NTBs under consideration, the US called for an agreement that would limit the kind of information that Members could require on labels for textiles, clothing and footwear. The EU put forward a similar paper. Under such an accord, governments would not be allowed to require clothing labels to provide any information beyond the country of origin, fibre content, washing instructions and consumer safety information. The US would restrict mandatory footwear labels to the country of origin. Many Members expressed scepticism about the proposals’ content. Argentina, Cuba and China said it was too soon for a text-based discussion.
Other proposals suggested measures for dealing with, for instance, differing standards on electronic and forestry products. Not all sought new binding agreements.
The most controversial proposals dealt with restrictions that governments place on exports (rather than imports). Japan called for creating a set of WTO rules to ensure that governments do not discriminate when granting export licences, based on the institution’s existing rules on import licensing procedures. Although the EU and Korea expressed support for the idea, countries including China, Malaysia and Kenya voiced opposition, questioning whether it fell within the market access-focused mandate for the negotiations.
The EU met with an even more unfavourable response when it repeated its long-standing call for a ban on export taxes except in emergencies. As before, many developing countries strongly rejected the proposal, including Argentina, Brazil, Bangladesh, India and Malaysia. Some developing countries place taxes on the export of certain goods, especially primary commodities, to generate revenue and promote specific kinds of domestic industrial development. Sources report that the EU hinted that Members’ responses would affect its position in other areas of the negotiations.