2 Doha Development Agenda
| (25127)
15529/03
COM(03) 734
| Commission Communication: "Reviving the DDA Negotiations — the EU Perspective"
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 26 November 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 December 2003
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 31 December 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussed in Council | 8-9 December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee C
|
Background
2.1 The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha Development Agenda
(DDA) was launched in 2001, and is due to be completed by 1 January
2005. As its title suggests, its main aim is to bring benefits
to developing countries, but the most recent round of negotiations,
which took place in Cancun on 10-14 September 2003, broke up without
agreement. According to the Commission, this was due in part
to systemic problems in the operation of the WTO itself, but it
also believes that there were a number of serious underlying problems,
which need to be addressed. These include the emergence of new
groups, driven by concerns that their priorities have not been
given sufficient attention; the reluctance of a number of WTO
members either to engage in further trade liberalisation or to
extend the WTO rulebook; the importance (and fear) of China and
her "huge" exporting potential; and differences of substance
which remained too wide to be bridged in the time available.
The Commission has therefore been considering how, and under what
conditions, the negotiations could be re-launched, and it has
set out its views in this Communication.
The current document
2.2 The Communication seeks to address two series of issues, one
concerned with essentially strategic questions, and the other
with more detailed negotiating aims in specific areas.
2.3 On the former, it suggests:
- that multilateral negotiations,
rather than bilateral/regional trade arrangements, should remain
the European priority;
- that there remains solid support for rules on
issues such as anti-dumping, subsidies and regional agreements
as the necessary complement to market opening, and as an essential
pre-requisite to the better integration of developing countries
into the world economy;
- that, although some developing countries have
expressed concern that multilateral access could affect the preferences
they enjoy in a number of developed markets, previous WTO rounds
have not worked against the interests of developing countries,
and that greater openness (not least on the part of the developing
countries themselves), accompanied by stronger trading rules,
remains the best way to secure developmental gains; and
- that there should be a modest but feasible package
of reforms, focusing on the preparation and management of WTO
Ministerial meetings, better participation of smaller Members
and other means to improve the efficiency and inclusiveness of
WTO negotiations.
2.4 Against this background, the Commission concludes
that the WTO must remain the principal forum for trade opening,
and that the best way forward lies in the Community supporting
the early re-launch of the DDA, and, along with other WTO members,
participating constructively in efforts to secure agreement. It
also says that, although the Community's fundamental objectives
remain valid, appropriate lessons should be drawn from the Cancun
meeting, and the rest of its Communication examines how this can
be achieved in the following key areas.
AGRICULTURE
2.5 The Commission says that negotiations were launched
in Doha on a broad and balanced platform covering substantial
reductions in trade-distorting support and export subsidies, improvements
in market access, special treatment for developing countries,
and non-trade concerns. It suggests that the Community has from
the outset taken a pro-active role in this area, both in supporting
implementation of the Doha Declaration, and in the reforms which
it has since made to the common agricultural policy, and it stresses
that it is now essential that others should follow this example.
2.6 More specifically, it says that the focus should
be on measures which distort trade, particularly where support
is linked to production or prices, but that support which addresses
key policy goals, with little or no effect on trade, "cannot
be subject to any capping or reduction". The Commission
also says that, although developing countries should have more
flexibility as regards domestic support, in order to address their
developmental needs, such an approach should be targeted on the
poorer among them; and it suggests that, although developed countries
should make the largest contribution to trade liberalisation,
it is also essential to increase trade among developing countries.
2.7 The Commission then suggests a number of particular
steps, including:
- others (including the largest
and most advanced developed countries) following the example set
by the Community's Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative,[6]
and matching the Community's offer to eliminate export subsidies
on a list of products of interest to developing countries;
- addressing non-trade concerns in such areas as
environmental protection, animal welfare and rural development;
- effective measures on cotton to address the plight
of the African countries, to match those taken by the Community
under the EBA initiative, and in its recent proposals to reform
the domestic support regime; and
- following the expiry of the "peace clause",[7]
for WTO members to proceed by multilateral negotiations, rather
than by litigation.
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
2.8 The Commission says that this is an area which
offers the Community significant potential trade gains, but that
progress has been disappointing, with very little balance between
the commitment of different WTO members, and with large numbers
of exclusions and exemptions having been put forward, especially
by some influential developing countries. It comments that this
would have denied meaningful market access not only to Community
exporters, but to those of other developing countries as well,
and that important trade and developmental benefits will be achieved
only if there is serious market opening within the developing
world. It therefore concludes that the concept of "less
than full reciprocity" should not imply the non-participation
of developing countries, but instead reflect their genuine capacity
to contribute, according to their level of economic development.
It suggests that this implies adherence to a simple, single non-linear
tariff reduction formula applied to all tariff lines, whilst also
catering for sectoral negotiations on products of particular interest,
such as textiles, where more far-reaching measures are needed.
The Commission also notes the importance of meaningful disciplines
on non-tariff barriers.
SERVICES
2.9 The Commission says that this is another key
priority for the Community, in that a further opening in services
trade would offer major potential benefits to all countries, whilst
being entirely consistent with the full maintenance and protection
of public services. Despite this, it says that progress so far
has been very disappointing, with only the Community having made
a meaningful offer. It therefore suggests that a major step change
is needed, involving a much greater level of engagement from all
WTO members, and efforts to negotiate the reduction or elimination
of barriers to environmental services.
SINGAPORE ISSUES
2.10 On the four Singapore issues (creating rules
on competition, transparency in public procurement, investment
and trade facilitation), the Commission says it is of crucial
importance to create optimal conditions for cross-border trade,
to encourage a climate attractive to productive foreign direct
investment, to promote fair competition, and the procurement of
the best goods and services. However, whilst noting the deep
disagreement among WTO members on whether rules should be made
at a multilateral level, it suggests that there is no reason for
the Community to abandon its long-term objective of creating such
rules, and of exploring ways of achieving this for all four areas
within the WTO. At the same time, it recognises that it may be
necessary to consider each of these issues strictly on its own
merits, and for the Community no longer to insist on their being
treated identically if there is no consensus in favour of this.
It therefore suggests that the possibility of conclusions being
adopted by interested members only, and on a voluntary basis,
should be explored, following which it would be necessary to assess
whether this would provide real added value.
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
2.11 The Commission notes fears, on the one hand,
that the WTO can become an obstacle to environmental policy making,
and, on the other hand, that over-regulation in pursuit of environmental
protection is becoming an "unnecessary, disproportionate,
and perhaps protectionist burden" for traders. It adds that,
whilst the need for non-protectionist regulation in pursuit of
environmental protection is generally accepted, the Community
is among the very few parties to have concluded that these issues
should be clarified in the WTO, so as to achieve a more stable
equilibrium between trade and environmental policy, and thus enable
the commitments made in Johannesburg on sustainable development
to be pursued. It suggests that, in order to do this, it would
be helpful at this stage to focus more on political principles,
not least in the relationship between the WTO and Multilateral
Environment Agreements, and it also proposes that there should
be an initiative on market opening for environmental goods and
services, aimed primarily at benefiting developing countries.
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
2.12 The Commission notes that many products, particularly
in the food and drink sector, meet the specific needs of local
markets, and that there is general acceptance —
as, for example, with wines — of the
use of geographical indications
as a means of branding on the basis of origin. However, it also
notes that there is some controversy over how far this practice
should be encouraged, and that three key issues arise within the
WTO context —
whether the present arrangements for wines and spirits can now
be developed through the establishment of a register for all wines
and spirits world-wide; whether the regime should be extended
to other products; and whether the use of geographical indications
in countries where a product has not originated can be rolled
back. The Commission points out the differences which exist in
this area between the Community and other participants, some of
whom wish to abandon this part of the Doha negotiating agenda,
and says that efforts are needed to persuade them to show the
necessary flexibility (as the Community itself has done on the
creation of a multilateral register). In this respect, it highlights
the importance of pointing out that the protection of geographical
indications is not exclusively geared to the protection of Community
interests, but offers opportunities to developing countries as
well.
The Government's view
2.13 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 31 December
2003, the Minister for Trade and Investment at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Mr Mike O'Brien) says that the Communication
was endorsed by the General Affairs Council on 8-9 December, and
reflects the Government's stated commitment to work for a successful
outcome to the current negotiating round, which benefits industrialised
and developing countries alike. He says that the Communication
will form the basis of the Community's position in the negotiations,
which have now recommenced following the Cancun meeting, and that
the UK has urged all WTO members to enter these negotiations positively
and flexibly. He comments that the Communication is fully consistent
with such an approach.
Conclusion
2.14 Given the target of completing the Doha
Development Agenda by 1 January 2005, this Communication is clearly
timely, bearing in mind also recent indications that the US Government
is seeking to restart the round of negotiations. The Communication
also touches upon an issue of considerable significance, given
the Community's pivotal role in any future negotiations, and,
for that reason, we are recommending that it should be debated
in European Standing Committee C. We also believe that such a
debate could usefully take account of the comments on the WTO
and Cancun set out in the Report produced last month by the International
Development Committee. [8]
6 This provides preferential access to produce from
the least developed countries. See (21715) 12335/00; HC 23-xxxi
(1999-2000), para 9 (29 November 2000), HC 28-ii (2000-01), para
3 (10 January 2001) and HC 28-vii (2000-01), para 2 (28 February
2001). Back
7
This stipulates that, until the end of 2003, agricultural subsidies
permitted under the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture cannot be challenged
under other WTO agreements. Back
8
First Report from the International Development Committee, 2003-04,
Trade and Development at the WTO: Learning the lessons of Cancun
to revive a genuine development round, HC 92-I. Back
|
