WTO: 2010 NEWS ITEMS

> Negotiations, implementation and development: the Doha agenda
> The Doha Declaration explained
> The Implementation Decision explained
> How the negotiations are organized
> The Trade Negotiations Committee

As mentioned in the convening fax for this meeting, I thought it would be useful for us, in the interest of transparency and inclusiveness, to briefly together review and assess the latest developments in the DDA [Doha Development Agenda].

Before we do so, I would like to share some of my reading with you. I have recently been following stories about the adventures of a fictional character named Pascal Lamy. Apparently this character has all sorts of plans for bold new initiatives, such as imposing horizontal processes in a vertical way. Or a vertical process imposed in a horizontal way. Or fabricating texts which he is supposed to be about to drop on the members any time soon.

I want to assure you that the real Pascal Lamy, whom I know reasonably well, doesn't lead such an exciting life.

As I have always said, I remain completely fully committed to the principle of “no surprises”, as we all are. But if this principle means we need not fear unwelcome surprises, it also means we can't count on happy ones. There is no other way to get to the result we all want than by consistent hard work for as long as it takes.

We have a plan of work in the “cocktail” approach, which we all agreed to follow at the end of our stocktaking in March. We have good ingredients, but they will not mix themselves. This is why the work that is going on here in Geneva at many levels is so important, and I encourage you all to intensify and extend it.

As you are aware, I have recently participated in the annual OECD Ministerial Meeting in Paris at the end of May where a number of Ministers got together for an informal exchange of views on the DDA as well as a broader discussion of the significance of trade opening for the sustainability of the global economic recovery. Last week I participated in the APEC Ministerial Retreat in Sapporo, Japan, where I also had the opportunity to engage informally with a number of Ministers on similar issues.

In my interventions at both meetings I provided Ministers with my personal assessment of where we are in the current negotiations — starting from the bigger picture of the economic background in which we operate. While 2009 was characterized by collapsing trade flows, protectionist pressures and trade financing difficulties, 2010 seems to represent a different scenario with a forecast rebound of trade by nearly 10%. This does by no means indicate that we are out of the woods or have turned the corner.

Many complex and potentially disruptive challenges remain, including very high persistent unemployment figures. Thus this is not the time for complacency. However, I stressed that in 2010 trade can be an engine to generate growth and contribute towards the recovery, that the Doha Round is an important economic stimulus package which does not impact upon already stretched budgets — a stimulus package that has a sustainable and lasting impact.

I also emphasized the importance of delivering on the development dimension of this negotiation. At a time where aid budgets are being severely squeezed, the DDA offers specific and tangible opportunities in each and every negotiating area to improve the ability of developing countries to trade and further integrate into the world economy. Maintaining our resolve to deliver on the development promise of the Doha Round remains more important than ever before.

I also emphasized to Ministers the lessons we have been able to draw from the regular reports on protectionist measures taken over the last year or so. And while we cannot be complacent, we have not witnessed the kind of high intensity forms of protectionism many have feared at the outset of the crisis. The objectives of keeping trade open and showing the WTO system of multilateral rules work has been an important signal to send to the world economy. I called on Ministers to send out strong and unequivocal messages of political confidence and determination which could be translated into concrete action and solid progress here at the Geneva negotiating table.

As far as the discussions at both of these meetings go, they confirmed that all remain determined to keep finding ways to conclude the Round through the cocktail approach consisting of bilateral, plurilateral and horizontal processes which I outlined at the General Council meeting in May. There was general agreement that at this time such processes should be given time and space to pursue their quiet diplomacy. Both gatherings of Ministers left the impression that the time had come to shift from a 'defensive' to an 'offensive' stance — where in 2009 our focus was on fighting protectionist tendencies, the 2010 focus will be on making the case for the Doha Round as a low cost fiscal stimulus package for all.

Finally, Ministers also expressed their commitment to utilize constructively upcoming meetings on the international agenda, including the meeting of the G20 in Toronto later this month, to maintain the focus on the need to conclude the Doha Round as soon as possible.

Today's collective review and assessment of the many simultaneous processes under the DDA will guide me in my report to the G20 on trade.

Next Monday I will make available my report on trade-related developments during the period since 1 November 2009, which will also serve as contribution to the G20. The regular monitoring of trade measures has added a much needed transparency to the multilateral system, and helped governments resist protectionist demands. As you will see in my report, there has been a decline in the number of new measures and in their coverage of trade relative to levels found in earlier reports. But although these declines are to be welcomed, there is a growing risk of an accumulation of trade restricting measures implemented since the outbreak of the crisis. This risk is compounded by a relatively slow pace of removal of previously adopted restrictive measures.

As has been the case in the past, the report will be made available to all Members and Observer Governments, and will also be put on our public website.

Let me now provide you with a brief overview of the state-of-play in each of the negotiating groups.

The work in Agriculture continues on two tracks: on templates and on the bracketed or otherwise annotated issues in the draft modalities. On templates, and on the associated work on base data, you have engaged Step 2 on drafts of the actual proposed formats for the scheduling process. Recently, a “road-map” has been proposed for the market access pillar and similar proposals are being worked on for domestic support and export competition. 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 [Special Safeguard Mechanism] where some technical issues are under discussion, including on the basis of submissions from Members.

The Chair will again convene open-ended informals in the week of 5 July on templates and base data. In addition, he will consult on the bracketed and otherwise annotated issues in the draft modalities. And he remains available for “confessionals” on technical ambiguities in the draft modalities.

In NAMA [non-agricultural market access], meetings were held during the week of 17 May. Large-group consultations were held on the following issues: remanufacturing, textile labelling, the horizontal mechanism, chemicals, transparency and international standards. The discussions were assisted by input from members and the Chairman in the shape of, inter alia, background papers, questions and answers.

The next NAMA week is from 12 to 15 July and will focus on NTBs [non-tariff barriers]. The Chair has called for inputs to be submitted by 30 June. In the interim, the Chairman has informed members of his intention to hold consultations with a certain number of delegations including the sponsors of what he likes to call the Wagon 2 NTB proposals.

In the area of Services, the last round of meetings took place in late April, during which the negotiating groups, while focusing mainly on technical issues, achieved some progress on the draft LDC [least-developed countries] waiver proposal. A further cluster of services meetings will take place during the week of 28 June. In the run-up to these meetings, the subsidiary services bodies will be discussing a range of technical issues.

On Rules, the Negotiating Group's most recent meeting cluster in the first week of May covered anti-dumping, horizontal subsidies disciplines, and fisheries subsidies. Among the topics taken up was the possibility of transposing potential changes to the anti-dumping rules into the counterpart provisions of the SCM [Subsidies and Countervailing Measures] Agreement. On fisheries subsidies, the Group considered new proposals submitted by participants, including, inter alia, on special and differential treatment, general exceptions, general disciplines, and management. Back-to-back with the Negotiating Group, experts from the FAO made presentations to participants concerning international fisheries management instruments and implementation. It is likely that the Group will hold another cluster of meetings before the summer break, although this of course depends upon resolving the issue of a new Chair for the Group.

On Regional Trade Agreements, you will remember that at the May General Council, members were in agreement with a proposal from China, India and Pakistan that consultations should be held to review the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs, with a view to making it permanent, but that such a review should take place in the Negotiating Group on Rules. The outgoing Chairman of the Group, in a communication on 6 May, urged members to begin this process as soon as possible. This is therefore another key item on the agenda for the new Chair of the Group.

In the area of Trade Facilitation, negotiations continue on the basis of the Draft Consolidated Text in the inclusive, bottom-up working method favoured by the membership. Delegations presented several new drafting submissions that allow for large parts of the Text to be revised and improved. This method is being encouraged as an effective means to facilitate consensus and to contribute towards the goal of cleaning up the Text. Particular attention continues to be paid to the section on special and differential treatment provisions where work remains to be done.

On Trade and Environment, the CTE [Committee on Trade and Environment] Special Session is scheduled to meet informally on 30 June and 1 July, and consultations will be held by the Chair ahead of that meeting. In terms of the way forward, members will continue their discussions under Paragraph 31(i) focusing on the five clusters of issues identified in the last Chair's report to the TNC [Trade Negotiations Committee]. With respect to Paragraph 31(iii), the Committee will review the proposals put forward so far under the work programme. Further outcome-specific proposals will be needed from members, including on the universe of environmental goods of interest, in order for the Committee to make progress in this area.

On the Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment, the Chair is continuing his consultations both in small groups as well as in open-ended meetings. The work has focused on further refining the elements of the Monitoring Mechanism as well as taking up some of the Agreement—specific proposals.

On the Monitoring Mechanism, the discussions have been based on the Chair's non-paper of 30 April that documents the areas of convergence and divergence on the different elements of the Mechanism. The discussions on Agreement-specific proposals have been based on the language last tabled by the Chair as Annex to the reports in December 2009.

In the coming weeks the Chairman intends to continue working with members on fine-tuning the elements of the Monitoring Mechanism as well as on trying to close the gaps on the six Agreement-specific proposals.

On DSU [Dispute Settlement Understanding], the Chairman of the DSB [Dispute Settlement Body] Special Session held a week of consultations on sequencing in May. The consultations took place in groups of variable geometry over several days, interspersed with time for interested delegations to work among themselves. This new approach to work served to launch a new, more dynamic phase in the DSU negotiations, resulting in tangible, although limited, signs of flexibility on drafting text. For transparency and inclusiveness, the Chairman held an informal meeting of the DSB Special Session at the end of the week, to report on the week's work to the entire WTO membership.

The next week of DSU negotiations will take place later this month. It will continue the approach of combining group consultations of variable geometry with time for delegations to work and detailed reporting by the Chairman to all WTO members. The week will continue last month's discussions on sequencing, and address effective compliance.

In the TRIPS [Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] Special Session work has been undertaken as foreseen in the Work Programme, namely with informal consultations held by Ambassador Mwape with delegations either in groups or individually, followed by an open-ended informal meeting on 9 June. At yesterday's Special Session the focus was on the major stumbling block, namely legal effects/consequences of registration, and in particular the questions of how national or domestic trademarks and GI [geographical indications] authorities presently operate and how their operating mode may be affected by different ways of “taking into account” the information on the register. In order to have a focused technical discussion, the Chairman has circulated two “sub-questions”. While the responses were preliminary, they usefully gave a detailed and factual picture of the current practices.

Let me add a brief update on the two TRIPS implementation issues, namely the geographical indications extension issue, and the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity] in my capacity as Director General and not TNC Chair.

I have already reported extensively to you on our recent work on this mandate, leading up to the most recent round of consultations and open-ended briefing, both held in March. Currently, I am following up with members concerning the next steps for these consultations, and will update you at subsequent TNC meetings as the process evolves.

Before I conclude these introductory remarks, let me also say a few words on the challenges that I believe we face over the next few months — in terms of process and in terms of substance.

On process, we will continue mixing the three ingredients of the cocktail. The Chairs will continue the consultations in their respective negotiating groups. Groups of members in variable geometry and bilateral contacts should continue on specific areas as well as horizontally. The challenge here is that you engage in a more serious dialogue. That you all reach out beyond your usual constituencies and groups, beyond your usual comfort zone and bring back momentum or output to the membership as a whole in the negotiating groups, as for instance, has been done in the case of trade facilitation. Some of you are doing it, that's good. All of you need to do it for it to work.

My sense is that we are not yet at a stage when we can engage in a horizontal give and take on the issues which remain open. For this to happen we need all these issues to be at the same level of technical maturity and this is not the case yet. We need to keep working to “line the field to play” on all topics. But let me reassure you that when the moment comes, any horizontal exercise under my responsibility will need to comprise all topics outstanding. There will not be such a thing as “selective horizontality”.

On the substance, I believe that you are all looking for an extra quantum in these negotiations — by which I mean a combination of ambition and balance for ALL participants, combining what is already on the table and what needs to be there for a conclusion, in line with the mandates which guide our negotiations. If there is one thing which remains crystal clear in all of our minds it is that we cannot, I repeat, cannot have an ambitious result without overall balance. Such is our challenge — to aim for high ambition while ensuring balance.

RSS news feeds

> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.