Seattle 99 • Volume 3 • Number 4 • May 1999
Seattle Ministerial Update & NGO Arrangements for the Seattle Ministerial
The ‘proposal-driven’ second phase of the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial is drawing to a close in spite of the highprofile leadership struggle for a new WTO Director-General that currently commands the attention of world press. Once most of the proposals are on the table, WTO Members will start the third phase of the preparatory process, i.e. drafting the Seattle Ministerial Declaration which will provide the framework for the next round of trade liberalisation talks scheduled to start next year. The drafting phase is expected to start in September.
While the scope of the new round remains to be agreed beyond the ‘built-in agenda’ of agriculture and services, Members have more or less agreed that the negotiations should be concluded within three years. A group of powerful trading nations, including the European Union and Japan, advocate wide-ranging negotiations on a number of topics, including the elaboration of new disciplines for investment and competition policy. This approach is to a large extent shared by a group of fifteen developed and developing countries, called Friends of the New Round, who have announced themselves in favour of a ‘broad-based and balanced round of negotiations’.
The US is cautious about backing calls for rule-making in the areas of investment and competition policy but has agreed that, in addition to agriculture and services, the new talks should cover industrial tariff reductions. It is also the leading advocate for securing a commitment that electronic commerce transactions remain duty-free. A group of developing countries, led by India, Pakistan and Egypt, opposes any extension of the built-in agenda and would like the new round to focus on redressing imbalances in the implementation of existing WTO Agreements.
The article below summarises most of the recent submissions by Members. See also related articles on the ministerial meetings of the Friends of the New Round and the OECD on pages 8 and 9.
Agriculture and Services
At a meeting held on 20 May, Korea put forward a relatively minimalist proposal on agricultural liberalisation (WT/GC/W/170), underlining the ‘unique nature of agriculture’ and the need for gradual reform, as well as the importance of addressing ‘non-trade concerns’ such as food security or ‘multifunctionality’. Opening up the heavily protected agricultural markets of Korea, the European Union, Japan, Norway and Switzerland is one of the main results sought by other WTO Members in the forthcoming talks.
Australia continued its stream of proposals on behalf of the Cairns Group (see Bridges Year 3 No.3, page 1), suggesting that Members agree ‘to major reductions in domestic support for all agricultural products, resulting in the elimination of all trade-distorting domestic subsidies with only non-distorting forms of support permitted thereafter’ (WT/GC/W/177). It also reiterated the idea of bringing trade in agricultural goods on the same footing as trade in other goods (WT/GC/W/184).
The United States said the objective of the agricultural negotiations should be to ‘expand trade opportunities by ensuring further deep reductions in support and protection, while encouraging non-tradedistorting approaches for supporting farmers and the rural sector and strengthening the rules governing trade in agriculture’ (WT/ GC/W/186) and overall framework for the agricultural negotiations.
On services, Korea suggested that the negotiations cover all sectors and gradually reduce the scope of exceptions to the mostfavoured nation principle. It also said that the next round should address the challenges posed by electronic commerce to the WTO Services Agreement, but warned that, due to the complexity of the subject, ‘all relevant issues should be carefully examined before establishing disciplines’ in this area. (WT/GC/W/169).
Industrial Tariffs
The EU called on WTO Members to harmonise their tariff structures across all non-agricultural products through the adoption of a ‘tariff band approach, defining a low, medium and high band within which all tariffs would have to fall’ (WT/ GC/W/178). Australia also favoured comprehensive negotiations on industrial tariffs, suggesting that reductions be achieved through comprehensive bindings, cuts in tariff peaks and escalation, elimination of nuisance tariffs, as well as sectoral approaches such as the zero-for-zero schemes promoted by APEC’s sectoral liberalisation initiative (WT/GC/W/182). Singapore made a similar proposal, adding that ‘building upon work done in other fora such as the APEC Accelerated Tariff Liberalisation Initiative […] would avoid having to start from scratch in having to determine the negotiating modalities’ (WT/GC/W/196). The sectors involved in this initiative are forestry, fisheries, energy, chemicals, medical equipment, jewellery, toys, and environmental goods and services.
Hong Kong highlighted its strong support for including industrial tariffs in the next round of negotiations, with the aim of achieving tariff cuts ‘well above’ those of the Uruguay Round, to be implemented within three years from the conclusion of the negotiations. No industrial sector should be a priori excluded from the round (WT/GC/W/175).
Norway specifically included fish and fish products in its proposal for liberalisation of trade in industrial goods (WT/GC/W/185). The paper suggested a ‘global and comprehensive approach, involving significant market access improvements through substantial reductions of tariff rates’. It also noted that a broader product coverage of bound tariffs should be sought, and the problem of tariff escalation should be properly addressed. In addition, the need for special and differential treatment for developing countries, especially LDCs, should be taken into account.
Regional Trade Agreements and State Trading
Concerned about the proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs), Korea suggested that Members review WTO provisions on goods and services concerning them - and strengthen the rules in necessary. Hong Kong, China, made a similar proposal (WT/GC/W/174). Australia’s proposed the completion of two ‘bodies of work addressing systemic and procedural issues associated the regional trade agreements’, including the clarification of such concepts as ’substantially all trade’ and the extent to which WTO rights and obligations for regulation of commerce can be derogated in regional trade agreements. Australia also said clarifications were needed regarding notification requirements and ways to improve the examination of RTAs within the WTO (WT/GC/W183).
Hungary proposed a revision of GATT Article XVII and related provisions in order to ensure non-discrimination and a balance between rights and obligations regarding state trading enterprises, ‘including the elimination of de jure and de facto monopoly import/ export rights’ (WT/GC/W/172).
Developing Country Issues
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua suggested that ministers adopt a decision in Seattle ‘to reform Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in order to correct the existing imbalance’ and allow developing countries to use subsidies justified by development objectives, such as economic diversification programmes, industrialisation and sustainable development (WT/ GC/W/164).
Malaysia, on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), recommended that WTO ministers confirm that all Members must ensure that their ‘laws, regulations and administrative procedures’ are in conformity with WTO obligations ‘regardless of the level of promulgation’. This proposal is aimed at bringing various state or local level trade restrictions, such as the Massachusetts ‘Burma Law’, within WTO disciplines and subject to trade sanctions in case of non-compliance (WT/GC/W/187). Malaysia also proposed that ministers emphasise the ‘Enabling Clause’ in order to ensure that preferential treatment for developing countries is ‘generalised, non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal in nature’ (WT/GC/W/188).
As this issue went to press, the European Union had just submitted seven proposals on its approach to the new round regarding services, trade facilitation, trade and competition policy, government procurement, trade-related intellectual property rights, trade and environment, and duty-free market access for leastdeveloped countries. The proposals make it clear that the EU continues to push for comprehensive, simultaneous negotiations in all these areas, with the exception of market access for leastdeveloped countries. On that issue, the EU proposes that ministers commit already in Seattle next November, ‘to ensure duty-free market access no later than the end of the new round of negotiations for essentially all products exported by the least-developed countries. Most advanced developing countries should pledge to contribute as well. They should consider making a contribution to enhance the market access opportunities of the least-developed countries, in particular by building on the considerable autonomous liberalisation undertaken by many developing countries’ (WT/ GC/W/195).
Trade and environment
Only the European Union and Norway have tabled specific papers on this topic. The EU submission (WT/GC/W/194) proposes that Members agree to consider trade measures taken pursuant to multilateral environmental agreements WTO-consistent, and seeks a clarification between WTO rules and non-product-related process and production methods (PPMs), in particular with regard to ecolabelling schemes based on life cycle analysis. Norway’s paper (WT/GC/W/176) supports the EU position on these issues, but goes further to suggest the negotiation of new disciplines on these issues rather than a clarification of existing rules.
Norway also proposes carrying out environmental reviews of draft trade agreements and provisions, a well as involving other intergovernmental organisations with environmental mandates in trade negotiating meetings. The Seattle Ministerial Declaration ’should contain a reference to the objective of sustainable development, including environmental and developmental principles as reflected in the Rio Declaration, in particular the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the right to development.’
The US and Canada have also highlighted the importance of addressing environmental concerns in the WTO, but neither has come forward with specific proposals. The US is currently defining its negotiating position on several environment- and public healthrelated issues, including whether the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures should be reopened, how to interpret TRIPs Article 27.3(b) regarding plant patenting, and how to handle questions related to biotechnology.
The views of industry and environmental/consumer groups are sharply opposed on these topics, in particular with regard to the use of the ‘precautionary principle’ as justification for health- and environment-related trade measures. US trade and agricultural authorities are currently carrying out a series of public hearings on citizens’ priorities for the new round, but have previously indicated that the administration would prefer not to reopen existing Agreements on trade-related intellectual property rights, technical barriers to trade or sanitary measures for fear that the treaties would be weakened in the process.
In addition to the topics above, civil society groups are repeatedly taking US trade authorities to task over their backing of ‘early harvest’ sectoral liberalisation negotiations on forest products. Conservation groups claim the elimination of tariffs on such goods would significantly accelerate deforestation worldwide. The forestry tariff reduction plan is part of the Accelerated Tariff Liberalisation Initiative that members of Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) are trying to fold into the WTO round.
Meanwhile, the US and Canada have agreed to collaborate in order to ensure that the next round addresses biotechnology. Both countries are seeking easier market access for their genetically engineered crop seeds and products, particularly in the European Union where acceptance procedures for such products are slow and cumbersome. Consultations are underway on whether to aim for a new ’stand alone’ set of provisions on approval procedures and labelling for biotechnology or to amend existing rules on agricultural goods, technical barriers to trade and sanitary measures. Biotechnology-related rules could also be developed in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, where the EU is pushing for better acceptance of the precautionary principle and ‘other legitimate factors’ than science in conducting risk assessments (see cover story).
Canada, the European Union, Norway and the United States have also committed to conducting an assessment of the new round’s likely impacts on sustainable development. The next preparatory meeting will take place on 7-8 June. For the full schedule of remaining preparatory meetings of phase two, please see below.
NGO Arrangements for the Seattle Ministerial
The WTO’s External Relations Division expects to have information pertaining to civil society accreditation to the Seattle Ministerial Meeting on its website by mid-July. As at earlier events involving non-governmental participants, the latter will be required to provide a description of their organisations’ activities, as well as the relevance of those activities to WTO concerns. However, organisations that have been accredited to earlier ministerial meetings or symposia need not send in a complete dossier. It should be noted that applications must be made in the name of individuals and that no more than four individuals will be accredited from any organisation.
Interested organisations and associations can request application forms by mid-summer. The applications will be circulated for Members’ approval in early autumn, after which registration forms will be sent to successful applicants. Badges will be given to registered participants in Seattle.
Only registered non-governmental participants will be able to use the facilities in Seattle or to participate in the plenary sessions (any negotiation sessions will be limited to government representatives). NGO facilities will not be located in the same building as the Ministerial Meeting, but space is being sought within walking distance. Official proceedings will also be relayed to the NGO centre through close circuit television, and the organisers plan to equip the centre with up to 50 computers with internet connections, printers and other office necessities. They are also trying to ensure that rooms are available to civil society groups wishing to organise meetings of their own.
The WTO External Relations Division is responsible for the accreditation process, as well as allocation of meeting space within the NGO centre. The Seattle Host Organisation can help with accommodation and reserving meeting space at other venues, such as hotels.
Contact: Alain Frank, WTO External Relations Division, tel: (41- 22) 739-5152, fax: 739-5777, web: http://www.wto.org, or Seattle Host Organization, tel: (1-206) 770-3150, fax: 770-0106, e-mail: info@wtoseattle.org, web: www.wtoseattle.org
Second Phase of the Preparatory Process for the 3rd WTO Ministerial Meeting (30 November to 3 December 1999)
June 17 WTO General Council Special Session. Suggested focus: proposals on organisation and management of the future negotiations, including the scope, structure and time-frames.
July 6-7 Informal Meeting of the WTO General Council
July 9 WTO General Council Special Session. Suggested focus: proposals regarding all items considered at previous meetings.
July 28-29 WTO General Council Special Session. Suggested focus: proposals regarding all items above and organisation of future work, i.e. phase three of the preparatory process and drafting of the Seattle Ministerial Declaration.