PLURILATERAL SERVICES REQUESTS CONTINUE TO TRICKLE IN

Collective requests from groups of WTO Members seeking access to services markets in other countries continue to trickle in. 'Plurilateral requests' have been tabled in a wide range of sectors, including telecom, financial, logistics, construction, legal, environmental, energy, computer, maritime transport, audiovisual, and postal services. Sources report that at an informal meeting of the Special Session for the Council for Trade in Services (CTS-SS) on 7 March, Members discussed how to schedule the plurilateral market access negotiations that will follow these requests in a manner that does not overburden the limited negotiating capacity of developing country delegations. These meetings between demandeur and recipient groups will take place during the next 'cluster' of services negotiations, scheduled for 27 March - 7 April.

Broadly speaking, the plurilateral requests identify the demandeur countries, and specify that they "are also deemed to be recipients" of the request that they are sponsoring (see BRIDGES Weekly, 22 February 2006). Demandeurs are seeking commitments, for example, the removal of limitations on foreign ownership, discrimination between domestic and foreign services suppliers, prohibitions on the cross-border supply of services, unfriendly regulatory policies, and barriers to the international movement of people to provide services. Not all demandeurs sign on to the entire suite of requests -- for instance, the US specifically opts out of seeking liberalisation of the temporary access for their individual workers (so-called 'Mode 4'), but will formally receive the request for such commitments.

The requests do not name all of the recipients, though many of them indicate the number of Members targeted, generally ranging between 19 and 27. Sources suggest that Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
South Africa and Thailand have received many of the collective requests. Although the bulk of demandeurs are industrialised countries - such as Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Norway, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and the US -- some developing countries have participated in collective requests. For example, Chile, India, Pakistan and Peru were among the sponsors of the request on computer-related services.

ICTSD will provide coverage of the plurilateral market access negotiations in upcoming issues of BRIDGES Weekly.

ICTSD reporting; "Plurilateral requests aim at maximum opening of South's services," THIRD WORLD NETWORK, 3 March 2006.

LITTLE PROGRESS AT G-6 COUNTRIES MEETING ON WTO FARM TALKS

Senior agriculture officials from the G-6 countries (the US, the EU, Australia, Japan, Brazil and India) met in Paris from 27 February to 1 March to discuss the deadlocked Doha Round farm trade negotiations, but made little overall progress.

Notably, the EU indicated that it would be willing to deepen its cut to trade-distorting 'amber box' domestic support if the US agreed to do the same. The EU is now saying it would made cuts by 75 percent -- up 5 percent from the 70 percent it had proposed in October 2005 -- if the US moved to 65 percent from the 60 that the EU had originally been seeking. The US, however, was cool to the EU offer.

The US did, on the other hand, seem more open to the EU's apparent willingness to accept a lower cap on 'blue box' subsidies, those linked to limits on production volume. Such grants are currently limited to 5 percent of the total value of agricultural production. This may signal the start of a move towards convergence on blue box reform.

In terms of the 'green box,' both the US and the EU have resisted a June 2005 proposal by the G-20 that would allow developing countries to use the reduction-exempt box to cover subsidies for development purposes, such as various kinds of support for subsistence farmers.

Discussions remains stalemated with regard to market access.

Senior officials from the six countries are meeting from 7-9 March in Geneva to discuss all of the issues in the negotiations, along with representatives from Canada, Norway, Malaysia, Egypt and Kenya. G-6 trade ministers are scheduled to reconvene in London from 10-12 March in an attempt to put together a comprehensive agreement on agriculture and NAMA modalities in time for the 30 April deadline set by the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.

"WTO Farm Talks Make Little Headway," THE COURIER MAIL, 3 March 2006; "G-6 Officals' Agricultural Meeting Wraps Up With Few Signs of Progress," WTO REPORTER, 2 March 2006; "G-6 Senior Officials to Hold Further Talks in Preparation for March 10 London Summit," WTO REPORTER, 6 March 2006; "EU Sets Out Conditional Offer at WTO for Further Cuts on Domestic Support," WTO REPORTER, 6 March 2006.

WTO AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE STARTS MAPPING FUTURE WORK

At its first meeting on 3 March, the newly-established WTO Aid for Trade Task Force focused on procedural issues to determine how it could fulfil its mandate, contained in Paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, to provide recommendations to the General Council by July 2006 on how 'aid for trade' could contribute most effectively to the development dimension of the Doha agenda (see BRIDGES Weekly, 8 February 2006). The Task Force is composed of 13 members -- Barbados, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the EU, Japan, India, Thailand, the United States and the coordinators of the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group of States, the African Group and the LDC (least-developed countries) Group -- and chaired by Ambassador Mia Horn Af Rantzien of Sweden in her personal capacity.

Delegates -- many of them ambassadors -- agreed to commence their work with a stock-taking exercise on what has been done on trade-related development assistance so far, what needs to be done in the future, and how to structure such work to be able to draw up recommendations in time for the July deadline. The specific subjects to be addressed by the Task Force, however, remain to be decided. Acknowledging the complexity of these issues and the wide range of actors involved, the Task Force members generally supported the idea of engaging experts from outside the WTO system -- including from civil society groups, international organisations, regional development banks and the private sector -- possibly by inviting them to act in an advisory role.

The next meeting of the Task Force is likely to be held in late-March although no specific date has been set yet.

ICTSD reporting; "Composition of Aid for Trade Task Force announced," WTO PRESS RELEASE, 8 February 2006.

WTO REJECTS MEXICO'S APPEAL IN SWEETENER DISPUTE

In a report released on 6 March, the WTO Appellate Body rejected Mexico's appeal of an earlier panel finding that it had violated its WTO obligations by imposing certain tax measures on imported soft drinks and syrups. The measures in question were a 20 percent tax on soft drinks and other beverages sweetened with anything other than sugar grown in Mexico, and a 20 percent tax on their distribution and sale. These taxes were primarily directed at US high-fructose corn syrup.

The taxes were introduced in 2002, two years after Mexico had attempted to launch a dispute under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) charging that the US had failed to comply with its obligations under the accord by restricting the access of Mexican sugar to the US market (see BRIDGES Weekly, 8 August 2000). Mexico requested the establishment of a panel to assess its claim, but the US has consistently refused to participate in the panel selection process.

Before the WTO adjudicative bodies, Mexico never pretended that the tax measures were consistent with its WTO obligations. Instead, it argued that the measures were justified under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XX(d), which allows countries to implement measures that are "necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions" of the GATT. Mexico contended that its measures were necessary to ensure US compliance with its NAFTA obligations. This argument was, however, rejected by the panel and the Appellate Body, which found that countries cannot use Article XX(d) to justify measures imposed to ensure that another Member complies with its international rights and obligations.

Mexico had also argued that the WTO dispute bodies could dismiss the case entirely. However, the panel concluded that it was not within its discretion to throw out a case that had been brought before it under the correct procedures, a finding that the Appellate Body went on to confirm.

The panel and Appellate Body reports are available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds308_e.htm.

ICTSD reporting; "WTO: Mexico violated global trade rules", BUSINESS WEEK, 6 March 2006.