|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov21/05) Geneva, 4 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) – The Group of 90 (G90) developing and least-developed countries seem determined to continue the fight on their ten Agreement-specific proposals on improving the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions, after the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12), which is expected to begin in Geneva on 30 November. Despite the repeated attempts at denial as well as “diversionary” tactics adopted by the US, the European Union, Japan, Canada, and other members of the Ottawa Group of countries in addressing the S&DT proposals in the Doha work program for the past 21 years, the G90 countries have not given up their hopes on the unfinished battle, according to their draft ministerial decision. In their latest restricted draft ministerial decision for MC12 (Job/TN/CTD/1, Job/TNC/100, and Job/GC/280) circulated on 3 November, the G90 countries emphasized that they would continue with the ongoing work on the ten Agreement-specific proposals, despite “ideological” opposition from a handful of countries, particularly the United States and the European Union, said people familiar with the development. The improvements sought by the G90 coalition in the ten Agreement-specific proposals encompass: 1. Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs); 2. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), especially Article XVIII; 3. GATT Article XVIII for enabling developing countries in balance of payment (BoP) difficulties to take measures on their BoP problems; 4. To make operational and effective Article 9.2 and Article 10 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS); 5. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) under which developed countries are being called on to provide at least a 180-day comment period to developing and least-developed countries; 6. Specific improvements in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) to enable industrialization programs in developing countries; 7. Agreement on Customs Valuation and Decision on Minimum Values; 8. 1979 decision on differential and more favourable treatment, reciprocity and fuller participation of developing countries (Enabling Clause); 9. Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement involving transfer of technology; and 10. Accessions. Just as in the TRIPS waiver discussions, where the 64 co-sponsors of the TRIPS waiver proposal repeatedly answered all the questions raised by a handful of countries, South Africa, on behalf of the G90 countries, addressed all the concerns raised by a handful of countries including the US, the EU, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Norway among others at the special sessions on trade and development chaired by Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan from Djibouti, where the G90 proposals are being discussed. CHAIR’S REPORT In her report presented at the informal Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) meeting on 25 October, contained in document Job/GC/279, Ambassador Hassan said that she held several bilateral meetings on the G90 proposals. She said the objective of holding these bilateral meetings “was to explore how progress could be made in the work of the CTD SS [special sessions on trade and development] in the time remaining until MC12.” Ambassador Hassan said that she asked members “for their views on what work would need to be done in order to arrive at an outcome on the G-90 proposals at the Ministerial Conference.” “I also asked what elements would need to fall in place for an outcome on S&DT at MC12 to become possible,” she said. In the course of the discussions, she said, “some delegations reiterated their view that the G-90 proposals provided a good basis to take the discussion forward in the CTD SS.” Without naming the handful of developed countries that have “stonewalled” the discussions, the chair said “other delegations recalled their longstanding concerns with the proposals.” She said “a number of Members felt that there was no scope to make progress on any of the G-90 proposals in their current form, while others felt that it may be worth exploring whether a focus on only some of the proposals in the first instance might allow some progress to be made.” More importantly, the chair said that members “were open to consider the possibility of an outcome on S&DT at MC12.” Without naming this one member, she said that “one delegation indicated that it was not pursuing such an outcome. This delegation was of the view that there was a need to have a broader discussion on trade and development before any further work in the CTD SS could be envisaged.” The chair said that “in spite of the differing positions that were shared with me, it is worth highlighting that most Members I met recognized the importance of S&DT as a fundamental pillar of the multilateral trading system.” Ambassador Hassan said “there was a general recognition that the stalemate in the CTD SS was not healthy for this organization.” According to the chair, Members indicated “their readiness to engage further in informal settings to try and see how progress could be made.” The chair said that she “was encouraged by these expressions of readiness to continue the informal consultations, although it was clear that we will still need further discussions in order to find a common path forward.” The chair said that she intends to continue the process of informal consultations in small groups so as to enable members to arrive at an outcome on S&DT at MC12. She said ultimately it is for members “to show the necessary flexibility and political will to collaborate, so as to collectively determine how to arrive at such an outcome, as well as to determine how the work of the CTD SS can advance on the G-90 proposals.” The chair reiterated that “the difficulties surrounding S&DT will not simply go away. This is why I strongly believe that it is only by tackling these issues and working together creatively that Members will be able to find the much-needed solutions.” She urged members “to participate actively and constructively in the informal discussions in small groups that I will be organizing, and I repeat once again the need for urgency in our work, given the short time remaining until MC12.” G90’S DRAFT MINISTERIAL DECISION It is against this backdrop, in their draft ministerial decision circulated on 3 November by South Africa, on behalf of the G90 countries, that the G90 coalition said that their economies suffered “the adverse economic, financial, health and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global community.” Given “the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and slow and unequal economic recovery in developing and least developed countries,” the G90 countries said the WTO must remain more responsive to the needs of Members, especially in the current challenging global economic environment. The G90 coalition underscored the need to take into consideration “the central importance of the development dimension in every aspect of the Doha Work Programme and broadly in the work of the WTO.” It noted the “specific constraints facing developing and least-developed countries, including those on the graduation track.” The G90 coalition recalled “paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, that all Special and Differential Treatment provisions be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational.” It emphasized “the need for the WTO to ensure that its rules enable, and do not inhibit, developing and least developed countries from pursuing policies to support the rebuilding from COVID-19, achieve industrialization, structural transformation and diversification of their economies, in order to raise the standard of living of their population and integrate into the multilateral trading system.” The G90 coalition noted that, given the original review of 155 special and differential treatment provisions, substantial work still remains to be done. It called on trade ministers to approve their draft ministerial decision at the upcoming MC12. The draft ministerial decision states: “To reaffirm that special and differential treatment is an integral part of existing and future WTO Agreements for developing and least developed countries. To instruct the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session to expeditiously complete the review of the G90 ten (10) Agreement-specific proposals and report to the General Council, with clear recommendations for a decision, by the next Ministerial Conference, and further instruct the Committee to develop a Work Programme to conclude this review, in accordance with the mandate.” At a time when the US and its developed country allies seem determined to fundamentally change the “negotiating function” of the WTO by bringing about differentiation among developing countries for availing of S&DT, the G90 proposal appears to have exposed the double-standards and the hypocrisy of the US, the EU, and the Ottawa Group of countries led by Canada. In short, the failure to address the mandated issues in the Doha work program on improving the special and differential treatment provisions for the past 21 years only suggests that the WTO does not appear to work for addressing the concerns of the developing and least-developed countries.
|
||
