Annex
TRADE JUSTICE MOVEMENT POLICY ASKS
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2005
The Trade Justice Movement believes that the
UK must take a leadership role in making trade work for sustainable
development and the environment.
— The DTI needs seriously and visibly
to engage with the development and sustainability aspects of the
trade negotiations. This means prioritising truly sustainable
development in all trade talks in Brussels and Geneva, as this
is mandated to be a development round. This would involve, among
other things, carrying out social and environmental impact assessments,
and scenario planning for developing countries. It would also
include holding the EC to account for conducting proper, thorough
sustainable impact assessments as well as integrating the findings
properly into trade policy. It also requires examining impacts
of trade policy and behaviour originating here in the UK, including
the need for corporate accountability, and working with other
government departments to deliver the promises made in the UK
sustainable development strategy to create a "one planet
economy" that does not shift our environmental burden on
to other countries.
— The UK government should push to
ensure that there is coherence between Europe's trade policies
with the policies of other institutions, such as the UN.
— The UK government—in its EU
presidency role—must ensure transparency in the 133 Committee.
This means posting detailed agendas on the Council website, as
well as minutes with position taken by member states. Names and
contact details of full and deputy members and members of 133
working bodies of all member states to be made publicly available,
to allow civil society access to the relevant person.[19]
— The UK government should continue
to push for an end to the imposition of economic policy conditionality,
and to ensure that systems are put in place to make sure technical
assistance, policy advice and programme work are genuinely country-led
and targeted at poverty reduction.
— The UK government must produce its
action plans for implementing the recommendations on trade made
by the Commission for Africa as quickly as possible, and make
those available to civil society.
AGRICULTURE
— The UK government must actively support
the group of 33 proposals for developing countries to have the
flexibility to determine for themselves tariff reduction commitments
in line with national development priorities; special products
in accordance with food security, livelihood security and rural
development criteria; and a special safeguard mechanism. This
support must be political—led by Defra/DTI in Brussels and
the FCO/DTI/Defra in Geneva—and visible, as well as technical.
— The UK government must actively push
for there to be no sensitive products available to developed countries.
Tariff reduction commitments must take into account possible preference
erosion and measures must be put in place to counter negative
impacts.
— At the WTO, Defra must push for a
full review of the Green Box to ensure that the criteria of "non-
or minimally-trade distorting" subsidies is being adhered
to in all cases. In addition, the review should ensure that Green
Box payments are only allowed when they provide, for example,
clear benefits for small-scale farmers, rural employment and the
environment in rural areas.
— Defra must also push for the Blue
Box criteria not to be expanded.
— In Europe, the UK government must
start building consensus among other member states in order that
the common agricultural policy (CAP) can be reformed at the earliest
possible opportunity. This includes creating a set of policy objectives
around what a radically reformed CAP would look like, and actively
promoting that to other member states.
— The UK government must continue to
push for export support to be eliminated at the earliest date.
As elimination has already been agreed, the UK should also ensure
that this is not used as negotiating lever to obtain concessions
from developing countries.
NON-AGRICULTURAL
MARKET ACCESS
(NAMA)
— The UK government should deliver
on its policy position of "no forced liberalisation"
within the NAMA negotiations as contained in the 2005 Labour Party
Manifesto and the Commission for Africa report. So far, Government
officials have confirmed that they are adopting the opposite approach,
pressing for an "ambitious" liberalisation outcome through
their representations in Brussels and Geneva. Conversely, the
Government has failed to provide any evidence that it is delivering
on the "no forced liberalisation" policy.
— The UK government should support
flexibility for developing countries in binding coverage and levels
that are commensurate with each country's level of development.
All countries should be able to determine the level at which they
bind. There should be no assumption that 100% binding coverage
is a requirement for the round. Tariffs bound in this round should—as
in past rounds—be exempt from cuts.
— There must be public confirmation
from the UK government that it will not support calls by the European
Commission for "real market access" and "ambitious
reductions in applied tariffs" from developing countries.
— There must be public acknowledgement
by the UK government that rich countries should stop seeking to
exclude certain countries from special and differential treatment
(SDT) provisions.
— The UK government should push for
all sectoral approaches to be dropped from the current round.
— Preference erosion must be tackled
through binding commitments by rich countries to compensate and
support countries affected during the transition. The Africa and
ACP groups have tabled proposals on this and the UK government
should work closely with these groups to arrive at a solution.
— There should be at most a Uruguay
Round approach to cutting tariffs for developing countries, with
a target minimum and average cuts. Line-by-line application of
a formula should be retained for developed countries only, and
should include a cap in order to cut peak tariffs. The tariff
approach should be judged based on coherence with the guiding
principles of the talks: less than full reciprocity and SDT. Formulae
that do not respect these principles should be rejected by the
UK.
— The UK government should adopt the
stance that there is a mandate to discuss phytosanitary standards
and technical barriers to trade measures as they are non-trade
barriers. Also, the UK should support progress in agreeing disciplines
on use of anti-dumping and should support a call for moratorium
on anti-dumping actions against least developed countries.
— The environmental impact of removing
any non-trade barrier must be accounted for in any such talks.
— The UK government should push for
all developed countries to provide duty-free, quota-free access
for least developed countries, granted immediately on all products
and bound at the WTO.
— DFID should call upon the DTI to
take account of recent research, particularly from UNCTAD, that
shows that rapid industrial trade liberalisation, of the kind
being pushed in the NAMA negotiations, has already had a devastating
impact in many developing countries.
— The UK government should push for
a full impact assessment of the developmental, environmental and
social impacts of the NAMA negotiations at all levels, and the
findings of these assessments must be accounted for in UK and
EU trade policy. This includes DFID assistance to help developing
countries and LDCs to commission impact assessments before they
have to take on commitments in NAMA talks. Analysis and technical/financial
analysis were promised, but never delivered.
SERVICES
— The UK government should support
the position of Brazil on Article 6.4 of the GATS: that is that
it should be amended to provide greater policy-space for regulators.
Brazil has suggested such regulations should be "no more
burdensome than necessary to ensure national policy objectives".
The UK government should send a strong public
signal that it does not support creating "common baselines"
or setting "benchmarks" in the GATS talks. The UK should
work with other EU member states in the Article 133 Committee
to stop this proposal going any further and make sure the Commission
drops the idea of benchmarking and common baselines once and for
all. The UK should also publicly support the right of developing
countries to make no GATS offers if they so wish.
All Trade Justice Movement member organisations
support the policy positions outlined in our founding statement
"For Whose Benefit? Making trade work for people and the
planet" (available online at www.tjm.org.uk).
The call to stop forced liberalisation represents
the Trade Justice Movement's lead call for 2005, as one of the
three overall demands in the "Vote for Trade Justice"
public campaign action (see below). See also the TJM Policy Briefing
June 2005 (update) "Stop Forced Liberalisation: The Trade
Justice Movement's 2005 Challenge to the UK Government" (available
online at www.tjm.org.uk).
We believe everyone has the right to
feed their families, make a decent living and protect their environment.
But the rich and powerful are pursuing
trade policies that put profits before the needs of people and
the planet.
To end poverty and protect the environment
we need trade justice not free trade.
The UK government should:
— Fight for rules that ensure governments,
particularly in poor countries, can choose the best solutions
to end poverty and protect the environment.
— End export dumping that damages the livelihoods
of poor communities around the world.
— Make laws that stop big business profiting
at the expense of people and the environment.
19 This is in line with the EU Ombudsman's Special
Remarks in his finding about the Friends of the Earth complaint
against the Commission 1286/2003/JMA stating that improving transparency
in this area is needed to bring Commission practice into line
with the expectations of citizens. Back
|
