GSO News Volume 1 Number 9, November 2005
Katherine A. Hagen - Managing Director

This is the ninth issue of GSO News covering November 2005.  GSO News is a subscription service provided by the Geneva Social Observatory.  We report on developments at WHO, WTO, ILO and many other Geneva-based organizations, as well as other selected developments on global social issues. We hope you enjoy our news service.  Thank you for your support. The detailed news and in-depth follows the digest below.  This month’s in-depth is on the approaching WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference (MC6).

GSO News Digest November 2005

1.     Reform of the UN Commission on Human Rights
The reform of the UN moves on apace with consultations taking place on the proposed Human Rights Council following agreements made at the UN Summit in New York in September.

2.     WSIS Phase Two
Phase Two of the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) met in Tunis, Tunisia from 16 to 18 November 2005.  GSO takes a close look at the outcomes, in particular at technical governance of the internet and the formation of a multistakeholder forum. 

3.     WHO meeting on avian influenza and human pandemic influenza
A report of the follow-up to recent high-level meetings in Geneva.

4.     ILO Governing Body
The ILO Governing Body met in its 294^th Session from 3 to 17 November 2005.  Myanmar continued to be condemned by all partners for its forced labour practices, and other countries received scrutiny on labour standards as well, as is the main function of the ILO.

5.     World AIDS Day 2005
A round up of events taking place in Geneva and around the world under the theme ‘Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise.’

6.     Post MFA developments
We provide an update on developments in the textiles and clothing industry following our in-depth analysis in the last issue of GSO News (Volume 1, Number 8).

7.     ISO Standard Setting on Social Responsibility
A report on progress made by the ISO Working Group on SR in developing an international “guidance standard” on social responsibility.

8.     Appointments of interest
We have news of changes at WHO, UNCTAD, the International Trade Commission and the appointment of a new Special Advisor to the Global Compact.

9.     Social Health Insurance in Developing Countries
The ILO, together with the German Development Cooperation (GTZ) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will be holding an International Conference on Social Health Insurance in Developing Countries from 5 to 7 December 2005, in Berlin, Germany.  GSO analyses what is on the agenda.

10.    Forthcoming Events
A listing of events in December 2005 and January 2006 taking place in Geneva unless otherwise indicated.

In-Depth Issue: A Checklist for “MC6"
An update on current trade negotiations as the WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference (MC6) approaches is a challenging task. In this in-depth commentary, GSO News takes a brief look at the latest difficulties in the three main areas of the Doha Development Agenda - agriculture, non-agricultural manufacturing access and services - and offers a listing of some of the other hot issues to look out for at the Hong Kong Ministerial.

Back to the top

GSO News November 2005

1.     Reform of the UN Commission on Human Rights

Following the High-Level Summit at the UN in New York in September, the UN General Assembly has been mandated to take action on the reform of the Human Rights Commission.  Although this reform effort is a New York operation, the three officers in charge of this reform effort came to Geneva for a series of consultations on 21 and 22 November.  President of the General Assembly Jan Eliasson was accompanied by the two Co-Chairs on the establishment of a Human Rights Council and transitional arrangements.  The well-attended consultations allowed Geneva-based diplomatic missions and NGOs to draw upon their unique understanding of how the Human Rights Commission operates, since the six-week annual sessions of the Commission have been part of the Geneva scene for years.  The target of completing the reform process by the end of December appears a bit unrealistic, and it is more likely that the target will be shifted to August or September of next year.  If so, then the existing Human Rights Commission will have one more session in Geneva in its usual March/April timeframe. 

The US and the EU elaborated on their support for a smaller standing Human Rights Council that would meet for two weeks every two months with a broader mandate to review individual country compliance with international human rights standards as well as cases or urgent or continuing violations.  They urged quick action and making arrangements for only a brief transitional session of the existing Commission.  The developing countries, and especially the Asian countries, opposed a smaller size and tended to prefer a slower pace.  Agreement does seem to be widely shared to make the new Human Rights Council a subsidiary body of the General Assembly (thus elevating its standing), convening more frequent sessions, allowing the Council to establish its own agenda, meeting in Geneva, and continuing the arrangements for existing “special procedures.”  With regard to the significant role of NGOs in the human rights arena, the consultations suggested that the future participation of NGOs should build on established practices, with scope for improved dialogue and interaction.  Summaries of the oral interventions made at the consultations are available at www.unhchr.ch.  

Back to the top

2.     WSIS Phase Two

Phase Two of the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) met in Tunis, Tunisia from 16 to 18 November 2005.  The most widely covered issue in the build-up to Phase Two was Internet governance, an issue that had not been resolved at the Geneva-based “Phase One” of the Summit, and an issue that once again pitted the United States against almost everyone else.  The happy ending was a last-minute compromise the night before the Summit began, to retain existing mechanisms on technical governance of the Internet while providing for a multistakeholder forum, an “Internet Governance Forum”, on the “non-technical” public policy issues.  A closer look at the “Tunis Agenda for the Information Society” would suggest that the compromise is in fact rather fragile.  (See www.wsis.org for all of the documents on WSIS Phase Two.)

GSO News has been covering this Summit because its extensive preparatory phases have occurred in Geneva, in close proximity to the International Telecommunications Union.  It has also caught our eye because we see it as an incubator for changing rules of global multistakeholder dialogue.  As we have reported previously (See September and July 2005 issues of GSO News), the main existing mechanism for Internet governance is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  This is a private entity that reports to the US Department of Commerce.  At the Geneva Summit, the issue of internationalising Internet governance was left for resolution at Phase Two.  During the September 2005 session of the preparatory phase for Phase Two, it was hotly debated, with the US adamantly insisting on retaining ICANN, and others, mostly developing countries proposing a new intergovernmental mechanism or forum.  At the very end of the September session, the EU surprised everyone by shifting away from the US position and submitting its own proposal for a multistakeholder forum.  Then, during the last-minute negotiations in November, it appeared to some observers that the EU again shifted back to the US position, while others noted that the EU ended up playing an important mediating role and “brokered the deal” that got everyone on board.  This deal retains ICANN for technical purposes, while it also creates an “Internet Governance Forum” that will “meet periodically” and will be reviewed after five years to determine whether it should continue. 

Although the Forum is to have no “oversight” function, it is mandated to strengthen cooperation among stakeholders for public policies relating to “generic top-level domain names” and globally applicable principles for coordination and management.  It will “build on existing structures of Internet Governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in the process – governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations.”  At another point in the document, the parties affirm the need for “the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations, in their respective roles”  These phrases imply an innovative mix of governments and their intergovernmental organizations on the one hand, and of the private sector and civil society on the other, in what is supposed to be a “transparent, democratic and multilateral process….”  GSO News will follow the evolution of this new Forum, with its first meeting to occur in the second quarter of 2006, to be hosted in Athens by the government of Greece.   

Back to the top

3.      WHO meeting on avian influenza and human pandemic influenza

The meeting held in Geneva on 7-9 November was co-sponsored by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health and the World Bank.  Well attended by representatives of the sponsoring organizations and member states, the participants also included representatives from a wide range of other intergovernmental organizations and NGO’s.  The participants made good progress on meeting the key objectives.  These objectives covered the range of control, surveillance, containment, preparedness, coordination and communication.  The pace at which preventative actions to enable containment, and of plans and preparations for a pandemic have proceeded can aptly be described as feverish.  The priorities have focused on the urgent needs for the next 6 months, with many emphasizing the financial resource requirements and the critical need to stop the spread of influenza at its sources.  The G7 meetings to be held in London on December 2 and 3 will be addressing the economic impact of an avian flu pandemic on trade balances.  A ministerial level donor’s financial conference will be held in Beijing in mid-January.  

Back to the top

4.     ILO Governing Body

The ILO Governing Body met in its 294^th Session from 3 to 17 November 2005. Myanmar continued to be condemned by all partners for its forced labour practices, and other countries received scrutiny on labour standards as well, as is the main function of the ILO.  As the ILO prepares for its next biennial budget in January, an interesting innovation is the In-Focus Initiatives (IFIs), of which there are three – on the informal economy, on corporate social responsibility and on global production systems (supply chains).  These are all areas in which the ILO can play an important role, as the official source of international labour standards, along with its expertise on employment and social protection and its commitment to tripartism and social dialogue.  The Governing Body also debated the idea of convening a Globalization Policy Forum, on which there was enthusiasm coming from the Workers Group and most governments, some cautious reservations from the EU, and outright opposition from the Employers Group and the US Government.  Presumably this Globalization Policy Forum would be something like the Internet Governance Forum discussed below (WSIS Phase Two), with a multistakeholder format to discuss public policy issues on globalization.  Further details are forthcoming at the NEXT session of the Governing Body in March 2006.  Stay tuned.  

Back to the top

5.     World AIDS Day 2005

This year’s theme for World AIDS Day, ‘Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise,’ has inspired a welter of events being organized in Geneva and around the world.

The main UN-NGO commemoration in Geneva, being organized jointly by numerous international as well as local organizations coordinated by UNAIDS, will be a candlelight ceremony, exhibition and reception at the World Council of Churches from 16.30 to 18.30.  This will be preceded by the ILO’s principal event, an open meeting at 11.00 on ‘Workplace action on HIV/AIDS: Leading by example in the UN’ with a keynote address by the Director-General and contributions from UN staff living with HIV/AIDS to be followed by the opening of an exhibition of Shona stone sculptures from Zimbabwe.  Other highlights of the Geneva agenda include the showing of AIDS related films from around the world and exhibitions at UNHCR, IFRC, the Maison de Quartier des Pâquis and a charity gala at the Ramada Hotel.  More information about the events can be found at http://worldaidscampaign.info/index.php/wac/wac/world_aids_day/wad_2005_events#S and requested from wad2005@unaids.org.

Information about over 230 other events going on around the world can be found at http://worldaidscampaign.info/index.php/wac/wac/world_aids_day/wad_2005_events.

In the run-up to World AIDS Day this year UNAIDS and WHO released the AIDS Epidemic Update 2005 on 21 November in 15 cities around the world http://www.unaids.org/epi2005/doc/global05.html.  The report, which gives an update of the latest developments and trends in the evolution of the epidemic with a special section on prevention, can be downloaded at http://www.unaids.org/epi2005/doc/report.html.

As mentioned in the last issue of GSO News (Vol. 1, No. 8), this year the GSO has been conducting a series of roundtable events on Social Responsibility and HIV/AIDS that culminated in a Forum on ‘HIV/AIDS and the Informal Economy in Africa: Building a Multistakeholder Action Plan’ that took place at the ILO, Geneva on 20 October 2005. The GSO Forum Report and the Components of an Umbrella Action Plan will be presented to participants for discussion at the 14th International Conference on HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Africa (ICASA) in Abuja, Nigeria from 5 to 9 December 2005 (http://www.icasa2005.org.ng/).  ICASA is a biennual meeting organized by the Society for AIDS in Africa (SAA) that started in the 1980’s. ICASA gathers together African scientists, social leaders, political leaders and communities who share their experiences and current trends in the management of HIV/AIDS and STIs from an African perspective.

The two GSO Forum documents will also be distributed in other settings and are available to download on the GSO website, http://www.gsogeneva.ch/gso%20forum.htm.

Back to the top

6.     Post MFA developments

The October 2005 issue of GSO News included an in-depth piece on the phase-out of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the special tripartite meeting convened by the ILO on “Promoting Fair Globalization in Textiles and Clothing in a Post-MFA Environment.”  The ILO meeting brought together the social partners and governments to clarify what can be done to ensure decent work and to minimize disruptions for people’s livelihoods in a rapidly changing system for supplying textiles and clothing in a global marketplace.  The Geneva Social Observatory is pleased to report that the well-attended meeting was ably chaired by Ambassador Jean-Jacques Elmiger of Switzerland.  In the Chairperson’s summary of the meeting, Ambassador Elmiger urged that “a consortium of international agencies should offer a coordinated response to the adjustment challenges of the TC industries in the North and South.”  He further identified four ways in which the ILO should play a major role – (1) improving skill development for both workers and managers in the sector, (2) a new global information and analysis service with up-to-date employment information, (3) assistance in compliance and remediation to streamline social auditing and compliance reporting, and (4) establishing a “global social responsibility forum.”  (See ILO, “Tripartite Meeting on Promoting Fair Globalization in Textiles and Clothing in a Post-MFA Environment:  Chairperson’s summary,” TMTC-PMFA/2005/6 (Geneva, 24-26 October 2005) at www.ilo.org.) 

The GSO supports these recommendations and will continue to follow and facilitate the search for pragmatic solutions.  It should be noted that since the October issue of GSO News, the US and China reached an accord on quotas for Chinese exports to the US in multiple categories, phasing them out over a four-year period.  (See http://www.us-mission.ch/Press2005/1108USChinaTextileAgreement.htm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4416858.stm)  The issue, however, is expected to be back on the WTO agenda at the forthcoming Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December, in the context of coping with “preference erosion” for many developing countries in this sector.  (See our In-depth piece on the Phase-Out of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing in the last issue of GSO News, Volume 1 Number 8).

Back to the top

7.     ISO Standard Setting on Social Responsibility

The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is a Geneva-based organization that sets international standards for “state of the art products, services, processes, materials and systems and for good conformity assessment, managerial and organizational  practice.”  (See: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/otherpubs/pdf/isoinbrief_2005-en.pdf.)  As we have reported in previous issues of GSO News, the ISO has taken on the challenging task of developing an international “guidance standard” on social responsibility, launched at the beginning of this year and targeted for completion in October 2008.  GSO News is pleased to report that the ISO Working Group on SR made solid progress at a meeting in September in Bangkok, Thailand, and is currently setting up three task groups to work on such issues as “the SR context in which all organizations operate,” “SR principles relevant to organizations,” “guidance on core SR subjects/issues” and “guidance for organizations on implementing SR.”  The membership of the Working Group is made up of experts from ISO members (National Standardisation Bodies) and from Liaison organizations. Membership is limited to a maximum of 6 experts per National Standardization Body and two experts per Liaison organisation.  There were 270 “participating experts” from 51 countries and 32 Liaison organizations at the September meeting.  Although they were encouraged by the increased number of participants from developing countries, the ISO Working Group is still looking for ways to broaden participation.  GSO News encourages interested readers to look at the dedicated website for this project at www.iso.org/sr.  The next meeting of the Working Group will be in Lisbon, Portugal in May or June 2006.  

The ISO Working Group on SR had in September 2005, 270 participating experts from 51 countries and 32 Liaison organizations.  

Back to the top

8.     Appointments of interest

The WHO is acquiring a new Assistant Director-General for Health Technology and Pharmaceuticals – Dr. Howard Zucker from the United States.  A physician/lawyer with expertise in pediatric cardiology and anesthesiology, Dr. Zucker is currently Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Science Technology and Medicine in the US Government and a former White House Fellow  - as is the Managing Director of the Geneva Social Observatory, by the way.  Dr. Zucker joins the WHO on 1 December. 

At UNCTAD, Secretary-General Supachai Panitchpakdi has announced the appointment of his new Deputy Secretary-General, Dirk J. Bruinsma, effective 1 January 2006.  Mr. Bruinsma is currently Director-General for Foreign Economic Relations in the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands.  He has had extensive experience as an economics official and on development issues with the Dutch government.  Mr. Bruinsma takes the place of Carlos Fortin, who served as Deputy Secretary-General since 1994 and Secretary-General ad interim from 2004 until his retirement in September.

The International Trade Commission, the joint technical cooperation agency of UNCTAD and WTO for business aspects of trade development, will have a new Executive Director as of June 2006 – Patricia Francis from Jamaica.  The joint appointment by the UN and the WTO is for a three-year term.  Ms. Francis has been president of the Jamaica Promotions Authority for ten years and is a former president of the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies.   She has extensive management experience in the fields of trade promotion and technical assistance to developing countries.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has appointed Klaus M. Leisinger as Special Advisor to the Global Compact.  Professor Leisinger is the President and CEO of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development and an active supporter of testing the draft Norms for Multinational Enterprises and Related Business Entities.  Other Special Advisors to the Global Compact have included Professor John Ruggie, the writer Malcolm McIntosh, Claude Fussler of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Goran Lindahl, the former CEO of ABB.  Professor Ruggie, it might be noted, served as Special Advisor from August 2003 until his appointment in July 2005 as Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights.  He was also UN Assistant Secretary-General for four years, from 1997 to 2001 and was instrumental in helping the Secretary-General establish the Global Compact. 

Back to the top

9.     Social Health Insurance in Developing Countries

The ILO, together with the German Development Cooperation (GTZ) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will be holding an International Conference on Social Health Insurance in Developing Countries from 5 to 7 December 2005, in Berlin, Germany.

Participants will include high-ranking representatives from governments, social partners and stakeholders in international cooperation from more than 40 countries. They will share their experience and discuss the role of social health insurance in fighting poverty and reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Social insurance is an issue that brings the WHO and the ILO together.  From the WHO perspective, the concern is related to health inequities, a theme that is receiving widespread attention through the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health.  The World Health Assembly also addressed the issue of social insurance in May.  From the ILO perspective, the concern is related to social protection objectives and ensuring that workers and their dependents have reasonable safety and health care.

More information on the conference can be found at www.shi-conference.de.  

Back to the top

10.    Forthcoming Events

A listing of events in December 2005 and January 2006 taking place in Geneva unless otherwise indicated.

28 Nov-2 Dec            UNCTAD Workshop on the Economic and Legal Aspects of International Investment Agreements (Bangkok, Thailand)

30 Nov-2 Dec            UNCTAD Expert Meeting on ICT and Tourism for Development

1 December              World AIDS Day

1-2 December           WTO General Council

2 December              International Day for the Abolition of Slavery

3 December              International Day of Disabled Persons

5-7 December           ILO/GTZ/WHO International Conference on Social Health Insurance in Developing Countries (Berlin, Germany)

5-7 December           UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Enhancing Productive Capacity of Developing Country Firms

8 December              World Bank International Symposium on Economic Integration in Asia and India: What is the Best Way of Regional Cooperation? (Tokyo, Japan)

10 December            Human Rights Day

12 December            UNCTAD Symposium on IIAs and investment disputes (Paris, France)

12-14 December      UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Capacity Building in the Area of FDI: data compilation and policy formulation in developing countries

13-15 December      WTO: Trade Policy Review Body — Malaysia

13-17 December      ICTSD and University of Hong Kong Symposium (Hong Kong)

13-18 December      Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference (Hong Kong)

18 December            International Migrants Day

2006                           International Year of Deserts and Desertification

6-17 January              Commission on Human Rights, open-ended working group to elaborate an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

9-13 January              Commission on Human Rights, open-ended working group on the right to development

9-27 January              Committee on the Rights of the Child, forty-first session

23-28 January           117^th WHO Executive Board session

25-29 January           World Economic Forum: Mastering Our Future, with participation of the OECD (Davos, Switzerland)

Back to the top

In-Depth Issue: A Checklist for “MC6"

An update on current trade negotiations as the WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference (MC6) approaches is a challenging task. In this in-depth commentary, GSO News takes a brief look at the latest difficulties in the three main areas of the Doha Development Agenda - agriculture, non-agricultural manufacturing access and services - and offers a listing of some of the other hot issues to look out for at the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Our commentary focuses on some observations about the changing nature of leadership in the institution - the role of the Director-General Pascal Lamy, the tensions between the UK and the EU, the tensions between the US Congress and the Bush Administration, the changing alignments of different combinations of big and small developing countries, the anxieties of the Hong Kong government and the undercurrents of NGO activities that are mostly directed at opposition to most, if not all, of the current proposals for trade liberalization. 

Agriculture

Agriculture continues to be the most important arena, with the impasse between the EU and the US being the most significant challenge.  The US came through with a dramatic new proposal on its domestic farm subsidies - too dramatic for the likes of Korea, Japan or Switzerland but not dramatic enough for the developing countries.  The EU came back with a “final” offer on tariffs that was hardly comparable and yet encountered the opprobrium of the French.  Since then the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has done an admirable job of arguing that he has made as good an offer as he possibly can on agriculture and that the developing countries need to come up with reasonable counter-offers in goods (non-agricultural manufacturing access or NAMA) and in services in order to keep any dynamic going on the whole package.  (The implication seems to be that the EU might be able to produce a better offer on agriculture if there is something concrete to be gained on the other fronts, an argument that is made by many observers of the European scene.) 

The US Administration, meanwhile, is confronted with a testy Congress that is looking to extend the subsidy programmes of the farm bill beyond the current expiration date of 2007, on up to 2012, in direct contradiction to the offer by US Trade Representative Robert Portman to cut these subsidies rather substantially in the Doha Round.  The US is also especially caught up in the cotton negotiations, which are tied to the agriculture negotiations but are on a separate track that the US is actively seeking to keep on a parallel track rather than allowing the negotiations to proceed independently.  Here, the US interest is in holding its cards on cotton as a trade-off for further accommodations on the main agriculture track elsewhere, i.e. from the EU.

Looked at from the perspective of what needs to be in a final package for the completion of the Doha Round, the agricultural negotiations have failed to produce the full “modalities” on domestic support, market access and export competition that have to be agreed for real momentum to occur at MC6, the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Ambassador Crawford Falconer of New Zealand, the chair of the agriculture negotiations has had to put forward a text for the Hong Kong meeting that only describes the absence of agreement on the scope and classification of cuts in subsidies and tariffs, plus tariff caps, treatment and number of “sensitive” products, as well as how to accord special and differential treatment to developing countries and how to factor in the recognition of “Special Products” for developing countries.

NAMA

The Negotiating Group on Market Access (NAMA) seems to have been made little progress through the month, even though Ambassador Stefan Johannesson of Finland and Chair of the NAMA Group, has identified a convergence of thinking on the type of formula (the “Swiss formula”) to be used for tariff cuts.  The key here has been an impasse on tariff bands and different formulas for the “coefficients” to be used in calculating the actual cuts within each band.  The general conclusion has been that “full modalities” are not possible for either agricultural products or industrial goods at MC6.  Rather, as USTR Portman has suggested, maybe in Hong Kong one can agree on the “contours” of a formula for reducing tariffs and a “road map” for negotiations, including timelines, for 2006.  Foreign Minister Celso Amorim from Brazil has even suggested a “Hong Kong Two” in March or April. 

Minister Amorim has also observed that it is necessary to deal with “preference erosion” - the declining value of preferential access to industrial markets by certain developing countries, including the Least Developed Countries (the LDCs) in relation to the European “Everything but Arms” arrangement.  Amorim specifically noted that one must not divide the developing countries between those that have preferences and those that don’t.  Rather, he argued, the developmental importance of preferences needed to be factored into the overall package, along with the need for “policy space” for industrial policies in developing countries.  One finds this an interesting maneuver from Mr. Amorim, the leader of the G-20 larger developing countries and the foreign minister of Brazil, which stands to gain greatly from agricultural liberalization but less from NAMA liberalization. 

Above and beyond the developing country concerns about “policy space” and preference erosion, a specific sector of the goods trade has come under special scrutiny in some circles.  This is the textiles and clothing sector.  Some countries - notably Turkey, Jordan and Tunisia, have been pushing for a special work programme in the WTO Council on Trade in Goods on textiles.  China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan have opposed this proposal.  This is an issue that is likely to come up at MC6.  One coalition of textile and clothing manufacturers is actively lobbying for a “sectoral carve-out” from NAMA for textiles, calling for a “Special textile sectoral (STS) negotiating scheme.”  Since textiles and clothing had already been “carved out” once before, in the Uruguay Round, through a separate ten-year phase-out of quotas, one can expect some last-minute attention to this issue with regard to both quotas and tariffs in Hong Kong.  It is interesting that the US has just announced the appointment of Scott Quesenberry as a “special textile negotiator” who will attend the Hong Kong meeting.  Quesenberry is a former aide to Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, a major textile-producing state in the US.  His mandate includes looking for “new markets overseas.”  (See www.ustr.org.) 

One can also expect special attention in Hong Kong to the ongoing banana dispute involving the EU.  This is a dispute between the trade preference countries of the ACP who have benefited from trade preferences with the EU and the other Latin American countries who have had to deal with both quota and tariff barriers to the EU market.  The latest EU offer on the quota-free regime that must be put in place in January 2006 had too high a tariff for the Latin American and other countries to accept.  Here, one sees recent positioning by US multinationals with interests in the Latin American banana industry, ahead of MC6, with one (Del Monte) endorsing the latest EU offer and another (Chiquita) opposing it.  (See an AFP report from Washington, DC http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/english_corner/last_news/international_organizations.detailcateg.YWZwLmNvbToyMDA1MTEyOTowNTExMjkyMDIyMDEuZnVlNnBuejM6MQ==.12.0.html.)

Services

The third main area of negotiations is services.  Here the “modalities” are quite different than in agriculture or NAMA, in that the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides for a process of offers and counter-offers on a bilateral basis.  Deadlines for offers passed some time ago without a full array of such offers, and further deadlines have passed on counter-offers.  The process has not been very “liberalizing,” although this is an area where liberalization has some especially strong critics among the NGOs.  Many NGOs are opposing trade liberalization of services in large part because it is seen as the avenue for the privatisation of services, such as education and water services.  Given the uncertainty of who would actually control trade in services, it is not surprising that many of the smaller developing countries are raising the question of what’s in it for them.  

Recent efforts by the EU, the US and other industrial countries to jump-start the services negotiations have stirred further controversy.  A proposal for setting numerical benchmarks has been dropped, but another effort to stimulate a “plurilateral” approach continues stir up resistance from developing countries.   Ambassador Fernando de Mateo, Chair of the Council for Trade in Services, has come under attack by many NGOs and developing countries for preparing texts for the Hong Kong Ministerial that incorporate language aspiring to “existing levels of market access on a non-discriminatory basis across sectors of interests to Members.”  A group of NGOs sent an open letter to the Pascal Lamy protesting the plurilateral approach as well as the allegedly closed procedures followed by Ambassador de Mateo in drafting the text.  Lamy himself then sent an open letter back to the NGOs defending the process and insisting that it was open to all Members’ concerns.  (Both of these letters are on the WTO website at www.wto.org.) 

“Recalibrating” MC6 for an “Early Harvest” on Development

With negotiating positions still very far apart on agriculture, NAMA and services, the hosts of MC6 are joining forces with the EU and the US and others interested in avoiding a Seattle or Cancun style disaster in Hong Kong to “recalibrate” the expectations for MC6.  Shifting the focus to an “early harvest” on a development package is one such recalibration.  It is being argued that many development-style issues are “very close to fruition” and should not be held hostage to a more comprehensive deal. 

The question, then, is what makes a development package a workable outcome for MC6?  If the main development benefit from the Doha Round is the opening up of markets for agriculture, goods and services, then a separate development package is a bit of a stretch.  Nonetheless, there are a number of issues that are “close to fruition” or at least are not entirely dependent on the central negotiations.  Such issues include an accommodation on “special and differential treatment” for the LDCs, perhaps even for other developing countries as well, plus dealing with the erosion of preferences (bananas and textiles come to mind), taking care of the “problems” of small economies, going ahead with a separate package on cotton, and setting up the framework for a new “Aid for Trade” initiative.  Another such issue might be a permanent solution to the TRIPS and health issue, and yet another might be working out an arrangement for the accession of the remaining LDCs and smaller states that have had difficulty with the current criteria for becoming a member of the WTO. 

There are signs that this “early harvest” strategy might work.  The trade ministers of the African Union (the AU) met last week in Arusha, Tanzania and adopted the “Arusha Development Benchmarks.”  The G-90, made up of the AU, the LDCs and the ACP, will be meeting in Brussels to hammer out a common position.  Foreign Minister Celso Amorim of Brazil has spoken positively of a development package, and Hong Kong trade chief John Tsang (and Chair of MC6) is traveling around in search of a development deal.  Director-General Lamy is also playing an active facilitating role, issuing a preliminary text for MC6 “on his responsibility” in cooperation with the Chair of the WTO General Council.  This week in Geneva, the TRIPS Council has already approved an extension of the obligation to comply with intellectual property rights for LDCs until 2013 (other than for the pharmaceuticals industry for which the extension had already been negotiated in 2002 until 2016). 

Looking Forward

GSO News has prepared a checklist of issues that are the main elements of the Doha Development Agenda.  These are not necessarily exhaustive, but they give one a sense of the multiplicity of issues that need to come together at some point.  Detailed play-by-plays are provided elsewhere, including excellent coverage in “Bridges” by the ICTSD (www.ictsd.org).  ICTSD and the University of Hong Kong are also organizing a “Trade and Development Symposium” at the Hong Kong Exhibition Centre from 13 to 17 December in collaboration with the Institute for Agricultural Trade Policy, in conjunction with the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the WTO.

As we reported in our last issue (October 2005 GSO News), a record number of NGOs have been accredited as eligible to attend.  (The full list is available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/list_ngo_e.pdf.)  The Hong Kong authorities have been very thorough in arranging their participation, but reports also indicate that they have continuing concerns about NGO protests that might become difficult to manage.  The WTO Secretariat, including the Director-General himself, has also been very thorough and transparent in seeking to maintain an information flow with NGOs.  The WTO decision-making structure, on the other hand, is very inter-governmental, with very few official observers, all of which are other inter-governmental organizations.  So in spite of the huge number of NGOs on the periphery of the proceedings, the scope for any kind of formal interventions by NGOs at ministerial conferences is non-existent.  These all have to be channelled through governments.  For the private sector, this has been the major vehicle for influencing the proceedings, supplemented by occasional public statements like the recent letter to the editor of the Financial Times from some 50 or so CEOs.  (See www.ft.news.)  

With some 154 Member states, and at least three new Members to be welcomed at MC6 (Nepal, Cambodia and Saudi Arabia), the WTO is charting new territory as it seeks to map out a consensus.  Above and beyond any “early harvest” objective, MC6 needs to produce a “road map” for moving these Members forward - bringing to fruition the full agenda of the Doha Development Agenda - and to a full harvest - by the end of 2006 or early 2007 at the latest.  While this is somewhat of a moving deadline, the middle of 2007, when the US Trade Promotion Authority expires, is a major “frost date” by which the harvest has to be in or it dies on the vine, as it were.  The timing for modalities is becoming more definite under the circumstances.  One can anticipate, perhaps, another one or even two ministerial-level summits in 2006, probably in Geneva, one to agree on the modalities and the other to finalize the deal.

The GSO News checklist for MC6:

1.     Agriculture has the following components - Modalities and comprehensive draft Schedules for

            Domestic support

Separate and differential treatment for developing countries

Different bands and rates for reducing ceiling support levels

                        De minimus exemptions                 

                       Blue Box - partially de-coupled from production

                        Amber Box - trade-distorting subsidies

                        Green Box - de-coupled, non-trade-distorting subsidies

Minimal trade distortion plus development friendly

                        Exceptions

            Market access

                        Separate and differential treatment

Tiered formula (four bands) based on ad valorem equivalents

                        Bands and rates of reduction of tariffs

                        Tariff caps

Sensitive products (of interest primarily to developed countries)

            Special products - food security, livelihood, and rural development

                        Special safeguard mechanism

                        Preference erosion                         

            Export competition

                        End date

                        Export credits

                        State trading enterprises

                        Food aid          

No tariffs or quotas for LDCs (Everything but Arms)

            Cotton - trade issues

                         - development assistance issues

 

2.     NAMA - Modalities and comprehensive draft Schedules for

            Structuring a formula

Focus on a variation of the “Swiss” formula (high tariffs cut more than lower tariffs)

                        Small or larger number of “coefficients”

                        Issue of reciprocity

            Flexibilities for developing Members (Para. 8 of the NAMA framework)

            Unbound tariff lines

3.     Services - expanding sectoral and modal coverage with

            Appropriate flexibility for developing countries (size)

            No new commitments for LDCs

            Special situation of recently-acceded member States

Aspiring to “existing levels” (EU) or “at least at existing levels” (US) “of “market access on a non-discriminatory basis across sectors of interest to Members” or something “less prescriptive” and “less specific” (Brazil, Jamaica and Rwanda on behalf of the Africa Group)

            Expanding the sectoral and modal coverage of commitments

                        Mode 1 - cross-border supply (from one country to another)

                        Mode 2 - consumption abroad (tourism, etc)

                        Mode 3 - commercial presence (e.g. subsidiaries or branches)

                        Mode 4 - presence of natural persons - other than migration

            Scheduling of commitments

            Approaches - bilateral or plurilateral

            Numerical benchmarks

4.     Other issues:

Rules negotiations

                        Timing

                        Anti-dumping

                        Fisheries subsidies

Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS )

                        Geographic indications for wine and spirits (GIs)

                        LDC extension of effective obligation date

            TRIPS and public health

                        TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints

Trade and Environment - relationship with multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)

Trade facilitation

Dispute Settlement Understanding

Special and differential treatment

                        Agreement-specific proposals

            Cross-cutting issues, monitoring mechanism

Implementation

5.    Other development issues:

            Small economies

            Trade, debt and finance

            Trade and transfer of technology

            TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints

            E-commerce

Integrated Framework (with support from World Bank and IMF)

Technical cooperation

Commodities

Aid for Trade

Back to the top