Please
note that contact information for the organisers of NGO workshops during
the Ministerial is listed at the end of this Special Report.
EFFECTS OF TRADE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
On
19 May, WWF International presented the methodology it is developing
for assessing the environmental impacts of trade agreements. Participants
agreed that the impacts were difficult to quantify, not least because
in many instances the exact cause of an observable effect is hard to
pinpoint. For instance, in developing countries experiencing negative
effects due to agricultural liberalisation, is it the WTO Agreement
on Agriculture that is responsible for those effects? Or World Bank
structural adjustment policies, or IMF conditions for loans? Or autonomus
domestic policies? A Filipino NGO representative pointed out that in
his country, deregulation and privatisation started well before the
WTO Agreement, causing farmers a dramatic drop in sugar and corn prices,
threatening the livelihood of some 400,000 smallholders and leading
to increasing conversion of land use from food production to export
crops. Market-driven and export-oriented development policies have also
put badly needed land-reform programmes on hold. Although impacts such
as these are readily detectable, a WWF case study of the effects of
trade liberalisation on the Philippine corn sector concludes that a
reliable methodology is still lacking for measuring the economic, social
and environmental costs of trade liberalisation. At the meeting, WWF
tabled a draft proposal for environmental assesment of trade agreements
which is available from them. Please see contact information below.
GENDER
Bringing
forward a joint message about the effects of trade liberalisation on
women, several women’s civil society organisations, campaigning
groups and unions -- some of them members of the Informal Working Group
on Gender and Trade (IWGGT) -- met often during the Ministerial. The
IWGGT was formed at the first WTO Ministerial in Singapore in 1996,
and is facilitated jointly by the International Coalition for Development
Action and WIDE (Network Women In Development Europe). Women’s
caucus meetings every morning and several workshops highlighted the
need for gender perspective analysis of WTO policies, as well as increased
co-ordination of government, intergovernmental and civil society trade
and gender work on all levels. The working group hosted a reception,
released press statements and issued a Joint Declaration calling for
further gender analysis of WTO structures and policies, as well as increased
NGO North-South coalition- building on gender and trade issues. Several
studies focusing on women's role and condition in trade were released
by the participating organisations.
LABOUR
Labour
voices were loud and many at the WTO Ministerial NGO meetings from 18
to 20 May, 1998. Facilitated by SOLIDAR -- an alliance of NGOs with
links to trade unions and social democratic parties -- and the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), workers unions organised
a preparatory session, workshops on labour standards and NGO- Labour
alliances, daily briefings and press statements. They released a multilingual
info-kit on workers rights and the WTO, and distributed reports on child
labour and key ILO Conventions. The session on 'Labour Standards, Trade
and Development' was attended by over 60 civil society representatives
from more than 25 countries. Speakers included representatives of trade
unions in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Their campaigns for a social
clause in the WTO and for social provisions in the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment rally around the message 'workers rights are human rights'.
Speakers focused on the social impacts of trade liberalisation and unregulated
capital speculation in Thailand, Peru, Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe, including
worsening working conditions in export processing zones, protests and
price increases in Asia, loss of rights to organise, bargain and be
free from bondage or discrimination. The session on NGO-Trade Union
cooperation and alliances built on grassroots, national and international
cooperation among development and social welfare NGOs and workers unions.
It was agreed that on trade and investment issues, increased co-ordination
and campaign solidarity amongst natural allies in the majority world
was urgently needed.
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION/GLOBAL GOVERNANCE/WTO PARLIAMENT
A workshop
convened by the Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations examined
the initiative of establishing a WTO Parliament in the light of the
trade body's increasing role as a 'focal point of global governance'.
While participants agreed that a legislative structure along the lines
of the European Parliament was a distant goal, they concluded that there
was scope for approaching parliaments in several countries through national
NGOs, with the aim eventually garnering government support for the concept.
Contacting international associations of parliamentarians might offer
another avenue. Short of a parliament with legislative powers, an interim
goal might be to form a parliamentary group with just an advisory role.
Some participants voiced concern over NGO representation if the WTO
were to rely on the parliament only for interaction with civil society.
Calling the project 'interesting but ambitious', a government representative
pointed out the difficulty of gathering the necessary resources to support
the meetings and infrastructure needs of a dynamic parliament. One participant
proposed that a 'cross-cutting' parliament could monitor other multilateral
commitments besides the WTO.
During the Ministerial Meeting and the 50 Year Anniversary celebrations,
many calls for increased interaction between the WTO and civil society
were made by government and inter-governmental leaders ranging from
President Clinton to Renato Ruggiero. On their side, NGOs held several
meetings around the issue, resulting in a decision to develop a collective
message on transparency in the WTO, to be forwarded to the General Council
before it takes up the review of the WTO's document restriction policy
on 18 July. Participating organisations will offer their input and disseminate
the proposed message to their constituencies prior to finalising the
text. (For participation in a proposed consultation process aimed at
the production of this collective message, please contact Miguel Jimenez-
Pont at ICTSD)
In addition to a more expedient and transparent document distribution
system, access to WTO dispute settlement proceedings through open hearings
and submissions such as amicus briefs has been a priority for many citizen’s
groups for a number years. As the US has announced its intent to seek
such changes during the upcoming review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding,
several civil society groups now feel there is a window of opportunity
for significant changes. However, support from all WTO member governments
must be sought.
Another much-discussed point was possible permanent NGO accreditation
to the WTO along the lines of many UN agencies. It was generally felt
that such accreditation would offer a more equitable solution prior
to setting up a standing consultative mechanism such as the proposed
contact group consisting of representatives of the WTO Secretariat,
member states and NGOs. The WTO currently grants observer status to
other intergovernmental bodies who request it, but accredits non- governmental
organisations only for specific events such as the Ministerial Meetings
or consultations on the Secretariat's initiative. Even then, the secretariat
is not under an obligation to arrange such consultations. The current
WTO accreditation system only applies to the event at hand and the criteria
remain ad-hoc and, by and large, vague. Several models from the UN system
were examined as a basis for NGO-WTO relations. Many NGOs made the point
that it was now up to the Secretariat to produce a policy and a scheme
for developing and implementing Article V of the agreement Establishing
the WTO which calls for relations with non-governmental organizations.
Participants also highlighted the contrast between the sound and democractic
proposals for public participation contained in the original Havana
Charter (the 1948 document creating the International Trade Organization
out of which the GATT/WTO system was born) and the undisputedly closed
nature of today's system.
COMPETITION
POLICY
On
20 May, ICTSD, CUTS (India) and Consumers International (CI) hosted
a meeting on Competition Law and International Trade. Representatives
of the Intellectual Property and Investment Division of the WTO secretariat,
as well as of UNCTAD, made presentations and served as resource persons
during the meeting. Presentations were also heard from the representatives
of CUTS and CI. Participants discussed developments in the field of
trade and competition policy at the WTO, in particular the working group
which is currently examining the issue. It was emphasised that the working
group had no mandate to negotiate in this area. The key points before
the working group relate both to private and to public sector policies.
Issues include the impact of state monopolies, exclusive rights and
regulatory policies on competition and international trade; the relationship
between the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and
competition policy; the relationship between investment and competition
policy; and the impact of trade policy on competition.
It was pointed out that the EC and its members have championed the idea
of a new agreement on competition policy, while the US position is less
clear, partly due to divergent views among different US government agencies.
Participants also noted that there was a diversity of viewpoints amongst
Asian and African countries, while a number of Latin American countries
were committed to the importance of competition policy. For several
of these countries, such policy is central to their reform and privatisation
process. An UNCTAD study on benefits for developing countries of competition
policy was also highlighted.
A representative of CUTS pointed out that while the main goals of competition
policy were economic efficiency and consumer welfare, public interest
might conflict with either of these goals. He mentioned a case study
which showed how much Australian consumers had suffered from privatisation
in that country. He also pointed out that competition policy is broader
than a country’s competition laws. One factor might be the degree
of independence enjoyed by a country's competition board.
Participants in the workshop recognised the complexity of the issues
involved in debates around trade and competition policy but also recognised
that competition policy is a key area for the development of a better
multilateral trading system. It was suggested that a strong multilateral
framework on competition policy could be a more desirable alternative
to multilateral agreements on investment that do not place rules and
disciplines on predatory behavior of economic agents.
DEVELOPING
COUNTRY ISSUES
Third
World Network (TWN) organised three workshops during the Ministerial.
The first was held at the beginning of the Ministerial and focused on
"Key Issues Facing the WTO Ministerial Conference." NGOs generally
felt that no new trade liberalisation agreements should be signed before
the effects of the Uruguay Round Agreements for developing countries
are clearly understood. These effects are not yet fully measurable since
developing countries were given a "grace period" allowing
them to implement many WTO agreements gradually over time. Concern was
raised about the social and environmental effects of the TRIPs Agreement,
as well as about future WTO agreements on agriculture, competition policy
and investment.
On 19 May, TWN held a workshop on "How the IMF and its Programme
of Financial, Trade and Investment Liberalisation Contributed to the
Asian Economic Collapse." It was stated at the workshop that in
the recent Indonesian and East Asian crisis, the IMF was part of the
problem and not the solution: IMF-supported policies of liberalising
capital markets caused an exodus of money from the Asian countries hit
by the crisis. A number of speakers commented on how in their view the
IMF disempowers people, as well as governments from the South, and said
that they were surprised Southern governments were not more outspoken
about this. Several ideas for working to ensure that the IMF follows
less harmful policies in the future were put forward. The representative
of WWF-USA described some US NGO activities aimed at making the IMF
more accountable, and the limited success achieved so far. Another,
more long- term, idea was to support adoption of the so- called "Tobin
tax", which would tax international financial transactions.
The third TWN workshop took place on 20 May. It was entitled "The
Future of the WTO: Defining Issues and NGO Activities". Speakers
provided an analysis and critique of what had happened during the Ministerial.
First, the WTO failed to invite the Secretary General of the United
Nations to speak at the conference although the UN was the institutional
cradle of the WTO. The process by which the draft ministerial declaration
was written was also scrutinised. It was suggested that a better process
would involve trade ministers from the very start and that it is the
role of civil society to question their ministers at the national level
on progress in the process.
The TWN criticised the notions of non-discrimination and national treatment
as promoted by the WTO, saying that countries with different levels
of development should not in fact be treated equally by the multilateral
trading system because poor countries cannot compete on equal grounds
with rich ones. The special and differential treatment granted to developing
countries in the implementation of WTO agreements is insufficient and
a greater handicap must be granted.
In a workshop organised by the Association for North-South Campaigns
of The Netherlands (INZET), almost 40 civil society organisations and
several government delegates met to discuss the needs of the least developed
countries (LDCs) in world trading. A presentation by INZET outlined
disadvantages faced by LDCs in Geneva, including lack of mission staff,
policy backup from their capitals and analysis which focuses on their
interests. INZET emphasised key issues for developing countries including
full free market access, bound zero tariff arrangements, rules of origin
restraints, coherence between the EU Common Agriculture Policy and other
EU foreign policy toward LDCs, support from international bodies and
civil society, and a WTO agenda with more emphasis on LDC interests.
The workshop brought forward positive proposals from a High Level Meeting
on Integrated Initiatives for Least Developed Countries Trade Development,
held in Geneva in October, 1997.
The second half of the agenda was hosted by Amsterdam's Wemos, and covered
consumer protection in the North and South. They suggested ‘healthy
trade’ agenda items in the WTO such as increased transparency and
inclusion for consumers' organisations in document drafting, dispute
settlement and in conferences, committees and meetings concerning standards.
They also brought forward ideas for the Codex Alimentarius and national
governments. The debate which ensued included interventions from Jordan,
India and Tanzania, highlighting the need for North-South co-operation
and for a trading system which serves the interests of diverse development
models.
DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT
An
18 May briefing convened by WWF International looked at three recent
dispute settlement rulings as an introduction to the review to be conducted
before end-1998 on the WTO dispute settlement proceedings (see related
article in April-May Bridges, Vol. 2, Issue #3).
The WTO recently ruled that the US import ban on marine shrimp caught
with nets not equipped with turtle excluder devices (TEDs) violated
GATT provisions, causing a significant back-lash against trade liberalisation
in the US conservation community. A Southern representative pointed
out, however, that effective sea turtle protection depended on much
more than TED-use: in some mechanised shrimp fisheries up to 15 tonnes
of fish are reportedly dumped for every tonne of shrimp landed. Most
of this by- catch, including sea turtles, is thrown back to the sea
either dead or dying. Rather than fight for obligatory world-wide TED-use,
the representative of the New Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science,
Technology & Ecology called for support to a total ban on destructive
marine technologies such as shrimp trawlers and fishing vessels equipped
with purse-seine nets, as well as destructive forms of industrial aquaculture.
The Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stressed that
the renewal of President Clinton’s fast-track authority depended
largely on the Administration’s inclusion of environmental concerns
in its trade negotiation mandate. Among other priorities, CIEL called
for a serious effort to bring processing and production methods (PPMs)
within the scope of international trade agreements (the WTO, the Free
Trade Area of the Americas and Transatlantic Economic Partnership, for
instance). CIEL argued that the panel ruling introduced a new trade-based
‘threshold test’ for the use of the environmental exceptions
allowed under Article XX. WWF International concurred, adding that the
ruling constituted a violation of international environmental law, and
contributed to a growing resistance to trade liberalisation at the global
level, akin to the civil society opposition that has for the time being
halted negotiation on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment within
the OECD.
Amongst participants who shared this view was Oxfam, which highlighted
the economic and social consequences of the WTO's condemnation of EU's
preferential treatment of banana imports from African, Asian and Caribbean
countries belonging to the Lomé Convention, saying that the withdrawal
of the preferences would mean ‘imminent destruction’ to some
200,000 Caribbean banana growers and result in a 50 percent drop in
export earnings. According to Oxfam, the ruling will subordinate a ‘transparent
agreement’ between the EU and the ACP countries to the interests
of multilateral corporations. He called for a change in WTO rules in
favour of 'special and differential treatment for small and vulnerable
economies highly dependent on a single commodity', as the present category
of least-developed countries (LDCs) had grown meaningless with the wide
variation of income and export capacity between LDCs and other developing
countries.
The Community Nutrition Institute drew some conclusions from the Appellate
Body ruling that the EU’s import ban on beef treated with growth
hormones was not justified because of lack of scientific evidence that
such meat could damage human health. The Community Nutrition Institute
proposed the following reforms to WTO's handling of cases involving
public health issues: placing the burden of proof on the party challenging
the health standard; making it explicit that the SPS Agreement establishes
floors, not ceilings, to health standards; deferring to other intergovernmental
organisations/experts in the field of public health rather than GATT
law; and acknowledging the appropriateness of the 'precautionary principle'
in public health- related cases.
TRIPs
Several
workshops were held on and around the upcoming review of Article 27.3
(b) of the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights.
This article allows countries to generally exempt plants and animals
other than micro-organisms from patentability, but requires that new
plant varieties be protected either by patents or 'effective sui generis
systems'. The Article must be reviewed in 1999.
A workshop organised on 19 May by Genetic Resources Action International
(GRAIN) and the GAIA Foundation focused on the development of sui generis
systems of plant variety protection in the context of the TRIPs revision.
Among the questions examined were the definition of sui generis systems
and the role of NGOs in the TRIPs review. Participants felt that NGOs
should seek to ensure that the revision does not result in generalised
patenting of life. They also stressed that NGOs should keep searching
for a form of protection in line with the objectives of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD): conservation and sustainable use of biological
resources, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of
biological diversity and traditional knowledge. Rather than accept patents
on a uniformly commercial and individual basis, NGOs should lobby governments
to develop legislation that takes into account the interests of all
stakeholders, including those of indigenous communities.
A workshop organised by IUCN-The World Conservation Union on 18 May
sought to highlight the links between the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the global trade regime--particularly TRIPs--as well as develop
guidelines for NGO action. Among possible negative impacts of trade
on biodiversity are unsustainable wildlife harvesting, the propagation
of alien species, and other consequences of trade and production capacity
expansion, including infrastructure and transportation. Feeding the
benefits of biodiversity exploitation to local communities offers the
main positive potential of the trade and biodiversity interface. NGOs
could develop indicators, assessments, models or guidelines on issues
such as sustainable production/well- managed harvesting, alien species
and genetically modified organisms, sui generis systems and subsidies,
as well as a range of cross-cutting issues in order to clarify what
can and cannot be done under each regime. Further work is needed to
reach a consensus on the potential conflict between the CBD’s requirement
to equitably share benefits arising from the use of biodiversity and
traditional knowledge and the WTO interpretation of TRIPs. IUCN is currently
carrying out case studies on the compatibility of the trade regime and
environmental objectives regarding the forestry section in Chile, fisheries
in West Africa and intellectual property rights in India.
ICTSD and the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) convened
a workshop on 19 May on the interface between TRIPs and sustainable
development. An official from the WTO Divion on Intellectual Property
served as resouce person during the meeting. Starting with the revision
of Article 27.3(b), participants looked at the issue from a wider perspective
than biodiversity conservation, including potential impacts of biotechnology
patenting and the TRIPs requirement for obligatory patenting of pharmaceutical
products. It was mentioned that the latter had vast potential consequences
for countries such as India where current IPR legislation excludes pharmaceutical
and agricultural products, as well as for countries which maintain a
high production of relatively cheap medicine protected by patents in
other markets. In this context, participants discussed the effect of
patenting in price formation, and the public health implications of
the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement. On the whole, they emphasised
the need to define the limits and rights between intellectual property
rights and the public domain, and to reach a more equitable balance
between patent-holders' rights and obligations. The urgency to further
discuss these issues before the 1999 review of article 27.3(b), and
to involve governments in these debates, was also stressed.
AGRICULTURE
ICTSD's
20 May workshop on "Trade, Agriculture and Sustainable Development"
looked at the social, economic and environmental effects of implementation
of the WTO Agriculture Agreement, the work of the Committee on Agriculture
and prospects for and views on upcoming negotiations. An official from
the WTO Agriculture Division, and representatives from the Resource
Centre for Peoples Development (Philipines), the Protestant Farmers
Association (Germany) and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands,
made presentations and served as resource persons to the meeting. The
WTO Agriculture Committee has embarked on an informal "analysis
and information exchange process" between governments. The work
of the Committee has helped clarify which domestic agricultural policies
belong to which of three "boxes": green (acceptable), yellow
(borderline), and red (in violation of GATT). In addition, policies
have also been placed in a blue box for measures that might normally
be in the yellow box but are allowed as an exception. Participants observed
that there is a need for clear definition of "blue box policies",
which might be allowed in support of smaller economies or for environmental
protection.
At a workshop held over the previous weekend, NGOs had identified food
security, sustainable development, a more just trade regime and more
justice in international agriculture as key issues (see also report
in Weekly Trade News Digest No.18). The workshop recommendations included
creating a global food security net for exchange of information and
ideas; moving on labelling and standard setting; responding to the WTO's
"boxes system" by improving the sustainable development box
so that subsidies can be used for environmental aims; creating a "bread
box" for low- income food deficit countries; and revising the WTO
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures for better monitoring
of the Codex Alimentarius.
The workshop debated whether taking parts of agriculture out of the
WTO would or would not be the answer to the problem; how bringing down
barriers in developed countries is key, and the opportunities for developing
countries and importing countries in the next round. It was mentioned
that some developing and Cairns group countries fear that -- due to
internal EU difficulties in agreeing on opening up agriculture trade
-- any EU proposal to come before the WTO would be non- negotiable.
One NGO participant pointed out that in terms of environmental protection,
the EU might be in a position to serve as "environmental good guy"
and counterbalance the Cairns group and the USA.
A group of US agriculture groups – including the US Dairy Foods
Association, the Pork Producers Council, the National Farmers' Alliance
and the American Sugar Alliance – held a meeting on 19 May, during
which they expressed their support for the WTO and, in particular, for
speeding up agriculture trade liberalisation.
WTO
MINISTERIAL WORKSHOP CONTACT INFORMATION
CIEL
- Center for International Environmental Law: Matthew Stilwell, B.P.
21, 160a Route de Florissant 1231-Conches, Geneva, Switzerland, Tel/Fax:
41 22 789 0738, Email: cielms@igc.apc.org, Website: http://www.econet.apc.org/ciel/
Consumers' Choice Council: 1367 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300, Washington
D.C., USA, Tel: 202 785 1950, Fax: 785 8702, Email: alex@igc.org
Consumers International: 24 Highbury Crescent, London N51 1RX, United
Kingdom, Tel: 44 171 226 6663, Fax: 44 171 354 0607, Email: jdurai@consint.org
CUTS - Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment:
D-218, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India, Tel: 91 0 141
202 940/ 201 849, Fax: 202 968 / 203 998, Email: CUTSJPR@JP1.VSNL.NET.IN,
Website: http://www.cuts.org/
GAIA Foundation: 18 Well Walk, Hampstead, London NW3 1LD United Kingdom,
Tel: 44 171 435 5000, Fax: 431 0551, Email: gaiafund@gn.apc.org
GRAIN Genetic Resources Action International: Girona 25, pral. E-08010
Barcelona, Spain, Tel: 34 3 301 1381, Fax: 34 3 301 1627, Email: grain@gn.apc.orf
Friends of the Earth US: Mark Valliantos, 1025 Vermont Ave, NW, Third
Fl. Washington, DC 20005-6303, USA, Tel: 202 783 7400, Fax: 202 783
0444, Email: foe@foe.org, Website: http://www.foe.org/FOE
ICDA – International Coalition for Development Action: Eva Haxton,
Rue Stevin 115, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: 32 2 230 0430, Fax: 32
2 230 5237, Email: eva.haxton@engelska.uu.se, sky15291@skynet.be
ICFTU - International Coalition of Free Trade Unions: Guy Ryder, 46
avenue Blanc 1202 Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: 41 22 738 4204, Fax: 738
1082, Email: guy.ryder@geneva.ictfu.org
ICTSD - International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development:
Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, Geneva Executive Centre, chemin des Anemones
13, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 979 9492, Fax: 979 9093, Email:
ictsd@iprolink.ch, Website: www.ictsd.org
IUCN - The World Conservation Union: Mark Halle, Geneva Executive Centre,
chemin des Anemones 13, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: 41 22 979 9492,
Fax: 979 9093, Email: mrk.halle@iprolink.ch
INZET / WEMOS: Keizergracht 132/1 1015CW Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
Tel: 31 20 627 3339, Fax: 627 3839, Email: admin@inzet.nl
National Wildlife Federation: Barbara Bramble, John Audley, 1400 16th
St. NW Washington, DC 20036, USA, Tel: 202 797 6600, Fax: 202 797 5486,
Email: bramble@nwf.org, Website: http://www.nwf.org/international
SOLIDAR: 28 Rue le Titien, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: 32 2 743 0573,
Fax: 743 0589, Email: 100664.2557@compuserve.com
Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations: Christophe Bellmann, chemin
des Epinettes 10, CH-1007 Lausanne, Switzerland, Tel: 41 21 616 1360,
Fax: 617 4352, Email: infosud@fastnet.ch
Third World Network: 228 Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia, Tel:
60 4 226 6728, Fax: 60 4 226 4505, Email: twn@igc.apc.org, twnpen@twn.po.my
Transnational Institute: Myriam Vander Stichele, Paulus Potterstraat
20, NL-1071 DA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: 31 20 662 6608, Fax:
31 20 675 7176, Email: tni@worldcom.nl
WWF - The World Wide Fund for Nature: Charlie Arden-Clarke, Avenue de
Mont-Blanc CH - 1196 Gland, Switzerland, Tel: 41 22 364 9337, Fax: 41
22 364 0640, Mobile: 079 326 8762, Email: caclarke@wwfnet.org, Website:
http://www.wwfnet.org/
Civil Society at WTO Ministerial
WTO MINISTERS GEAR UP FOR MORE DEBATE
ON NEW TRADE TALKS
WTO
trade ministers agreed to hold next September a special session of the
WTO General Council in order to draw up recommendations on the future
work program, including a possible new round of trade talks. According
to the ministerial declaration, the General Council is to develop recommendations
for the third WTO ministerial scheduled for 1999, and should consider
among other issues, issues related to the implementation of existing
agreements and decisions; ensuring that trade negotiations agreed to
under the Marrakesh Agreement--which established the WTO, get underway,
and recommendations on the follow-up to the October 1997 High Level
Meeting on Least-Developed Countries. The General Council is to also
consider "other matters proposed and agreed to by Members concerning
their multilateral trade relations," which could lead to a new
round of trade talks.
The U.S. will play a key role in the preparatory process for the third
ministerial, which members agreed would be held in the U.S. next year.
U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said the U.S. had not
yet taken a formal position on a so-called Millennium Round of trade
talks. U.S. President Clinton, in his speech to the ministerial meeting
last week signaled some commitment to a new trade round, although his
remarks focused mainly on the timing of a new round. "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 U.S. wants to avoid the fate of the Tokyo
and Uruguay Rounds that took ten and over seven years, respectively,
to conclude.
EU trade commissioner Sir Leon Brittan first floated the idea of a Millennium
Round earlier this year. Brittan said he was encouraged by Mr. Clinton's
speech in Geneva last week. "I regard this as a step forward. It
is a substantial step towards U.S. commitment to a round," he said.
Another EU official said, "We were encouraged--and it really was
beyond our expectation--that the word 'round' was used in [President
Clinton's] speech. That shows an openness to the process that we welcome."
Developing countries are less open to a new trade round. African trade
ministers last week issued a joint statement calling for a full assessment
of the Uruguay Round--in light of African countries' experience, before
expanding the WTO work plan.
African ministers acknowledged that the multilateral trading system
had contributed to economic growth in Africa. The ministers' joint statement
noted however that "our continent continues to be bypassed with
regard to the benefits of the remarkable growth and greater global economic
integration of recent years, and hence continues to experience marginalization
from the global economy."
"The institutions and human resources for trade administration
in our countries have been severely stretched by the demands of implementing
our obligations and exercising our rights in the multilateral trading
system," the ministers' statement said.
Also last week, WTO ministers agreed to consider how to improve the
transparency of WTO operations.
"WTO Ministerial Declaration," WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, May
20, 1998; "WTO ministers to launch preparations for new talks in
September," INSIDE US TRADE, May 22, 1998; "Clinton's WTO
ideas stir controversy," WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 19, 1998; "Brittan
welcomes Clinton trade talks call," FINANCIAL TIMES, May 20, 1998;
"Clinton urges new, faster trade round," FINANCIAL TIMES,
May 19, 1998; "Trade: Africans reject new issues in WTO until old
problems solved," IPS, May 19, 1998.
LDCS
CALL FOR MARKET ACCESS, DEBT PROMISES
FULFILLED
Ministers
from the world's least developed countries (LDCs) last week called on
developed countries to fulfill promises made regarding increased market
access for LDC exports and reiterated concerns over the speed and scope
of debt relief for the world's poorest countries. In a statement circulated
by LDC ministers, the LDCs expressed "deep concern that the share
of LDCs in world exports continues to be under 0.4 percent resulting
in their marginalization in world trade."
LDC ministers urged developed countries "to give operational content"
to the WTO Plan of Action adopted at the first WTO Ministerial in Singapore
in 1996, and the High-Level Meeting of Integrated Initiatives for LDC
Trade Development which took place in October 1997. In addition to enhanced
flows of Official Direct Assistance (ODA) and zero tariff access for
LDC products, LDCs called for "expeditious implementation of the
special and differential measures in favor of LDCs as contained in the
Final Act of the Uruguay Round." LDC ministers encouraged developed
countries to increase trade-related technical and financial assistance,
and recommended that financial support from finance organizations and
donors focus on infrastructure development so to increase foreign investment
in LDCs.
LDC ministers reiterated their concerns that debt relief initiatives
on the part of developed nations remain inadequate. Ministers called
the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative at the World Bank
and IMF a step in the right direction, but warned, "the effectiveness
of the initiative will depend on the speed and extent of its implementation."
(See related story this issue.) LDC ministers want more developing countries
considered for the program.
In their ministerial statement, LDC ministers called for more time to
comply with Uruguay Round commitments. In his address to the WTO Ministerial
last week, South African President Nelson Mandela said an extension
of time for developing countries to comply with WTO commitments would
help promote the conditions necessary to support a multilateral rules-based
trading system.
"The developing countries were not able to ensure that the rules
accommodated their realities. For understandable reasons, it was mainly
the preoccupations and problems of the advanced industrial economies
that shaped the agreement. The sections dealing with the developing
countries and the least-developed countries were not adequately thought
through. Nor have they been fully implemented," Mr. Mandela said.
Mr. Mandela called on developing countries to lead the formation of
a WTO agenda that fully addresses their needs. "[Developing countries]
need to define precisely those areas that are obstacles to their progress
in the world trading system. Free market access for the LDCs should
no longer be the issue debated. It is rather the practical effects of
implementing this that need to be incorporated into the multilateral
system," he said.
Mr. Mandela addressed the thorny issue of labor and environmental linkage
to trade. "There can be no refusal to discuss matters such as labor
standards, social issues and the environment, but equally all must be
prepared to listen carefully before judgements are made. If developing
countries feel that there is nothing to gain except further burdens,
then it will prove difficult to deal with these crucial matters."
During a working session on implementation of Uruguay Round commitments
at the ministerial, India and a number of developing countries called
on industrialized nations to speed up the elimination of quotas on commercially
meaningful textile and apparel products. India along with Pakistan,
Hong Kong, Kenya, Bangladesh and other nations complained that developed
countries were not following "letter or spirit" of the Uruguay
Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). Under the ATC, textile-
importing countries such as the U.S. and EU agreed to a ten- year phaseout
period for restrictions on textile imports. Developing countries agreed
to the phaseout period, even though developed countries backloaded the
most commercially meaningful products at the end of the phaseout period.
Developing countries now worry that the U.S. and EU may lack the political
will to carry out their commitments. Informed sources said that the
working session on Uruguay Round implementation resulted in a "breakdown"
between developed and developing countries.
"LDC statement to WTO Ministerial," WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION,
May 20, 1998; "Statement by H.E. Mr. Nelson Mandela," WORLD
TRADE ORGANIZATION, May 19, 1998; "Trade-Development: Mandela tells
WTO to bridge North- South gap," IPS, May 19, 1998; "WTO sees
gap between developing, developed nations," DOW JONES NEWS SERVICES,
May 19, 1998; "India leads developing nation call for better textile
quota phaseout," INSIDE US TRADE, May 22, 1998; "Remove WTO
imbalances: Hegde," THE HINDU, May 19, 1998.
TRADE
AND ENVIRONMENT SHOWDOWN AT
MINISTERIAL
In
his opening address at the WTO ministerial last week, WTO Director-
General Rennato Ruggiero called for "renewed political impetus"
for the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) in order to seriously
address the issue of trade and environmental linkage. Mr. Ruggiero also
promised increased dialogue between the global trade body and environmental
groups in an effort to assuage environmentalist's fears that WTO rules
threaten the environment.
U.S. President Bill Clinton in his ministerial address called for a
high-level meeting of trade and environmental ministers to provide direction
to future WTO environmental efforts, echoing a suggestion of the European
Commission to the same effect. Three recent cases have placed once more
the linkages between trade and environment in the international media's
agenda: the ruling on the EU banana-import regime; the ruling on the
EU ban on hormone-treated beef imports; and the very high-profile shrimp-turtle
ruling on the U.S. ban on imports of shrimp caught without the use of
so-called turtle-excluder devices (TEDs).
British Prime Minister Toni Blair last week told trading partners that
protecting the environment is "perhaps the major challenge we face
as we head toward the next century," and said that environmental
protection should be incorporated into trade rules. Mr. Blair warned
however that with regard to environmental and labor linkage to trade,
"trade rules should not be used to impose unfair standards on developing
countries, nor to discriminate against their exports."
"Ruggiero offers olive branch on environment," FINANCIAL TIMES,
May 19, 1998; "Blair in trade plea for third world nations,"
FINANCIAL TIMES, May 20, 1998; "Blair in trade plea for third world
nations," FINANCIAL TIMES, May 20, 1998.
G-8
BLASTED FOR LACK OF PROGRESS ON HIPCS
International
development agencies last week were enraged by the level of commitment--or
lack thereof, from the Group of Eight industrialized nations toward
enhanced debt relief for the world's poorest countries. 70,000 people
marched on the G-8 Summit in Birmingham, England as part of the Jubilee
2000 campaign for debt relief, yet left disappointed as the G-8 failed
to live up to expectations regarding the acceleration and expansion
of debt relief.
The G-8, which includes the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Canada,
Italy, Japan and Russia, said in their communiqué that the group
supports "the speedy and determined extension of debt relief to
more countries, within the terms of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
(HIPC) initiative agreed by the International Financial Institutions
(IFIs) and Paris Club. . . We encourage all eligible countries to take
the policy measures needed to embark on the process as soon as possible,
so that all can be in the process by the year 2000. We will work with
the international institutions and other creditors to ensure that when
they qualify, countries get the relief they need, including interim
relief measures whenever necessary, to secure a lasting exit from their
debt problems."
Development agencies take issue with the G-8 position on at least two
fronts. First, the HIPC initiative needs to expand its eligibility requirements
to allow more poor countries to be eligible for debt relief: for example
the HIPC initiative utilizes a debt to export ratio that poverty fighting
groups argue is too high from a sustainability standpoint. Second, tying
debt relief to HIPC policy reform puts the burden for debt relief on
the backs of the poor, while money for education and health in poor
countries continues to service debt while reforms are made.
The G-8 responded to the Jubilee 2000 campaigners in a declaration on
less developed countries. "Debt relief in itself is no magic solution;
it can only be part of the answer to achieving sustainable development.
Where a country shows a real will to pursue policies that will relieve
poverty and build a sound economy, we will do our part and contribute
the funds necessary to reduce their debt burden to a sustainable level.
This will ensure that the resources freed up are put to good, productive
use, generating growth and bringing real benefits--in the form of better
education, better health, and sound, honest government-- to the poorest
people," according to the declaration issued at the close of the
Birmingham summit.
Andrew Simms of Christian Aid expressed his bitter disappointment in
the G-8, saying, "It's Groundhog Day for the world's poor. Each
year the G-8 pitches up promising to give meaningful debt relief to
the poorest countries and each year they remain trapped in a world of
aid dependency and disaster after disaster. [The G-8] has failed to
understand that the target of halving world poverty by the year 2015
can only be met by more realistic debt relief; the kind of debt relief
Germany received after the second world war."
During a major conference on North-South relations and sustainability
held this week in Bern, Switzerland, former President of Tanzania and
current Chairman of the South Centre, Julius Nyerere, asserted that
the debt to export ratio in the HIPC was unreal and, hence, unattainable.
"G8 Summit Final Communiqué," May 17, 1998; "G8
Declaration on Less Developed Countries," May 17, 1998; "Summary
of G-8 Birmingham summit communiqué," KYODO NEWS INTERNATIONAL,
May 17, 1998; "Fury at G-8's debt 'failure,'" THE GUARDIAN,
May 18, 1998.
EVENTS/RESOURCES
ETHICS
AND THE CULTURE OF DEVELOPMENT: BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, Havana,
Cuba from 31 May - 5 June, 1998. The task of this conference, presented
by UNESCO’s Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean,
the American Friends Service Committee, and the Centro Felix Varela,
is to develop comprehensive guidelines for building a sustainable economy.
It will address topics such as socially responsible markets and enterprise,
the science and technology of sustainability, and ethical dimensions
of building a just and sustainable economic order. For more information:
Cuba Conference Staff, American Friends Service Committee, Latin America
and Caribbean Desk, 1501 Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102; tel.:
+215.241.7296; fax: 215.241.7026; e-mail: idlac@afsc.org; Internet:
http://www.afsc.org/cubahome.htm
FIRST INTERNATIONAL FACTOR 4 CONGRESS AND TRADE FAIR ON SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES, Klagenfurt, Austria, 17 - 21 June 1998. Organized
by the Carinthian Trade Fair, Austria and the Wuppertal Institute for
Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany. Factor 4 means increasing
by a factor of four the productivity of energy, resources and transport.
For more information: Klagenfurter Messe Betriebsgesellschaft mbh; Messeplatz
19021 Klagenfurt, Austria; tel: +43 463 56800 61; fax: +43 463 56800
39; e-mail: ktnmessen@mail.carinthia.co.at; Internet:http://www.ktn
messen.co.at/messe.
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE MEDITERRANEAN:
The Kriton Curi International Symposium on Environmental Management
in the Mediterranean will be held from 18 - 20 June 1998 in Antalya,
Turkey. For more information: Prof. Gunay Kocasoy, Bogazici University;
tel.: +90-212-263-150, ext. 1276; fax: +90-212-265-1800; email: Envsymp@boun.edu.tr.
NEW PUBLICATIONS. "Environmental Taxes and Economic Welfare: Reducing
Carbon Dioxide Emissions," Antonia Cornwell and John Creedy, Lyme,
US: Edgar Elgar, 1997, 152 p. This book is an investigation into two
broad policy issues linked to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions
– the nature and extent of needed structural changes in the economy
and the effects of selected taxes on income distribution and economic
welfare. Considered are a tax on domestic fuel and power to reduce household
consumption and a carbon tax aimed at industries. The methods used in
the book overcome data limitations and can be applied in many countries.
The context for the book, however, is Australia. The analysis "allows
for direct and indirect effects on prices" on consumer responses
as well as welfare effects for various income groups. The inequality
and social welfare measures are evaluated to determine if they can be
overcome through transfer payments. The book is available from Marston
Book Service Ltd., Box 269, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4YN, United Kingdom,
Tel: 01235 465 500 Fax: 01235 465 555, International Tel: + 44 1235
465 500 Fax: + 44 1235 465 555, Website: http:www.marston.co.uk/. For
North and South America, available from Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.,
2 Winter Sport Lane, PO Box 574, Williston, VT 05495-0080, US, Tel:
(800) 390 3149 Fax: (802) 864 7626, Email: rhenning@e-elgar.com
"Fisheries Conservation and Trade Rules: Ensuring That Trade Law
Promotes Sustainable Fisheries," David Downes and Brennan Van Dyke,
Alexandria, VA: Weadon Progressive Printing, 1998. This report, published
by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Greenpeace,
is about the link between trade and the present crisis in the world’s
fisheries. It provides an initial overview of international trade law
and trade-related policy measures that could help implement ecologically
responsible fisheries practices. Available from CIEL, 1367 Connecticut
Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036-1860, USA, tel: (202)
785 8700, fax: (202) 785 8701, email: cielus@igc.apc.org; Website: www.econet.apc.org/ciel/
and from Greenpeace-Germany, Grosse Elbstrasse 39, 22767 Hamburg, Germany,
tel: 49 40 300618 0; fax: 49 40 30618100, Website: www.greenpeace.org
"Sustainability, Growth and Poverty Alleviation: A Policy and Agroecological
Perspective," Stephen Vosti and Thomas Reardon, Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. This book examines inter- relationships
among agricultural expansion/intensification, environmental protection
and poverty in developing countries. It discusses how these conditions
are influenced by various factors, including population change, climate
change, trade and economic policies. It examines specific cases in developing
countries worldwide, and makes recommendations for development programmes,
including that low external-input agricultural practices are not necessarily
appropriate for all settings. 407 pp. US$55. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2715 North Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218; phone (410) 516-6956;
fax (410) 516-6998; Website: www.press.jhu.edu
