BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest coverage of the Seattle Ministerial 1998
Vol. 3, Number 46
24 November, 1999
Ministerial Preparations
Implementation
New Issues
EU Stresses Development RoundKicking
off the hectic schedule of Seattle Ministerial Conference press briefings,
EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and the UK Secretary of State for
International Development Clare Short both put the emphasis on the gesture
that the Ministerial is widely expected to deliver in favour of the
least-developed countries (LDCs). According to Commissioner Lamy, the
Quad countries (the EU, Canada, Japan and the United States) on Sunday
night were perhaps only hours away from concluding a deal that would
offer LDCs duty-free access on ‘essentially all [their export]
products’ at the conclusion of the Seattle Round. Mr Lamy admitted
that a margin of ‘about one percent’ was necessary to accomodate
the sensitivities of some EU countries’ with regard to 'sensitive'
agricultural products, as well as concerns of other Quad members –
and the US in particular – about removing all barriers to LDCs’
textile exports. However, Mr Lamy said that Japan was ‘extremely
close’ to reaching agreement with the EU proposal while the US
and Canada were still working on 'the details'. After Quad agreement,
Mr Lamy foresaw other developed countries’ signing on, adding that
he was optimistic as well about securing a commitment from the largest
developing economies to 'make a special unilateral gesture' to increase
LDCs' market access.
Minister Short highlighted the UK's role within the EU as an advocate
for opening developed country markets for all – rather than 'essentially
all' – LDC products. Observers say that the UK is unlikely to convince
all EU members on full dismantling of barriers, however. Minister Short
also emphasised that the zero-tariff initiative was not tied to any
conditionalities – such as 'good governance' or developing countries’
endorsing a comprehensive round of negotiations – but added that
the EU hoped the latter would consider the initiative as a constructive
gesture, which might make them feel more positive about the forthcoming
round of trade negotations.
ICTSD Internal Files.
International Workers Forum Sponsored By The Workers' Voices Coalition
Some
70 women worker around the world were invited by the International Workers’
Forum to share their experiences and opinions against the "imperialism".
The Workers’ Forum opposes the World Trade Organization because
it represents "the new economic imperialism which has been exploiting
women around the world". Several experiences were brought from
the Philippines, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Brazil and Bangladesh.
The interventions stressed the importance of publicizing their cases
and building an international network to defend their rights and oppose
to Trade Agreements like NAFTA and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
such as MAI, and the effects of international and transnational corporations
around the world that are based in free trade zones and use 'maquila'
intensively in detriment of quality of life of women who have to work
more than 12 hours a day and who are mostly head of the family.
Other minority groups such as the gypsies were also represented and
brought up the cruelty they are suffering in Eastern Europe specially
in the Czech Republic, Macedonia and Albany. They defined themselves
against any kind of capitalism such as the one patronized by the WTO,
and mantain a strong anti-consumerism position, as well as fight strongly
the concept of land ownership due to what they are "the universal
immigrants".
Ministerial
Preparations
Ministerial No Progress On Draft Declaration; Four Negotiating Areas To Structure Seattle Talks
Bogged down by continuing disagreements over agriculture and implementation issues, WTO Members have decided to stay with a lengthy draft Ministerial Declaration that was released on 19 October (see http://www.ictsd.org/html/seattleministerial.htm ) as a basis for negotiation at Seattle. At Seattle, trade Ministers from the WTO's 135 Member states will gather for the Third WTO Ministerial Conference from 30 November to 3 December. The outcome of the Conference will be enshrined in the Ministerial Declaration that will outline the direction and scope of future trade talks. Agriculture and services are already scheduled for negotiation as part of the WTO's built-in agenda.
As has been the case since haggling over the Declaration language began
this summer, agriculture and implementation (on implementation, see
next story) of existing agreements remain the stumbling-blocks. At a
23 November informal Heads of Delegation meeting, Ambassador Ali Mchumo,
Chair of the General Council, warned that without some agreed-to texts
on these key areas, "no revision" of the 19 October text "could
be considered balanced."
The
prospect of a compromise on the question of agriculture glimpsed last
week went up in smoke over the weekend when Brussels rejected the draft
of a possible accord on agriculture, "because it failed to reflect
its minimum demands", said a source from the Cairns Group of agriculture-exporting
countries (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest - Vol. 3, Number 45,
15 November 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story2.15-11-99.htm
). The EU ''was only trying to find out how much we were willing to
yield, in order to design its strategy for Seattle,'' the source added.
Agreement was deemed unreachable by WTO Director-General Mike Moore,
who reached the conclusion that there was ''no more room for debate.''
Over the weekend, new obstacles also emerged in the area of new issues
-- which include trade and the environment, trade and investment, competition
policy, transparency of public procurements, social clauses and electronic
commerce.
WTO Members did agree, however, that negotiations in Seattle would take place in four working groups, open to all ministers. The groups will be agriculture, implementation, new issues such as environment and investment (see related section, this issue), and market access. A fifth group will examine administrative issues at the WTO, such as transparency and integration of developing countries, but it will not be a negotiating forum. A "permanent committee", led by U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Mike Moore, will meet regularly with ministers to monitor progress.
Moore
and Barshefsky remain confident that negotiations at Seattle will succeed
in launching a new round of trade liberalisation. "I believe we
can still do this at Seattle," Moore said following a General Council
meeting this week. Stated Barshefsky, "This is a negotiation. It'll
break down, and it'll resume. It'll break down, and it'll resume. I'm
not in the least bit concerned." She predicted that the ministers
will adopt a declaration that will clearly set the range of issues for
negotiations as well as benchmarks for progress, especially a firm deadline
for submitting proposals. Some officials have suggested the differences
to overcome are so great that the ministers might not be able to agree
to launch a new trade round.
"Agriculture Encumbers Talks in Run-Up to Seattle," IPS, 22
November 1999; "Barshefsky Predicts Successful Outcome for WTO
Seattle Meeting," TRADE COMPASS, 24 November 1999; "Trade
ambassadors abandon attempt to agree talks agenda," FINANCIAL TIMES,
24 November 1999.
Implementation
No New Issues Without Redress Of Uruguay
Round Imbalances
Since former
EU Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan first floated the idea of a Millennium
Round of trade talks, developing countries have remained steadfast in
their demand that developed countries honour Uruguay Round commitments
before moving forward full force with new trade negotiations.
Specifically, developing countries are concerned over developed countries'
compliance with agreements on market access for textiles, their use
of antidumping measures against developing countries' exports, and over-implementation
of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs).
Regarding anti-dumping, developing countries have called for a review
of WTO rules, hoping to make anti-dumping measures more responsive to
their needs. These countries argue that some developed countries misuse
anti-dumping measures, which has resulted in significant trade barriers
to developing countries' exports. Japan and South Korea, frequent targets
of anti-dumping investigations, have thus far been the strongest proponents
amongst developed countries for including a review of anti-dumping measures
in the next round. Canada has also joined the chorus calling for a review,
while the EU has yet to take a definitive position on the matter. The
U.S., however, has become increasingly isolated in its opposition to
re-opening the anti-dumping agreement, especially as developing countries
join strong trade powers in calling for a review of anti-dumping rules.
There is tremendous political pressure within the U.S. from labour and
industry groups to keep the anti-dumping rules unchanged in order to
protect struggling U.S. industries (e.g. steel) against import surges.
The U.S. has strongly criticised Japan for its position on the issue,
accusing Japan of having a less than admirable record on dumping.
With regard to textiles, developing countries argue that restrictive
implementation of developed countries' commitments in textiles under
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), combined
with the extensive use of trade remedies (such as anti-dumping measures),
have resulted only in a minimal increase in market opening while reinforcing
imbalances in competition between developed and developing countries.
India (for whom textiles account for more than 20 percent of total exports)
intends to press developed countries to dismantle quotas in advance
of the 2005 deadline. Under the ATC, textile-importing countries such
as the U.S. and EU agreed to a ten-year phase-out period (until 2005)
for restrictions on textile imports. Developing countries agreed to
the phase-out period, even though developed countries back-loaded the
most commercially meaningful products at the end of the period. Colombia,
Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are among other Members pushing for
improved implementation of the ATC.
Regarding the TRIPs Agreement, a number of developing countries have
called for an extension of the implementation deadline for Art.27.3
(b) that calls for WTO Members to protect intellectual property (IPRs)
over plant varieties either through patents, an effective sui generis
system, or with a combination of the two. The deadline for implementation
is 1 Jan 2000, but developing countries want to extend it to five years
from the date of completion of the review of Art.27.3 (b) that is currently
underway.
The U.S. has thus far rejected the idea of extending the TRIPs Agreement
implementation deadline or of renegotiating aspects of the Agreement
to address developing countries' concerns. The U.S. argues that it has
yet to benefit from the agreement and that an effective intellectual
property protection system would be beneficial in stimulating research
and development.
Meanwhile, some developing countries intend to place on the table at
the WTO Ministerial access to lower cost pharmaceuticals (particularly
HIV/AIDS treatment). Countries such as South Africa, Thailand, and others
dealing with large HIV/AIDS populations want to protect their rights
to price control mechanisms under the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights. These mechanisms help ensure
affordable access to pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical firms, on the other
hand, fear that mechanisms such as compulsory licensing and parallel
importing would lower world prices for HIV/AIDS treatments (and all
pharmaceuticals) and lead to a deterioration of product quality and
a loss of control over regulatory standards.
"India leads fight for developing nations market access,"
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESS, 16 November 1999; "The dumping, not the response,
is the issue," JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, 19 November 1999; "Canada
sees anti-dumping review in WTO trade round," REUTERS, 28 October
1999; "U.S. won't discuss dumping at WTO," WASHINGTON POST,
27 October 1999; "Japan defends its agenda at WTO," REUTERS,
25 October 1999; "EU hesitant to collaborate with Japan on anti-dumping,"
KYODO NEWS INTERNATIONAL, 9 November 1999; "Trade: implementation
issues as important as agriculture," SUNS, 2 November 1999; "India
will not be browbeaten in WTO talks," AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 2 November
1999; "Traditional knowledge under commercial blanket," SUNS,
5 November 1999; "Developing nations see trade battle on HIV drugs,"
IPS, 27 October 1999.
New Issues
New Issues
WTO Members continue to debate over whether or not to expand the WTO built-in agenda, which includes negotiations on agriculture and services, to address so-called new issues (e.g. investment, environment). Below is a brief overview of these issues and a general outline of key differences between Members.
Regarding
biotechnology, the U.S. has proposed the establishment of a WTO working
group on biotechnology. Canada and Japan have also called for similar
working groups. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay support the notion of
a working group; Asian countries led by Malaysia and joined by Bolivia,
Egypt, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, and Switzerland prefer to discuss the
issue of biotechnology in forums outside the WTO.
The EU has yet to take a formal position on the issue of a working group
but is expected to call for clearer general recognition of the precautionary
principle within the WTO. The principle, often used in environmental
policy, holds that where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason
for postponing action. In a trade sense, the principle could be employed
to allow preventive measures -- such as an import ban -- to be used
when scientific evidence is lacking. Application of the principle is
at the heart of trade disputes between the EU and U.S. over hormone-treated
beef and genetically modified organisms.
In an 18 November letter to the U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky,
a grouping of non-governmental organisations expressed deep concern
over the U.S. proposal for a biotechnology working group. The NGOs said
the proposals could undermine "the development of new national
and international safeguards for trade in agricultural biotechnology
products" and further "could place excessive constraints on
the rights of governments to regulate, hampering their ability to respond
to scientifically uncertain threats on the basis of the precautionary
principle", according to the letter. The NGO letter also warned
that bringing biotechnology to the WTO could undermine the Biosafety
Protocol (addressing the international movement of genetically modified
organisms), and "could lead to new restrictions on right of governments
to require labelling of GMO products to promote consumers' right-to-know",
the letter said.
The NGO grouping is comprised of the Centre for International Environmental
Law, Community Nutrition Institute, Consumer's Choice Council, Corporate
Agribusiness Research Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Falls Brook Centre,
Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Transnational Resource & Action
Center, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"NGO letter on WTO biotech proposals," 18 November 1999; "EU
nervous of specific GMO talks at Seattle," REUTERS, 14 November
1999.
As
part of the Seattle Ministerial preparations, the U.S. has put forward
a proposal to establish WTO working group on labour issues (see BRIDGES
Weekly Trade News Digest, Vol. 3 No. 43, 1 November 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story1.01-11-99.htm
).The proposal calls for a group to examine trade issues related to:
labour, specifically trade and employment; trade and social protections;
trade and core labour standards; positive trade policy incentives and
core labour standards; trade and forced or exploitative child labour;
and trade and derogation from national labour standards. The U.S. position
is the result of a Congressional mandate that the U.S. should seek such
a working group. Moreover, the request is politically expedient to assuage
a very vocal labour movement in the U.S. whose support is necessary
to maintain U.S. momentum toward further trade liberalisation.
The EU also submitted a proposal for a forum to address labour issues.
However, its proposed Joint ILO/WTO Standing Working Forum would not
have official standing within the WTO. Both the EU and U.S. proposals
have met with strong opposition from developing country Members during
the Ministerial preparatory process.
Developing countries' main concern is that the trade and labour linkage
is a veiled protectionist mechanism sought by developed countries as
a way to squash developing countries' comparative advantage in labour.
At the First WTO Ministerial in Singapore in December 1996, WTO Members
agreed that the International Labour Organisation was the appropriate
agency to address trade and labour linkages.
Developing countries made their position clear in statements put forward
by various groupings in advance of the Ministerial. The Group of 15
(G-15) developing countries said they "resolutely oppose any renewed
attempt to raise [the issue of trade and labour linkage] in the WTO."
The Group of 77 (G-77) developing countries echoed these sentiments
in their joint declaration on the Ministerial, stating that it would
"firmly oppose any linkage between trade and labour standards."
Other smaller, regional groupings (which include an overlap of Members
from the G-15 and G-77 groupings), also said they would reject any attempt
at trade and labour linkages. These include the South Asian Association
for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) comprised of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives.
These Members are supported by a grouping of prominent Third World intellectuals
and non-governmental organisations who called for the issue of linking
trade with labour (and the environment) to be laid to rest at the WTO
(see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, No. 36, 13 September 1999,
http://www.ictsd.org/html/story3.13-09-99.htm). The list of signatories
included Jagdish Bhagwati (Columbia University, USA), Muchkund Dubey,
(Government of India), Arvind Panagariya (University of Maryland, USA),
Pradeep S. (Mehta Consumer Unity and Trust Society, India), Jasper Okelo
(University of Nairobi, Kenya). The group of experts emphasised that
"the WTO's design must reflect the principle of mutual gain; it
cannot be allowed to become the institution that becomes a prisoner
of every developed country lobby or group that seeks to advance its
agenda at the expense of the developing countries."
Australia on 14 November said that it does not support inclusion of
labour issues at the WTO. Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile stated
that Australia prefers labour issues be discussed at the ILO.
"Trade and labour at WTO," THE PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE, 5 November
1999; "Australia says WTO should not be distracted by labour,"
REUTERS, 14 November 1999; "Attempt to get labour on WTO agenda
reejected," FINANCIAL TIMES, 9 November 1999; "U.S. proposal
on labour splits WTO," THE STAR (Malaysia), 8 November 1999.
Culture
When WTO Members
meet in Seattle next week, Canada is expected to call for a WTO agreement
on trade in cultural goods and services. The agreement could be used
to protect cultural industries, including the audio-visual sector, books,
magazines, and broadcasting, by setting them apart from other goods.
In its negotiating position, the EU agreed to leave open the possibility
for implementing safeguards related to cultural protections within the
context of the WTO agreement on trade in services. The EU negotiating
guidelines call for the EU to ensure "that the Community and its
Member States maintain the possibility to preserve and develop their
capacity to define and implement their cultural and audio-visual policies
for the purpose of preserving their cultural diversity." (See BRIDGES
Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, No. 43, 1 November 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story3.01-11-99.htm
).
France has been the most outspoken proponent of protecting the so- called
cultural exception, arguing that culture is not a commodity. Culture
has figured in a trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada over magazine
advertising content rules (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol.
3, No. 6, 15 February 1999 http://www.ictsd.org/html/story6.15-02-99.htm
). The cultural exception issue has also figured indirectly in the accession
bids of Albania, Moldova and Croatia, as the three countries remain
caught in the midst of an EU-U.S. dispute over market access regimes
for the audio-visual sector.
In
related news, the Information Society Forum, a group of 140 independent
experts from across the European Union and Eastern European countries,
have called on WTO Members to recognise the importance of cultural sustainability
and acknowledge that cultural goods and services are significantly different
from other products. In their Seattle Declaration, the Forum called
on WTO Members to, inter alia, "refrain from applying the General
Agreement on Trade in Services to services related to the communication
of audio-visual content to the public, which are directly linked to
the cultural, political and social interaction and sustainable development
of societies".
"Cultural implications of the Millennium Round," Contribution
of The Information Society Forum to the WTO Ministerial Conference in
Seattle, September 1999; "Canada develops alliances to protect
culture, fight farm subsidies," AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 18 November
1999; "Canada lists its priorities for Seattle," FINANCIAL
TIMES, 17 November 1999;"Sheila Copps croisee de l'exception culturelle,"
LIBERATION, 2 November 1999; "EU seeks to protect cultural diversity
of its states in WTO talks," AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 14 November
1999.
The
EU and Japan are pushing for inclusion of investment in a new round
of global trade talks, intended to harmonise international investment
rules and to dismantle barriers to foreign investment.
Talks for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), conducted under
the auspices of the 29-member Organisation of Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), failed in late 1998 amid vigorous disagreement
among governments and action by civil society groups who opposed it
for not incorporating labour and environment standards, for its lack
of transparency, and for the rights and power it would have given corporations
vis-a-vis governments. The OECD was also strongly criticised for its
failure to include developing countries in MAI negotiations. France
ultimately withdrew from OECD talks over differences with respect to
the so-called cultural exceptions, precipitating the end of the MAI
at the OECD. France subsequently called for the transfer of talks to
the WTO, in hopes that a broader group of countries could participate
in the talks, rather than just the elite group of 29 OECD members.
During debate leading up to the WTO Ministerial, Bolivia, speaking on
behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, said
that negotiations on investment should not be undertaken, arguing that
issues of agriculture and implementation are of greater urgency (see
related stories in this issue). Other developing countries, including
Indonesia, Haiti, Malaysia, Kenya, Pakistan, Argentina, Cuba, Australia,
Uganda, Singapore, Thailand, and El Salvador, argued against negotiations
on the ground that there was no consensus for an investment agreement
at the WTO.
A number of developing countries supported continued study of investment
under The Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment,
although some, notably India, said they would only support such work
if it carried no commitments toward future investment negotiations.
Developing countries are supporting provisions within the draft Ministerial
that call on the Working Group to "focus on issues of interest
to developing countries, in particular, the effects of foreign direct
investment, positive and negative, on the development objectives of
host countries, the obligations of foreign investors to host countries,
and the obligations of home countries in respect of disciplines on their
investors." The U.S. subsequently proposed removing the language
regarding developing countries in the Working Group mandate.
For its part, the U.S. is opposed to investment talks at the WTO, arguing
that the sector is not yet ripe for a multilateral agreement. Further,
the U.S. has criticised the EU's support for investment talks, calling
it the "anything but agriculture" approach to trade talks
in reference to the EU's perceived reluctance to further liberalise
its farm sector.
"Latest developments on investment in the WTO," SEATINI BULLETIN,
15 & 30 October 1999; "EU faces uphill battle in bid for wide
trade round," REUTERS 15 November 1999; "US, India to oppose
investment pact," ECONOMIC TIMES, 29 October 1999.
Environment
The debate over the trade and environment linkage at the WTO is as divisive
as the debate over trade and labour, and again the division falls along
North-South lines. Most notably, the EU and U.S. have pressed for various
mechanisms to link trade and environmental protection. In addition to
calling for a continuation of the Committee on Trade and Environment
as a discussion forum for contentious issues and the promotion of trade
and environment win-win situations, a U.S. proposal on Trade and Sustainable
Development (WT/GC/W/304)* has pointed to the importance of institutional
reform and a pursuance of liberalisation "in a way that is supportive
of high public health and environmental standards."
In keeping with the objectives outlined in its proposal, the Clinton
Administration on 17 November called on the U.S. Trade Representative
to carry out an assessment of the potential environmental impact of
major trade agreements "to ensure that our efforts to expand trade
reflect our strong commitment to promoting environmental protection
worldwide." The Clinton Administration said the review would be
used to help shape the U.S. negotiating position in the next round of
WTO trade talks and would include input from outside experts and the
public. The review is intended to complement the U.S. objectives for
the next round with respect to the environment, e.g. including ending
subsidies that promote over-fishing and eliminating trade barriers to
so-called clean technologies.
Developing countries argue that a trade and environment linkage could
be used as a protectionist mechanism by developed countries (e.g. by
establishing non-tariff barriers to trade). India's commerce and industry
minister Murasoli Maran summed up developing country sentiments earlier
this month, noting that India is a "signatory to a host of ecological
treaties. We believe that...environment issues should be dealt with
in those fora. The WTO should discuss trade issues only."
A number of other developing countries have also submitted proposals
suggesting approaches to trade and environment. These include Kenya
(WT/GC/W/233), Bangladesh (WT/GC/W/251), Pakistan (WT/GC/W/126), Dominican
Republic-Honduras-Pakistan (WT/GC/W/255), Cuba-Dominican Republic-Honduras-Pakistan
(WT/GC/W/163), and Cuba (WT/GC/W/387). For the most part, these have
cautioned against the establishment of stronger links between trade
and new issues such as environment and labour. They also reinforce the
developing countries' demands for greater emphasis on special and differential
treatment, particularly with respect to sustainable development. Many
are also fearful that more stringent environmental language may allow
process and production methods to be used as a basis for trade discrimination.
References to the environment are to be found throughout the 19 October
draft Ministerial Declaration (available online at /ministerial/seattle/eattleministerial.htm
). It is included in various guises under the sections marked "Objectives
and Priorities", "Implementation of Existing Agreements",
"New Negotiating [Round]", "Structure, Organization and
Participation", "Subjects for Negotiation", and "Other
Elements of Work Programme". Virtually all references are in square
brackets, indicating areas where Members remain divided in their positions.
*Document available online at http://www.wto.org/wto/ddf/ep/public.html
"U.S. to review eco-impacts of trade agreements," ENS, 17
November 1999; "Turning over a green leaf?" ECONOMIC TIMES,
12 November 1999; "U.S. president orders environmental reviews
of proposals to help develop positions," INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
REPORTER, 24 November 1999. ICTSD Internal Files
Civil
Society at WTO Ministerial
NGO Seattle Update
For non-governmental organisations travelling to Seattle for the Third
WTO Ministerial, the basement of the United Methodist Church at 811
5th Ave. will be a central repository for NGO information. Space will
be available for groups wishing to display information. If you would
like to reserve space, contact darci@citizen.org or fax (1-202) 547-7392.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) has set up an
International Media Centre at the Town Hall, located two blocks away
from the WTO Ministerial Convention Center at 8th and Seneca. The telephone
number is (1-206) 262-0188. For information on up-to-the- minute TV
and radio coverage during the Ministerial visit: http://www.wtowatch.org
or http://www.iatp.org
WTO Official NGO Symposium
On Monday, 29 November, the Seattle Symposium on International Trade
begins at 9 am. The symposium is organized by the WTO Secretariat and
will have many ministers in attendance. It is co-chaired by Alec Erwin,
Minister of Trade and Industry of South Africa and Mark Van Putten of
the National Wildlife Federation. All accredited NGOs are invited to
attend. Participants may ask questions of the panelists, but must do
so in writing, identifying themselves and their organization on the
forms that will be distributed. The panel chair will then call on the
participant to hear the question or comment. Please see http://svca.wto-
ministerial.org/english/ngo_e/ngo_e.htm for additional information on
the Symposium. ICTSD’s website has a listing of daily NGO events
(www.ictsd.org), as does the IATP website, (www.wtowatch.org).
NGO Resources
The NGO Center (at the Madison Renaissance Hotel) will be open from
7:30 am to 12 midnight each day and is open to all accredited NGOs.
The NGO Center includes a ‘cyber café’ that provides
access to close to 50 computer stations with several printers, copiers
and fax machines, free of charge. The WTO will hold daily briefings
at 6:30 p.m. on the ballroom (lower lobby) level. NGOs should check
the bulletin boards at the NGO Center for updates on logistical announcements
and briefings. The NGO Center also has a permanent broadcast link with
the Ministerial that will provide real-time viewing of each of the Plenary
sessions. ICTSD will hold daily NGO briefings at 8:00 a.m. in the NGO
Center.
NGO Access to the Ministerial
There
are 200 NGO seats available to attend each of the opening day plenary
sessions of the Ministerial on November 30. The morning plenary will
take place at the Paramount Theater (unlike the Trade and Convention
Center where the other Ministerial events will be) and will begin at
10 a.m. The afternoon session will be at the Trade and Convention Center
and begin at 2:30 p.m. Tickets for the 400 seats are available on a
first-come, first-served basis, to be distributed beginning at 8:00
am on Tuesday, November 30 at the NGO Center. NGOs must choose to receive
a ticket for EITHER the morning or the afternoon sessions.
WTO Documents
The WTO will distribute all official documents on a table outside the
cyber café at the NGO Center, and the WTO website also has many
of the relevant documents (www.wto.org).
NGO Input to the Ministerial
The WTO Secretariat has offered to ensure that any NGO position papers
they receive will be widely distributed among government delegates and
press; a full list of NGO papers received to date is available on the
WTO website. WTO Ministerial EventsICTSD's
list of events taking place around the WTO's Third Ministerial Conference
in Seattle from 30 November - 3 December 1999 is now fully updated and
available online at: http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/seattle/seattlecalendar.htm.
Approximately 60 additional events have been posted this week.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
