By: WTO volunteers

Session 15: From global governance to small farmers and food security

SESSION TITLE: Small farmers and global food-security governance: Waiting for coherence

The session revolved around several questions related to food security, including underlying causes of food insecurity, ways to reduce it, and the role small farmers could play to contribute to the improvement of food security. Some speakers insisted on the necessity to improve global coordination at the international level on this issue.

Mr François Riegert, Permanent Representative of France to the WTO, noted that the challenges of commodities price volatility and food security were at the heart of the reflection of the French government for its presidency of the G8/G20 next year. He went over the various stabilization and mitigation tools used to address the question of price volatility. He noted that the recent food crisis had demonstrated the lack of coordination at the international level on this issue and advocated the establishment of an informal international forum for agricultural stability.

Mr Richard Kozul-Wright, Director, Unit on Economic Cooperation and Integration among Developing Countries, UNCTAD, was of the view that some players put excessive confidence in the positive effects of globalization. He described the process that allowed developed countries to move from a deficit situation to a surplus situation, and the resulting negative consequences on farmers in developing countries, who had to compete with subsidized producers.

Mr Paulo Estivallet de Mesquita, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Brazil to the WTO, supported this point, noting that some developed countries had solved the food security problem at home at the expense of developing countries, and that subsidized exports were not designed to fight against food insecurity but to manage surpluses. Developing countries couldn’t afford such systems of support. Their goal was to increase incomes to raise local demand. Trade policies could not be the only solution to food security, but at least they should not harm it. Mr Riegert considered that price support at a regional level could also be for some developing countries an interesting idea to reflect on.

Most speakers agreed on the need to increase productivity in small farms, a sector which had been neglected in the last years. Investment in the agriculture sector, technological progress, research and related targeted aid were part of the solution in this regard.

Such a move would increase farming revenues and would by consequence have positive consequences for the rest of the economy. The evolution of small farming is closely linked to urbanisation and industrialization in developing countries. This is why food security required a global an integrated approach, going beyond trade or agriculture policies.

At the end of the day, according to Mr Kozul-Wright, a virtuous circle should lead to a reduction of the number of small farmers. The debates showed that the definition of small farmers and the dynamic of evolution of their number should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The issue of land grabbing was mentioned during the debates but not discussed in depth.

Mr Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International, noted that the world was divided on what a global partnership for agriculture, food security and nutrition should look like. While donor countries were focusing on the L’Aquila’s Food security initiative, many poor countries promoted a reformed Committee on World Food Security (CFS) as the foremost international political forum for food security. He considered that high level political leadership was needed to promote urgent and coordinated global action to achieve the Millennium development Goal hunger target. To that effect, World leaders should support the CFS as the central political pillar on agriculture, food security and nutrition.

> More on this session

 

Session 16: Intellectual property and innovation key in post-Doha Round world, panellists say

SESSION TITLE: Beyond the Doha Round? Shaping the global trading system to encourage innovation and solve global challenges

Moderator Stuart Harbinson asked all panellists for their point of view about the aftermath of the Doha Round towards the future of the multilateral system, in terms of the global challenges and the rules and agreements emplaced.

Roberto Azevedo, Brazilian ambassador in Geneva, stressed that in the actual pattern system, Intellectual Property fosters innovation. Doha round would not make substantial changes in the agreements about intellectual property.

Thaddeus Burns, stated that intellectual property has been crucial in the growth of multinational companies that have expanded its production to emerging economies in the last year, and thanks to the WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), they have been confident to invest in research and development in markets that were not reachable before.

For Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, who focused on the fact that innovation is inseparable from technology transfer from developed to developing countries, added that innovation should be integrated in future negotiations under the WTO system. If the WTO does not manage to include the numerous FTAs and regional agreements under its multilateral system, it will be left behind as the main organisation to rule in the international trade scene.

In conclusion, all of the panellists agreed that the Doha Round should not be modified and it should not be more complex from it is now, that there should be an integrated approach of trade an innovation, whereas the latter should be included as a part of the WTO negotiations and it could also contemplate the agreements concerning the rules of origin, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and non-tariffs barriers.

> More on this session

 

Session 17: Pros and cons of WTO MPs’ assembly discussed, with eye on environment

SESSION TITLE: Can the existing multilateral trading system cope with the emerging challenges?

This session discussed the many challenges facing our world today through the dual prism of (i) what WTO can really do? and (ii) what’s the contribution of Parliamentarians into this? A lot of attention was devoted to the relationship between WTO agreements and the Environment. The role and capacity of the poorer countries to benefit from the system was debated in length, including on the sensitive issue of whether emerging developing countries should still claim special and differential treatment.

Mr Moreira, Chair of the Committee of International Trade at the European Parliament called for the creation a genuine “Parliamentary Assembly of the WTO” which according to him, would enhance the democratic and public accountability of the WTO both globally and locally. This view was only partially endorsed by fellow Parliamentarians on the panel, as both Senator Heber of Uruguay and Ouattara of Burkina Faso said such an Assembly will only replicate government positions.

Mr Ouattara an MP and a former Minister of Trade in Burkina Faso said the creation of Cotton 4 means space exists for small players to act within the multilateral trading system. He added that the increased role for emerging countries in WTO means determining who really needs Special and Differential Treatment. Speaking of the many crises facing the world today he wondered if we had a Doha deal two or three years ago whether the crisis would be as tough.

Senator Luis Heber of Uruguay said that in moments of crisis you see good leaders and Pascal Lamy has been a good Director General during the crisis, particularly through the monitoring exercise. He indicated that the WTO radar tracking protectionism should look into more subtle ways of protectionism. He also mentioned that the rules based system of the WTO is an important and useful asset to the world, which explains why in G20 many International Organizations were questioned but NOT the WTO.

Professor Laurence Boisson-de-Chazourne, of the Geneva University, focused her remarks on the environment issues and the linkage with Multilateral Trade Agreements; she particularly said that between WTO and MEAs we should not have courteous passive cooperation BUT mutually supportive cooperation. In her view this enhanced cooperation, which should be similar to what WTO is doing with the Bank and Fund, would only focus on Environmental agreements that enjoy large levels of ratification such as on Biodiversity, desertification or climate change. She draw many similarities between WTO negotiations and Climate Change negotiations, stressing the need for political energy.

During the debate many participants stressed the challenges ranging from Climate change, to food security, to energy to employment etc, and asked how the WTO could react. Other participants questioned trade rounds and said they might be outdated and there might be a need to find something else to be able to achieve outcomes. A representative of Third World Network said that the gains from DDA for the poor are close to nil and favor developed Members; on the environment issues she was doubtful of the willingness of developed Members to allow developing countries go beyond their bound rates or override their current services commitments to combat climate change.

Panelists replied saying the aim is not to transform WTO into the International Organization for Environment or Social Standards but to find better ways for the international community to work together. The ultimate aim is to be able to address the challenges. This is a bit complicated in the case of the Climate Change issues for two reasons (i) there remain some scientific uncertainty about how bad the situation is and (ii) the decisions are to be made now but the effects will only e visible in 50 or even 70 years time!!!

Panelists also praised the Forum as an occasion to get closer to the WTO. They indicated that more should be done for a real inclusiveness towards non state actors.

> More on this session

 

Session 18: Where regionalism might work if handled carefully

SESSION TITLE: Regionalism’s role in integrating the Pacific into the global trading system

The session discussed the aims of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) to assist the long-term economic development of the Pacific Islands Countries (PICs) through closer integration with the two neighbouring developed countries, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the implications of their integration into the global economy.

Mr Torres, the session’s moderator, started the session by introducing the University of Adelaide’s Institute for International Trade (IIT) Institute and its activities.

Mr Yeend, Australian Ambassador in Geneva, took the floor to explain Australia’s position in PACER plus negotiations and its engagement in the Pacific region. PACER plus builds on previous free trade agreements (FTAs) in the region, such as SPARTECA, PICTA etc. However, unlike previous initiatives, it will be a reciprocal preferential agreement, including provisions on trade in services and investment, a chapter on development cooperation and labour mobility. In his view, PACER plus represents an opportunity to help fragile nations to benefit from trade liberalization and improved market access. Australia is fully aware of the capacity constraints of the Pacific Islands and is fully committed to help them through the Aid for Trade programme. In 2009-10, Australia allocated 400 million Australian dollars on Aid for Trade; of these, 158 million (representing 40% of total funds) were destined for Pacific countries. He concluded that a successful conclusion of the Doha Round remains Australia’s highest trade policy priority.

Mr Wilson, Counsellor at the IIT Centre, said that one of the objective of the Institute is to balance different sets of interests of developing countries on trade issues. In his view, PACER plus plays an important role in PICs’ integration into the region and the multilateral trading system. He explained that the Pacific region is composed of a variety of countries with different economic realities. PICs mainly trade with Australia and New Zealand: however, two countries, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, signed an FTA with the European Union and all the Pacific Islands are benefiting from the European GSP. Negotiations of PACER plus are still at an early stage, where each country is engaged in a consultations process at national level which shall involve also the private sector and civil society. The Institute has carried out several studies on the impact of PACER plus on developing economies: although a revenue loss of 6—6.5% has been predicted, the agreement will provide for all the necessary adjustment to offset the temporary negative impact of trade liberalization and will include a focused chapter on development cooperation. He concluded that for those PICs that are not members to the WTO, PACER plus is a foundation for regional integration and will help to prepare for the challenges of the multilateral trading system.

Mr Marchi, Senior Fellow from the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), noted that we are assisting to a proliferation of RTAs and wondered how an RTA could secure trade and benefit all its members. Since PACER plus is still at an early stage of negotiations, he suggested that the following issues be taken into serious consideration: i) provide time for national consultations; ii) undertake a genuine commitment on capacity building and development assistance; iii) include commitments on labour and environment; iv) find a balance between services liberalization commitments and the right to regulate; v) include effective and fair rules on dispute settlement.

During the Q&A session, four speakers took the floor. The first speaker asked what was the full coverage of services negotiations and what steps have been taken to involve non-State actors in the negotiations. The second speaker wanted to know whether PACER Plus would contemplate S&D provisions for developing countries. The third speaker asked whether there were opportunities for cooperation among CARICOM, Pacific countries and Canada. The last speaker asked how the issue of human resource constraints in the context of bilateral and multilateral negotiations was treated. Ambassador Yeend said that Australia’s approach on trade in services negotiations is usually to seek full coverage, using the GATS as a basis, but in the specific case negotiations are taking into account the countries’ sensitivities. Given the developing status of many partners, Australia fully supports S&D provisions in the agreement across all covered sectors. With respect to human resource constraints, it was noted that negotiating at bilateral, regional and multilateral level was a demanding task for all countries, both developed and developing. Mr. Marchi said that South-South cooperation is a new feature of international trade and he saw a potential for cooperation among south economies.

> More on this session

 

Session 19: Speakers debate transparency and accountability in and about the WTO

SESSION TITLE: Rethinking accountability in and of the WTO

Panelists discuss transparency, accountability in the interactions between governments, non-state actors and WTO Secretariat

In this session two members of the academia from Germany and Canada engaged with two NGO representatives from India and Europe and with a WTO legal expert on the issue of WTO accountability in the context of the global crisis and transparency. Examples were cited of government accountability in protectionist notification procedures, of parliamentary oversight in developing countries, of access to information and to committees, and of the institutional perspective by the Secretariat. Additionally, the panellists discussed concrete measures they would recommend for improving the global inclusiveness dimension of the organization.

The moderator, Mr Mark Halle, from IISD-Europe started by introducing a project that he and Mr Robert Wolfe will be undertaking on the subject of discussion under the following basic questions — who is accountable to whom, about what, through what processes, in accordance to what criteria, and with what effects. He pointed out that accountability is an issue for all international organizations in how accountable are they to their mission and to their members and in the ways to reduce the gap between what is promised and what is achieved in practice. He insisted that the WTO performs better than some other organizations in some aspects, like notification under food safety, and worse in others, like subsidies notification.

Professor Robert Wolfe from Queens University, Canada presented his perspective on the way WTO regime obligations have prevented an explosion of protectionist practices during the crisis. He contrasted data received from the WTO with Global Trade Alert’s grimmer perspective and concluded that there is no evidence that the G20 Members have put up new trade barriers or resorted to other WTO-inconsistent measures. He also offered that WTO Members were using flexibilities of the agreements instead of being “protectionist”.

Prof. Wolfe pointed out that the Secretariat’s verification of third-party data had contributed to the civil society providing an alternative interpretation. He criticized civil society’s tendency to over-dramatize reporting of protectionism in the crisis and stressed that negative impact of stimulus packages has been minimal and that WTO notification procedures have been instrumental in improving overall trade accountability.

Mr Hale summarized at this point that the more transparency there is, the more accountability is going to work, a demonstration of a basic good governance principle, and third party input could be very valuable in that context.

Professor Jens Steffek of the University of Darmstadt in Germany offered an academic perspective of accountability as expressed in the principal agent problem of effectively controlling international organizations. He differentiated between formal and de facto accountability, or between legal requirements and sanctions provided in treaties, and facing the multiple audiences of global society.

Prof. Steffek ventured that the WTO, a formally member-driven organization, is thus accountable not only for the results, but also for the process of achieving them to a variety of actors. According to him the problem in this context is the broad mandates and contradictory expectations that international organizations are judged against.

Prof. Steffek concluded that the WTO’s mission, as set in the preamble of the WTO Agreement, includes ecological and development elements, which affect a variety of stakeholders, and therefore there is a need for reporting, for opening the negotiating committees to public scrutiny and for “on the ground” information for the effect of WTO policies on disadvantaged stakeholders.

Mr Rashid Kaukab from CUTS related the results of a five- country study on stakeholder categorization and participation at the national level, which counterposed the different impact on the stakeholders to their respective roles in policy-making. He then compared that to their participation at Ministerial Conferences as parts of delegation and concluded that the presumption that governments are accountable does not hold.

This conclusion was later challenged by the floor for not taking into account participation of NGOs as officials in delegations

Mr Kaukab criticized the level of parliamentary oversight in developing and even developed countries by bringing up examples where lack of knowledge influenced the ratification of the intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement. He urged the WTO not to leave accountability to governments by improving transparency, by NGO accreditation and by organizing parallel forums for businesses, CSO and parliamentarians.

Mr Halle intervened by saying that improved access to information, both from inside the organization and from ICTSD and CUTS reporting, has improved the functioning of the WTO, by giving people a better sense of the real process, but that mechanisms for participation have not advanced as quickly.

Professor Gabrielle Marceau from the Legal Affairs Division of the WTO made a bridge between this session and a previous panel on labour issues in the WTO. She agreed that there should be a study on accountability and emphasized that the WTO has given itself this mandate. Prof. Marceau said that transparency helps accountability, which in turn improves legitimacy, but that it is vital that people realize that trade has positive effects in the first place.

In this context and from the legal perspective, the first conclusion in Appellate Body case law stated that the GATT cannot be read in clinical isolation. Prof. Marceau stressed the need to take into account the different levels of power in different international organizations and also the relationships that the WTO Secretariat has with other international organizations without a written mandate from the membership.

She went on to comment on the previous two speakers that had recommended opening up committees to the public by saying that it is in the nature of negotiations that some matters can only be discussed behind closed doors. Prof. Marceau asserted that the negotiation processes of the WTO, such as the “green room” could be attacked easily, but should instead be simply explained to the public.

Speakers from the floor asked questions about the nature of the term “stakeholder”, about what can outsiders bring in the WTO system, about how will the change in the role of the EU Parliament would affect trade negotiations, about the difference between accountability of the Secretariat and of the Members, etc. The panellists ended the lively discussion by pointing out that developments have been made even by the very discussion in this session.

> More on this session

 

Session 20: Speakers urge developing countries to use drug patent flexibilities

SESSION TITLE: WTO rules and public health in developing countries: The “Achilles’ heel” or a pillar for development?

The panel looked at the issue of whether the WTO is really a pillar for the development of sub-Saharan countries health care, focusing on three main issues: how to establish the general public health development goals in sub-Saharan Africa, how to establish a coherence between public health development goals and WTO rules, and what recommendations on the way forward.

Miriam Omolo, from the Institute of Economic affairs, started the discussion by presenting the main facts and figures of the state of play of public health in sub-Saharan Africa. She listed some of the main challenges: the lack of integrated information systems, the remaining difficulty to access essential medicines, the lack of health care human resource and financing.

After reminding which WTO agreements were relevant to health issues, the rest of the panellists focused on the TRIPS agreement and its impact on public health policies for developing countries. After agreeing that there is a serious deficit in the rules when applied to developing countries and specifically the LDCs, they called for a better use of the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS agreement (e.g. compulsory licenses) and a better allocation of technical assistance based on countries reality.

> More on this session

 

Session 21: Protectionism can undermine food security, panellists say

SESSION TITLE: : What kind of trade policy framework is needed to support food-security goals?

Protectionism and self-sufficiency policies can be counterproductive, undermining food security, this largely research-based session heard. A Chinese delegate argued that some protection is needed in order to keep farmers producing food, but added that China already has a low 15% average tariff on farm products, which could be cut to 11% in the Doha Round.

Moderator Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, ICTSD Chief Executive, set the scene observing that food security has recently returned to the international agenda and that the world will need to produce more food with fewer resources. The issue is tied up with bigger questions such as the environment and energy, and needs to be separated into areas that can be handled globally such as in the WTO’s Doha Round talks, and those that should be tackled domestically.

Inter-American Development Bank’s Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla outlined his thoughts based on a forthcoming research report. He described the complexity of the issue, with trade only being one influence on food security. And, he went on, trade itself has both direct and indirect impacts, the latter including through economic growth and government revenue.

He and other speakers shared the view that food security is an issue for households, which vary considerably. One of his main messages, he said, is that giving countries special treatment in trade agreements at the level of crops or countries, will not address household food security.

On the draft deal in the WTO agriculture negotiations, Mr Diaz-Bonilla said it still leaves developing countries plenty of room to apply the right policies — it doesn’t constrain poorer countries’ good policies, but nor does it constrain rich countries’ bad policies of subsidies and protection which distort trade and hurt other countries.

He criticized the argument that developing countries need trade protectionism in agriculture because alternative policies such as investment are “too expensive” — protection is expensive for consumers because it raises prices, he said.

And on one of the sticking points in the farm talks, the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) designed to allow developing countries to fend off import surges or price falls, Mr Diaz-Bonilla said the debate about whether this hurts other developing countries’ exports misses the point. The main fault of the SSM is the raised prices in the protecting country’s domestic market, he said.

Gates Foundation’s Prabhu Pingali described the foundations work with poor (living on less than $1 per day) and ultra-poor (less than 50 cents per day) in Africa and India. These farmers are not active much in markets, tend to buy locally and are not affected by international trade policies. Their trade interests are in such issues as access to better seeds and technology in order to raise productivity, and ensuring that intellectual property protection is not a constraint, he said.

Farmers slightly above this level are more active in markets and need to reduce their transactions costs and improve productivity.

Brazilian Ambassador Roberto Azevedo cautioned against falling into the trap of viewing food security simplistically, for example by aiming for self-sufficiency through protection. Nor is food security just about food prices: raising purchasing power is also important, he said.

Advocating a sophisticated mix of policies, Amb. Azevedo said closing borders is the shortest route to food insecurity, and that access to markets is a safety net that should not be ignored.

China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the WTO, Zhang Xiangchen, described agriculture as the most distorted sector in trade. China sees food security as a priority and he agreed with other speakers that trade is not the only determinant.

Despite the difficulties China will face in cutting its average agricultural tariffs from 15% to the proposed 11%, China does want the Doha Round to end quickly in order to obtain a more stable and less distorted market, he said.

The discussion covered a number of subjects, from biofuels and climate change. Replying to one question, Mr Diaz-Bonilla summarized “food security” as availability, access, stability, and adequate utilization. Food self-sufficiency could reduce food security, he said. And “food sovereignty” is little more than a slogan that might imply policy space, he said.

> More on this session