WTO Ministerial Section • Volume 5 • Number 4 • May 2001
Doha Agenda Starts to Emerge but Major Differences Remain from BRIDGES Monthly Vol. 5, No. 4 May 2001
Much was made in the press of the recent call of OECD trade ministers to launch a new round of multilateral negotiations at the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha next November. However, the vague wording of their final communiqué papered over the considerable differences that separate even the world’s richest 34 countries regarding the contents of the round. And, despite some development-friendly language in the communiqué, there is no common understanding on how to deal with the crucial issue of implementation. 1 The communiqué also skirts around the divisive themes of how to address questions related to labour rights or the environment (see next page for excerpts).
Setting the Agenda
Meanwhile, groundwork continues in several fora at the WTO, including:
The pace of informal sessions of the WTO General Council has intensified as Members seek to define the broad contents of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, which will shape the WTO agenda for the next two years, including the decision whether or not to start negotiations on a wider range of topics. The preparations follow a six-point checklist put together by GC Chair Stuart Harbinson:
Ministers Views
On 10 May, Members discussed the first item on the checklist, i.e. the political statement that usually precedes actual decisions in Ministerial Declarations. Brazil’s proposal, supported by Argentina, India and the African Group, to include a reference to drug pricing, public health and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) garnered broad support. Brazil would also like a ministerial decision establishing a work programme on the subject.
Other issues likely to figure in the political statement of the Doha Declaration include references to the importance of sustainable development in dealing with environmental problems and the emergence of a “development deficit” stemming from the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Many developing countries also said that ministers should commit to concrete action on the issues flagged in the political statement.
New Elements
The controversial “other elements of the work programme” were addressed on 15 May. These include the so-called Singapore issues (investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation), as well as other areas championed as negotiation topics by Members. The response to this checklist cluster will decide whether a “round” can be launched or not.
Although the meeting revealed no major changes in well- established positions, it did shed some light on where movement could occur. Mr Harbinson said he detected broad, if not unanimous, support for industrial tariff negotiations.
Other proposals drew more mixed responses. The EU, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and Norway continued to push for a comprehensive round that would include negotiations on agriculture and services (already underway), all the Singapore issues, anti-dumping rules, as well as the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements, recognition of the precautionary principle and eco-labelling. Most developing countries and quite a few developed ones, including the US and Australia, maintained that no negotiations were desirable in the latter two areas. Reducing perverse agricultural subsidies would advance environmental goals much more efficiently, these countries argued (see related article on page 8).
Investment and competition policy remain divisive both among developed and developing countries, with the difference that the majority of the former would like to initiate negotiations in these areas while the majority of the latter would not. The US, which is still defining its position on several fronts, expressed support for a “limited round” that would exclude investment and competition policy, and focus instead on agriculture, services, industrial tariffs, transparency in government procurement and, perhaps, changes to dispute settlement procedures.
No signs point to a US change of heart on amending anti-dumping rules, although farm groups have recently requested the Admin istration to show more flexibility (see page 9). Addressing this issue remains a key developing country priority within or without a new round. The EU and its allies have already acknowledged that the issue should be addressed during new negotiations, and Canada said it would be prepared to include it as well.
India and Pakistan proposed the establishment of working groups on trade and debt and trade and finance as part of a future work programme. Pakistan appeared more flexible than previously about new negotiations, which it and other major developing countries have hitherto staunchly resisted, arguing that future WTO work should focus only on correcting imbalances in existing agreements (see implementation below). At the 15 May meeting, Pakistan said it could consider adding new issues to the ongoing agriculture and services negotiations provided that these were “trade-related” and offered benefits to all WTO Members. Among developing countries, at least Chile, Costa Rica, Singapore, South Africa and Hong Kong are in favour of broad-based negotiations.
Implementation
Implementation-related debates are being held in variety of WTO bodies. The General Council special sessions that are supposed to result in recommendations for ministerial action in Doha have made slow progress, and developing country demands that would require amending the text of WTO Agreements look unlikely to be addressed before Ministerial Conference.
At the latest special session on implementation on 27 April, the EU said that before Doha more could be done on TRIMs transition period extensions (see page 7), improving annual reviews of the Anti-dumping Agreement, reviewing TRIPs provisions on technology transfer, increasing technical assistance and reviews related to the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and transparency and notification of rules of origin. These improvements, nowhere near to being agreed among industrialized countries, are minimal compared to developing countries’ demands. At Doha, the EU suggested that ministers could consider issues related to subsidies, anti-dumping rules and accelerating liberalisation of textiles and clothing, but refrained from specifying what the outcome might be.
Both the EU and Japan let understand, however, that far-reaching changes would only have a chance in the context of broader negotiations. General Council Chair Stuart Harbinson confirmed that his consultations revealed few prospects for progress on developing countries’ demands related to agricultural subsidies or intellectual property rights.
Many developing countries continued to stress the need for concrete results in the implementation review process. India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group rejected the proposal to roll some of the issues into a new round. Malaysia warned that the implementation review outcome would seriously impact on the Doha preparatory process; Pakistan said that the review’s success would largely depend on action on textiles and clothing (so far, no progress has occurred on this issue); and Zimbabwe highlighted the importance of making special and differential treatment provisions binding. Brazil said that with the consequences of imbalances in existing agreements becoming ever more apparent, civil society opposition to free trade and the WTO was growing in developing countries.
The next special session, planned for late June/early July, will take stock of progress Πor the lack of it Πacross all issues raised by developing countries in the implementation review.
The General Council also met on 17 May to discuss implementation concerns in the context of Doha preparations. Despite a general acknowledgement that implementation was crucial to the success of the Ministerial Conference, no concrete progress was made.
The US in particular seemed reluctant to make concessions at this stage, and few trade officials expected a more co-operative attitude in the two meetings that were scheduled to discuss textiles (23 May) and anti-dumping demands (1 June).
At another meeting, held on 18 May on ongoing negotiations and reviews, developing countries said they wanted ministerial decisions in Doha on the TRIPs and TRIMs reviews (see page 7).
1 Meeting on the sidelines of the OECD Council in Brussels, Quad ministers (Canada, the EU, Japan and the US) failed to find a common position on implementation issues.