Development

DOHA: AGREEMENT TO LAUNCH A NEW ROUND

A step forward or backwards for developing countries?

2001-11-22, Issue 43

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/development/4286

Printer friendly version

After months of discussions and speculation, last week’s discussions during the 4th WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha ended with the agreement to launch a new Multilateral Trade Round from January 2002. The EU has described this result as satisfactory. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy has argued that the result represents major progress for sustainable development, and that the future negotiations will be characterised by a balance between regulation and liberalisation. The European Commission claim that by providing the CTE (WTO Committee on Trade and Environment) with a special role, sustainable development and environmental concerns will be mainstreamed in the future negotiations.

4TH WTO MINISTERIAL MEETING IN DOHA AGREES TO LAUNCH A NEW ROUND? - STEP FORWARD OR BACKWARD FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

After months of discussions and speculation, last week’s discussions during the 4th WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha ended with the agreement to launch a new Multilateral Trade Round from January 2002. The EU has described this result as satisfactory. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy has argued that the result represents major progress for sustainable development, and that the future negotiations will be characterised by a balance between regulation and liberalisation. The European Commission claim that by providing the CTE (WTO Committee on Trade and Environment) with a special role, sustainable development and environmental concerns will be mainstreamed in the future negotiations. In the Doha Declaration agreed at the end of the meeting, it is stated that the process of reform and liberalisation should be maintained in order to ensure recovery, growth and development. The WTO members state their aim as to “ensure that developing countries, and especially the least-developed amount of them, secure a share in the growth of world trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development”. See http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/europa/2001newround/pl4.php
Some NGOs have stressed that the main gain for the developing countries is the draft agreement on the “TRIPs Agreement and Public Health”. It provides the developing countries with the right to determine national emergencies and other urgencies, including public health crises and to issue compulsory licenses to produce generic drugs. It is claimed that the balance in the system of patents has been improved since Doha. But there are still a number of problems with the agreement. For example it has not been certified whether a country could have generic drugs produced in another country, and it is up to the WTO to find a solution to this issue by the end of 2002.
According to the Doha Declaration, a focus of the forthcoming round of negotiations will be on agriculture, antidumping and tariffs.

2. WAIVERS FROM THE WTO ON ACP-EU TRADE AGREEMENT SECURED AT A PRICE?

One of the more significant outcomes of the WTO Ministerial in Doha was the approval of the waiver sought by the EU and ACP to practise non-reciprocal preferential trade for the ACP till 2008, when new ACP-EU trade arrangement come in force.
According to press sources the waiver deal was struck after several meetings between trade ministers from the EU, ACP and Latin America. The deal grants the ACP non-reciprocal preferential access to the EU markets until 2008, as the ACP and EU had insisted, but it also allows Latin American countries to maintain some leverage in ensuring that the EU treats them favourably.
Another waiver approved, grants the EU the right to maintain its banana trade regime that otherwise would not comply with WTO rules because of its preferences to ACP countries. According to press reports, the EU has promised, subject to EU Member States approval, to replace its current banana quotas with tariffs by 2006. This would be advantageous to competitive Latin American suppliers provided they do not face a high tariff. The Latin American countries (Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras) by accepting this compromise dropped their demands to be able to request a suspension of the waiver at any time once the waiver was in effect. Ecuador, which initially was reluctant to join the other Latin American countries in the striking the deal, succumbed after it was given assurances by the EU that Ecuador’s access to EU markets would not be negatively affected by access to ACP products.
However under the terms agreed under the waiver on non-reciprocal preferential trade, Latin American countries would be informed of the results of tariff negotiation under article 28 of the WTO and may request arbitration. This is a change from previous GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) rules, which did not allow Latin American countries to participate in such negotiations under article 28. In the new deal, the arbitrator, appointed by the WTO Director General, would be charged with determining whether the rebinding of EU tariffs on bananas would result in a reduction of market access to non-ACP suppliers. If the arbitrator is of the view that tariff bindings do not at least maintain market access to non-ACP countries, the EU will enter into consultations with the complaining countries. If the matter cannot be resolved the waiver granting the ACP preferential access will be suspended. According to an ACP spokesman, this was a price the ACP was prepared to pay to receive zero tariff treatment on bananas.
Apart from the Latin Americans the EU also had to meet the demands of other developing countries. According to press reports, before the waiver was approved Thailand and the Philippines had threatened to block the waiver if their demands on imports of canned tuna were not met. A last minute letter was sent from EU Commissioner for Trade, Pascal Lamy, to the Thai and Philippine representatives promising the EU’s willingness to engage in consultations with the Philippines and Thailand over whether these countries would lose market access to the EU on canned tuna from ACP suppliers as a result of the Cotonou Agreement.
ACP States were not without demands of their own. ACP States had threatened to block the agreement to launch a new WTO round of negotiations if they did not receive a waiver for ACP-EU Trade arrangements. Apart from this demand on the waiver the ACP’s also made a new Round conditional on: discussion and resolution of long-standing implementation and capacity building issues before any new issue is placed on board; and a transparent, democratic, inclusive and consultative decision-making process in the WTO. According to some reports some NGOs at a press conference in Doha voiced their disappointment at the ACP’s willingness to support a new WTO Round (even with certain conditions).

Source: Regular News Update From Eurostep No. 251 16 November 2001

↑ back to top