As indicated in my fax to you of 7 July I
thought it useful to assess at this meeting the latest developments in
the DDA and together consider where we are and where we will be going in
the autumn.
Let me first report to you on my recent activities and meetings,
including a Green Room meeting yesterday afternoon, before we engage in
an exchange of views on the work and next steps in the negotiations.
As you know, I recently attended the G20 Heads of State and Government
in Toronto. In my fax to you of 29 June I provided you with an initial
account of my message to the Leaders and of my impressions of the
discussions in Toronto. I also attached the overview of the
state-of-play which I prepared for the Leaders' Summit.
My message to Ministers and to Leaders in Toronto was simple — (i)
growth is needed to create jobs without greater strains on national
budgets and that trade offers this; and (ii) concluding the Doha Round
has to be an integral part of the G20 co-ordinated strategy to move
forward.
Over the past few weeks, we have all taken note of the attention given
to the state of the Round in many other quarters around the world. For
instance, Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community and Heads of
State and Government of the African Union at their recent respective
summits have highlighted the central importance of the DDA to their
respective memberships. These Leaders have expressed concern at the slow
progress in the negotiations and urged us to move towards a conclusion
as soon as possible. Such continued attention to the DDA is a powerful
reminder that failure to conclude this Round would have a direct and
tangible negative impact on a very large number of our Members.
Overall, what is clear from all these discussions is an overall desire
to move the DDA negotiations to a balanced and ambitious conclusion as
soon as possible, consistent with the mandate and based on progress
already made. At the same time I believe it is healthy to note the
reality that faces us — namely that gaps remain on the right level of
ambition and on the right balance in the contributions by Members.
Here in Geneva, we are working according to the “cocktail” approach that
was agreed at the March Stocktaking. We have all the ingredients —
smaller groups in variable geometry, bilateral contacts and my own
consultations — and we have been working to combine them. These
ingredients have to be given space and time. However, their purpose is
to energise the multilateral process, into which they must feed. All my
recent contacts have made it crystal clear that everybody emphasizes the
centrality and primacy of the multilateral process, ie the negotiating
groups and the TNC.
After some months of impasse in the negotiations, my own sense is that
we are beginning to see signs of a new dynamic emerging. This new
dynamic is built on the discussions that some of you are having over
different topics in different configurations. I believe these
explorations are useful.
Clearly, it is too early to say whether this new dynamic is firmly
rooted and can expand to all issues under the negotiating agenda which
still lag behind in terms of maturity. It is also too early to see how
you engage on horizontal trade-offs across different areas.
Nevertheless, I believe that if this process lives up to its promising
beginnings then Members will have to be prepared, when the time is
right, to start testing “what ifs”.
The objective of this process will be to reach a level of ambition and
balance that you are all looking for. This, in turn, will mean that
during this autumn you will need to bring your engagement to a higher
gear by going deeper and wider into your discussions. My sense is that
you should attempt to build on the new dynamic by expanding these small
groups discussions to all areas. And I stress again that all these
efforts, promising as they may be, must come back to the Negotiating
Groups and I think that somewhere around mid-October would be a good
time to evaluate our progress.
Let me now turn to each of the negotiating areas and provide you with a
brief outline of the state-of-play as well as an insight into the
process for work after the summer break as envisaged by Chairs of the
Negotiating Groups.
First, the work in Agriculture remains on two tracks — templates
and on the bracketed or otherwise annotated issues on the draft
modalities. On templates, and on the associated work on base data, Step
2 on drafts of the actual proposed formats for the scheduling process
has been engaged: Members are actively involved; “road-maps” have now
been proposed for developing draft templates for domestic support,
market access and export support. There has also been progress on base
data and its verification. On the modalities, the Chair has continued
his consultations, including in the area of SSM where some technical
issues remain under discussion, on the basis of submissions from
Members.
The Chair will again convene open-ended informals early in the Autumn on
templates and base data. In addition, he will keep consulting on the
bracketed and otherwise annotated issues in the draft modalities. And,
as usual, he remains available for “confessionals” on possible technical
ambiguities in the draft modalities
On NAMA, the Negotiating Group met during the week of 12 July to
discuss NTBs. A significant number of contributions were received from
delegations as a result of which substantive discussions were held. In
brief, on the Horizontal Mechanism a proposal by four Members (so-called
middle-grounders) which attempts to bridge a gap concerning the role of
WTO Committees has been well received. I believe that Members recognized
that the submission provided a constructive contribution. On
Remanufacturing, the focus was on the definition of remanufactured goods
which is a key issue to many Members and this has generated a lot of
comments and questions. On two of the TBT-related NTB proposals
(Electronics, Autos), positions continue to be at odds about the way
certain objectives are to be met. In this context, the cross-cutting
issue of international standards was also dealt with in some depth based
on two contributions. Concerning chemicals, Members are still in the
question/answer phase but I believe that a more in-depth discussion of
the two proposals on the table will take place at the next session.
Overall, on the NTB discussions, it appears that Members continue to be
in an educational phase in respect of some areas, and are making
progress in deepening their understanding of the various proposals and
their implications. In other words, while the pace may be considered
slow, it is steady and there is engagement by Members.
In terms of future work, the next NAMA week is scheduled for the week of
20 September and will focus on NTBs. There is also a plea from the
Chairman that Members do their best to circulate their contributions
well in advance of that meeting. This will help not only their
colleagues better prepare but also help the Chairman better organize the
work for that week.
Turning to Services, delegations have engaged in useful work over
the past few weeks. Although there has not been a considerable level of
activity in the request/offer negotiations, work has advanced in other
areas. On the implementation of LDC modalities, a new version of the
draft text has been submitted by the LDC Group and discussed in the
Special Session. The text sets out LDC positions on a number of key
issues including scope, duration, rules of origin, and potential
beneficiaries. The Chairman will continue consultations on the draft
after the summer break.
On the rule-making front in Services, technical work has been continuing
on domestic regulation, based on the Chair's annotated text, together
with proposals by Members and contributions from the Secretariat. The
latest discussions have revealed a sense of focus in resolving some of
the outstanding issues, and a desire among Members to move forward. The
Chair will continue to conduct similar discussions on the basis of a
work programme he has proposed to the group.
Technical work has also continued on emergency safeguards, subsidies,
and government procurement. More focused work is foreseen after the
summer recess.
On Rules, the Negotiating Group last week elected a new
Chairperson, Ambassador Dennis Francis of Trinidad & Tobago, whom I
would like to welcome to the job. He has begun his work with a plenary
informal session on the way forward, as well as by holding intensive
bilateral consultations with some 20 individual delegations or groups
that had requested to see him. After hearing the views of delegations,
he has decided to intensify the work of the Group in the fall, with a
session on fisheries subsidies in the week of 4 October and a session on
anti-dumping and horizontal subsidies back-to-back with the Rules
Committees in the first week of November.
On Trade Facilitation, work continued with a negotiating session
during the third week of July. Members concluded their second review of
the GATT Article X-related proposals and started to look into the GATT
Article VIII area. They equally addressed several aspects of the S&D
pillar.
Negotiations are expected to move forward after the summer break with
additional sessions in October and November/December. Delegations will
review outstanding elements of the Draft Consolidated Text with a view
to cleaning up the language and reducing the number of brackets. Special
attention will be paid to the S&D section as an area of particular
concern.
In the area of Trade and Environment, the CTE in Special Session
met informally on 30 June and 1 July. Several new submissions were
discussed under Paragraph 31(iii), including on the “universe” of
environmental goods of interest, as well as on the issue of S&D
treatment. These new submissions create some momentum to take the
discussion forward on this part of the mandate. At the next CTESS in
September, Members will need to start reviewing what is on the table.
There also seems to be interest for addressing certain technical issues
relating to the identification of environmental goods. With respect to
NTBs and development-related issues, further outcome-specific proposals
will be needed in order for the Committee to make progress on these
aspects.
On Paragraph 31(i), the Chair will hold some dedicated discussions on
clusters of issues drawn from Members' proposals, with the objective of
achieving more clarity and specificity in view of the text-based
negotiations foreseen under the work programme. These discussions will
be held in September.
In the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and
spirits, the TRIPS Special Session is scheduled to hold its next
formal meeting on 28 October. It is expected that delegations will
continue the factual technical discussions initiated at the June meeting
on the two sub-questions posed by the Chairman regarding legal
effects/consequences of registration. Let me recall that the first
sub-question concerns how domestic trademark and GI authorities
currently operate and how their operating mode may be affected by
different ways of what we call “taking into account” the information on
the register of geographical indications for wines and spirits. The
second sub-question concerns how domestic authorities are currently
dealing with the substantiation of claims of genericness of a term in
procedures of registration and protection. Prior to the formal meeting,
in the week of 11-15 October, the Chairman will hold a round of informal
consultations to be followed by an open-ended informal meeting as usual.
On the Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment, the
Chair is continuing his consultations in small groups as well as in open
ended meetings, on both the elements of the Monitoring Mechanism and on
the Agreement—specific proposals.
On the Monitoring Mechanism, the discussion have focused on fine-tuning
the elements of the Mechanism based on the Chair's non paper of 30 April
2010. Although, on some issues positions remain divergent, Members have
engaged constructively, and the Chair will continue his consultations
after the summer break. Similarly, the discussions on the Agreement
specific proposals are proceeding on the basis of the language which was
last tabled by the Chair as an Annex to his reports to the General
Council and the TNC. Here too the Chair intends to continue his
consultations in order to close these gaps.
Lastly, Dispute Settlement, following the summer break, the
Chairman intends to hold a series of DSU negotiation weeks. These will
continue combining informal consultations with groups of variable
geometry depending on the subject being discussed, and regular informal
meetings of the DSB Special Session to ensure full transparency and
inclusiveness for all Members. The first DSU negotiations week after the
summer break will take place in the week of 20 September. It will revert
to outstanding aspects of sequencing and effective compliance, and will
also address a third issue, which the Chairman intends to announce
shortly.
As regards the consultations which I am holding on the two TRIPS
implementation issues of GI extension and TRIPS-CBD in my capacity
as DG and not as TNC Chair, it is my intention to continue to follow up
with Members on how to best proceed and I will keep you informed.
Looking ahead to our work after the summer break and the challenges in
the last quarter of 2010, all negotiating groups already have work plans
or are in the process of establishing these.
When you come back refreshed in September we will need to start turning
these plans into real progress by intensifying engagement. As I said
earlier, we have all the ingredients of our cocktail. The mood music has
become a bit more upbeat. Now we need to move from stirring the cocktail
to shaking it vigorously, vertically and horizontally.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.