Prioritising development
Paragraph 130 'The Government must ensure that
developing countries are fully involved in designing and carrying
out such assessments [of particular agreements and the round as
a whole].'
The Government commissions and designs studies to
assess the impact of different proposals on poverty reduction
and developing countries. Due to time and capacity constraints,
we generally have not involved developing countries in the design.
They are, however, involved in the assessments and we do actively
share the findings of the studies. Furthermore, it is worth noting
that developing countries are a diverse grouping. We aim to have
good links with the key representative groups in Geneva: the Chairs
of the WTO's LDC, Africa and ACP groups as well as individual
developing countries to understand their views and concerns.
Paragraph 131 'We urge the Government to press
for regular assessment of the current round in terms of its likely
contribution to meeting the MDGs…such monitoring [should]
include assessment of development impact as well as progress with
implementation.'
DFID has commissioned a study of the overall poverty
impact of the Doha Development Agenda and its likely effects on
the Millennium Development Goals. This should be available in
early 2004. We envisage that the study will be periodically updated
as the Doha round of negotiations proceeds.
In addition DFID has commissioned numerous studies
on the impact of particular trade policies and agreements on poverty.
The following are the main sectors and policies that have been
covered or are in the process of being looked at: agriculture,
the dairy trade, tariff peaks, special products in agriculture,
the EU's sugar regime, fiscal implications of trade liberalisation,
implementation of the Marrakesh decision for net food importing
developing countries, trade liberalisation and livelihood security,
effects of EU domestic and export subsidies on developing countries'
agricultural sectors, impact on developing countries from lowering
their own tariff barriers, impact of G8 preferential access schemes
on least developed countries, GATS and the temporary movement
of people.
Paragraph 134 '… Patricia Hewitt…stated…
"[the Government] will not accept any proposal we believe
will damage the prospects of developing countries…".
This is good…but it doesn't go far enough. The UK will
have its own views on what makes for development-friendly trade
rules, but the Government cannot determine developing countries'
interests. It must listen to the views of developing countries.'
The Government agrees that it cannot determine developing
countries' interests. Only developing countries themselves can
judge what they deem to be fair and development friendly trade
rules. That is why it is critically important that developing
countries participate fully and effectively in the WTO negotiations,
and the Government is funding a variety of initiatives to that
end.
We also agree that developing countries' views must
be listened to. The views of developing countries are taken very
seriously and help to shape UK trade policies and our input to
European Commission positions in the WTO. We have ongoing dialogues
with a variety of developing countries and are engaged in active
debate with their negotiators in Geneva and Brussels, as well
as with embassies in London and especially in the run up to Cancun
with trade ministries in capitals.
Paragraph 142 'Aid decisions do and will take
account of how well policy space is used, but the right to pursue
nationally-determined policies is not something to be granted
to developing countries on the condition that they use it in a
certain way…The Government…needs to consider carefully
the limits of effective and legitimate conditionality.'
We do not support so called "cross conditionality"
whereby donors provide development assistance to countries on
the basis that they implement their WTO agreements. The UK provides
development assistance to support a country's efforts to implement
a nationally owned poverty reduction strategy. Most donor governments
and multilateral agencies take a similar view. When working with
others we do try to ensure that this position is maintained and
particularly in our collaborative work with the European Commission
and other EU member states.
With regard to policy space, the Government agrees
that developing countries need to be given sufficient flexibilities
within WTO agreements to ensure that they have the ability to
set their own policies and sequence reforms appropriately. It
is vital that the WTO works more closely with the development
agencies to provide for a coherent approach between a country's
nationally owned development strategy and the commitments it makes
in multilateral trade negotiations. To make sure that trade reforms
are suitably customised for each country requires flexible global
trade rules at the multilateral level, and therefore an effective
framework for SDT.
Paragraph 145a-e '… We are not in a position
to endorse one or other of the [SDT] options, but we can state
some general principles which ought to be followed [see a-e]…'
We agree. The current system of differentiation
can accord many more powerful and rapidly developing economies
undue protection, while weaker members actually require greater
flexibilities. It is obvious there are substantial differences
in development needs between countries such as Singapore, as opposed
to Ghana. The Government believes that the WTO systems must be
made more flexible and sophisticated to respond to widely differing
needs.
To that end we would like to see WTO members begin
a constructive debate aimed at proposing a more effective delivery
mechanism for applying trade rules for development. An initial
step might be to consider the merits of establishing an expert
working group which would look at some of the issues identified
by the Committee, and report to the General Council.
Paragraph 149 'Greater transparency about how
various interests are balanced in the practice of joined-up Government
would be very welcome, to us and to the public whose interests
we represent and balance'
As the Committee has acknowledged trade policy is
generally speaking an area in which there is meeting of minds
between Government Departments. Officials and Ministers meet
regularly to engage in substantive discussions of policies and
to reach agreement on any difference of opinions they may have.
Serious disagreement is, however, genuinely very rare as the
Government wholeheartedly believes in the Doha Development Agenda,
and the urgent need to make trade work for the poor.
Jointly prepared by the
Department for International Development
Department for Trade and Industry, Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
HM Treasury
5 September 2003
| 
