SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal
Lamy’s speeches
Opening Remarks
Thank you all for coming to this meeting,
which I have convened in the interests of transparency and
inclusiveness as we enter a decisive phase in the DDA negotiations.
As you are all aware, intensive work has been taking place over the
last few weeks in the negotiating groups on Agriculture and NAMA,
building on the revised draft modality papers in these two areas
circulated by the respective Chairs in early February. I believe we
have made solid progress and that we are now much closer to the
finish line, although we are obviously not there yet.
The aim of the work that has been going on over the past few weeks
is to produce new revised texts, on the basis of the discussions in
the negotiating groups, that can provide a platform for the
establishment of modalities. If we are to conclude the Round this
year, as your governments wish, we need to move rapidly forward.
This means that the time is coming soon to take our work to a higher
level and to begin drawing together the threads both within and
across the two modalities issues as mandated in Hong Kong. It also
means giving sufficient reassurance that all the other negotiating
issues are advancing as they should. This is what is being called a
“horizontal process”.
I believe we need to demystify this term: “horizontal process”. It
is not an innovation — we are just bringing together the key
elements, as required to reach convergence on modalities
Similar processes have taken place in the recent past, notably in
2004, and before Hong Kong. The aim is to follow the pattern that
has worked in the past — concentric circles of consultations with
constant communication among them. The substantive objective is to
prepare the formal establishment of modalities in Agriculture and NAMA and to provide sufficient reassurance that other issues are
also advancing within the Single Undertaking.
The basic principles to which we are all committed will continue to
apply:
Modalities can only be established by the full membership;
Transparency and inclusiveness are fundamental;
Informal consultations in various smaller configurations are essential to narrow differences but they must feed into multilateral arena in a continuous loop.
To give effect to these principles I will hold informal TNC meetings such as
this one, throughout the duration of the horizontal process. They will serve
both to guarantee transparency and to help build consensus. I will
supplement them with continuing dialogue with the regional and other groups
as well as with green rooms meetings. The composition of these green rooms
will, as usual, ensure that the full spectrum of Members' views and
interests are represented. Some variable geometry may at times be needed
depending on the issues being discussed. I am also well aware of the need to
allocate time for capitals to consider draft texts and for groups to
co-ordinate.
This horizontal process will start at Senior Official level, in order to
prepare properly for the Ministerial involvement which is likely to be
needed at a later stage. Within our tight overall timeframe, it nonetheless
will be important to allow Senior Officials sufficient time to narrow down
the range of issues for Ministers. This is essential if Ministerial
involvement is to be productive.
The starting point for the process will be the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs'
revised texts which are expected for later this month; the end product
should be sufficient convergence on key points in Agriculture and NAMA to
enable final draft modalities texts to go forward to the TNC for
establishment of those modalities.
Besides establishing modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, the question of
which other issues will need our attention at the same time was one which
was raised at both the General Council meeting in December and our last
informal meeting in January. As I foreshadowed at that time, I have been
undertaking many consultations on this question of scope, and today's
meeting forms part of this consultative process.
From what I have heard so far, it remains clear that the primary focus of
the next weeks has to be on modalities in Agriculture and NAMA. On the other
hand, it is also clear that issues such as Trade and Environment, the S&D
Work Programme, and Trade Facilitation are advancing and need not be taken
up in detail at the time of the modalities. Therefore on these issues the
respective Chairs will make reports to the TNC on progress and set out
roadmaps for further work in their respective areas.
This leaves a middle group of three issues where it has become apparent that
we need more clarity, namely Services, Rules and the TRIPS-related issues.
These issues have been the principal focus of the consultations I have held
most recently.
On Services, at our informal meeting in January, several Members expressed
concern about how the services market access negotiations are proceeding.
They requested that I consult on how best to organize the way forward,
particularly as we approach agreement on Agriculture and NAMA modalities.
They indicated that, at the time of establishing those modalities, they
would need a certain level of comfort regarding the market access
negotiations on services.
In the absence of revised final offers — which are the ideal barometer of
progress but which everyone agrees is for a later stage — an alternative
means for providing such comfort which has been suggested could be through
exchanging signals among participants in the plurilateral market access
negotiations, hence the idea of a signalling conference. This would be a
parallel track to the multilateral text, on which the Services Chair is
currently holding consultations. The signalling conference would focus on
market access issues. While Ministers will, of course, discuss any issue
they wish, the question of LDC modalities which was also raised in my
consultations should continue to be taken up in the multilateral negotiating
group process. We need to see progress in the area of LDC modalities over
the coming weeks.
The political objective of such a signalling conference would be to give a
credible signal that the services negotiations are moving forward, but it
would not define the final outcome of the services negotiations. I would
recall that any outcome on market access among participants in the
plurilateral process will be automatically extended on an MFN basis to all
Members. The conference should be a two-way street and those involved must
avoid it turning into a finger-pointing exercise, but I think the spirit in
which they are preparing it is positive.
Participation in the signalling exercise would be, more or less, among
Members participating in the plurilateral request/offer negotiations plus
representatives of regional groupings — all in all, similar to the format of
the Ministerial Green Room.
With regard to its preparation: my sense is that to adequately prepare this
the next step should be a round of bilaterals involving Senior Officials.
Given the timeline of our current process involving Senior Officials and
eventually Ministers, it seems to me that the week of 5 May might be the
most appropriate time for those bilaterals in Geneva.
In my consultations, there has also been discussion of the report of the
signalling conference. In the interest of full transparency, the outcome of
the signalling exercise would be in the form of an oral report by myself,
which would be placed on record in the minutes of the TNC. I believe we have
reached a common understanding on the main elements of such a report, which
would include a description of the sectors and modes of delivery discussed
and the signals exchanged regarding new/improved commitments which
participants would be ready to undertake, short of mentioning the
commitments themselves and those who have signalled that they are ready to
move in that direction.
Now, I would like to move on to the second topic of my consultations, Rules.
Let me start by underlining that there is wide agreement that this is not an
issue for ministerial negotiations at the time of modalities in Agriculture
and NAMA, though of course it is not excluded that some discussion may take
place.
This question has been linked to the question of the text. Many participants
have made it clear that they expect to see a new document from the
Negotiating Group Chair before the opening of the horizontal process. For
some, this should be a fully-fledged revised text, for others perhaps
something else, but there is a widely-shared view that in any case it should
be more than just a report and not just a compilation either. The need that
has been identified is to have a document which would give reassurance to
domestic stakeholders. The Negotiating Group Chair is reflecting on how best
to respond to these needs.
Let me now move on to the third topic, the TRIPS issues. For the mandated
negotiations on a GI register, the TRIPS Special Session Chairman will be
making a report to the TNC on the work in his area. In addition, I have a
mandate from Ministers in Hong Kong to conduct consultations as
Director-General on the issues of GI extension and the TRIPS/CBD
relationship. In my consultations, wide gaps remain between Members. Some
have stated that it is time for a negotiation and that there can be no
modalities without this topic also being part of the horizontal process. On
the other hand, a number of Members do not agree to a negotiation, but do
not exclude further discussion. For these two issues, we will also have
reports indicating the state of play in my consultations, which are being
carried out with the assistance of DDG Rufus Yerxa. However, these reports
will not solve the fundamental divide which exists over these issues, so I
have called for, and I reiterate my call today, continued consultations
between the groups of Members concerned to resolve this, so as to try to
avoid a big clash during the modalities exercise.
In sum, we are looking at the establishment of modalities in a TNC, which
will also have before it reports and roadmaps from other negotiating groups,
and a report from the Services signalling conference, so that Members can
situate the modalities agreement in the context of the Single Undertaking,
which remains the fundamental underlying principle of this negotiation, and
we know that principles sometimes need to be incarnated.
That concludes my report to you on my recent consultations. Let me conclude
by putting all of this into the wider context. In my recent contacts at
every level, both here in Geneva but also in my travels to Addis Ababa for
the African Union Trade And Finance Ministers Meeting, London and Washington
for the IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting, everyone I have met has underlined
with more vigour than ever the need to conclude the Round successfully this
year. This is no surprise — we have all seen the recent growth projections
by the IMF. And we have all witnessed the financial turbulence we are in and
the hikes in energy and food prices that are affecting severely many of your
countries.
At a time when the world economy is in rough waters, concluding the Doha
Round can provide a strong anchor. One more reason to redouble our efforts.
We are all working hard, chairs and members alike, I believe it is starting
to bear fruit. Let's keep all our forces engaged.
Closing Remarks
Let me answer the point made by three of
you who, if I understand well, have expressed interrogations on the
decision-making process in this organization.
As I think I made clear in my introduction, steps like establishment
of modalities can only come from the full membership. This is, I
think, very clear. Now, how we prepare this is what is at stake. We
know that, in this organization, preparing this sort of deliberation
— some of these deliberations being of a process nature, others
being of a substance nature, some having legal consequences, others
having only process as consequences — all of this is prepared
through consultations. These consultations take place in a wide
variety of formats. We are in an informal Heads of Delegation which
is one of these formats. We have Negotiating Groups, we have Room
E's, we have Confessionals, we have Green Rooms, we have interaction
and consultations between the Chairs and various Geneva-based, or
non Geneva-based interlocutors. I have frequent meetings with
Regional Groups. So there is a whole variety of these consultations
and the Green Room is one of these. This is inevitably complex,
given that we have to take decisions by consensus on an agenda which
is multi-dimensional, and the essential is that, given this
complexity, enough transparency is provided so that everybody knows
where things are. I think on this we are all making efforts, and
even the three Delegations who have some interrogations on process
have recognized this and I thank them for that.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.