Apr 6, 1998

DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES ON MAY MINISTERIAL

Geneva, 2 Apr (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Following some wide-ranging views at informal consultations and a formal meeting of the General Council, the Director-General of the WTO is to prepare a draft text for a possible Ministerial Declaration or statement to come out of the 2^nd Ministerial Conference of the WTO in May here.

Discussions this week brought out an element of understanding at a very general level on a possible outcome, through a negotiated text, but with widely differing perceptions and nuanced views on the process after May, and looking towards the third ministerial meeting. But the discussions and preoccupations over preparations for the WTO ministerial meetings once in two years and for launching rounds of negotiations through such meetings in fact undercut one of the prime arguments advanced in 1993 for establishment of the WTO, namely as a forum for negotiations on trade issues covered in the WTO accords, without having to go through the earlier GATT (provisional treaty) practices of ministers having to agree and launch negotiations.

In consultations earlier in March, it has been agreed that there would be a negotiated text to come out of the May ministerial conference. A process has been established to agree on a text, with Director-General Renato Ruggiero heading an informal process. 

Ruggiero and his aides are working on a draft text, and this is to be considered at a General Council meeting on 24 April, trade officials reported Thursday.  

At an informal consultation this week, there has been a consensus that the text should be short, not include controversial matters, and be balanced reflecting the important objective of implementation of the agreements and the future work programme.  

But comments and views of delegations drew a distinction between the built-in agenda of the WTO and other aspects of work in the future.  

There are controversies and differences of views on the other aspects of future work too. Some, like the EC would like to have additional items to be attached to the future agenda, apart from the built-in agenda, while developing countries are presently resisting it.  

Both at Singapore Ministerial meeting, and since then, the Cairns Group of Agricultural exporting countries, have been pressing for taking in hand, with some visibility, preparations for the next stage of reforms in agricultural trade, which the Agreement on Agriculture envisages being taken up in 1999.  

From this perspective, they have been both anxious to get some specific references or commitments to come out of the 2nd Ministerial meeting in May, and to start a process to enable launch of these negotiations in 1999.

For its part, the European Union, whose agricultural protectionism is a main target of the Cairns group, has been promoting a new round, the so-called millennium round, with agriculture and some of the new issues (figuring in study groups) to be thrown in.  

The EC Council of Ministers at a meeting in Brussels this week has authorized EC trade commissioner Sir Leon Brittan to call for a new round of trade negotiations at the May ministerial. Some of the other industrial countries also want to have some of the items in the Singapore declaration of the WTO to be included.  

The WTO agreements envisage negotiations on agriculture to be taken up in 1999 and a further round of negotiations on services in 2000 -- and both involve some preparatory work.  

At Singapore, the ministers authorized study groups on trade and investment and trade and competition - but neither of these involve any commitment to take up negotiations. The two study groups are to make reports by 1998, and it is then for the WTO members to consider them and decide what to do. A third area of study, on government procurement, envisages some kind of negotiations for transparency.

The comments and views at this week's consultations, at an informal meeting Wednesday and a formal General Council Thursday fully reflected the gaps in thinking and perceptions among delegations.  

Trade officials said there was broad agreement on the negotiated text reflecting the political aspect and on preparations for the third ministerial meeting and providing guidelines for Geneva negotiators on implementation and future work.

While the EC, the Cairns group and several others want to have the Third Ministerial to be held at end of 1999, there have been reservations and objections to this, voiced in particular by Egypt.  

Pakistan said that the future work, at this point, should only involve the built-in agenda and take up the issues of whether existing agreements are being implemented, whether they are achieving their objectives, and whether the benefits are balanced.  

This view, trade officials reported after the meetings, received wide support of many developing countries.

Pakistan also called for a follow-up mechanism to monitor the implementation - either in a body set up by the General Council or by the General Council itself. The future work on agriculture and services should be handled only within their respective committees or councils.  

Pakistan also raised the issue whether the political declaration would be a recommitment to the multilateral trading system or something else. They did not want to renew discussions of the Singapore Conference or take up issues within the competence of other international organizations.

Egypt insisted that the WTO envisaged ministerial conferences once in two years and the next should only be held in year 2000. Any built-in work and review (in agriculture or elsewhere) could be taken up without a ministerial meeting to launch the negotiations. On future work, Egypt said the emphasis should be on implementation.

Brunei, for the ASEAN, wanted a minimum of specificity in the declaration with regard to the sectoral negotiations and discussions and these should not prejudice the Third Ministerial Conference.  

The EC explained the decision of the Council of Ministers for a 'global, comprehensive and wide-ranging' approach to begin negotiations in 2000, and for a decision to be taken by end 1999 for a future trade liberalisation. The May ministerial meeting should not prejudice future work.

Australia said that ministers should be able to decide in 1999 on how and when they would negotiate on a future agenda, and there should not be specificity in the declaration from the 1998 meet.  

Japan wanted the text to call for a strengthening of the system. Balanced implementation, in Japan's view should mean full and faithful implementation of the agreements, and not going backwards.  

Mexico said that the political message out of the Declaration should be a "WTO message", and issues outside the WTO competence should not be taken up. The implementation should be of the built-in agenda and any work programme emanating from the Singapore Conference, and there should be clear guidelines for the work between the second and third ministerial meets.

Canada said the role of the WTO in promoting economic growth should be maintained and ministers should be able to add new items to the negotiating agenda beyond what was in the built-in agenda.  

India supported comments of Pakistan and Mexico. It was important for a message to come out of the meeting that the WTO was capable of recognizing the different levels of development among its members, and that developing countries had problems in fulfilling commitments undertaken in good faith. These should be discussed without prejudice. The second problem of the balance in benefits should also be examined. Many developing countries had not got benefits as much as the industrial countries and it would be unfortunate if these could not be discussed and addressed at the ministerial conference. The future activities should be those reflected in the built-in agenda.

The United States wanted the issues of industrial tariffs and reduction to be included. The Geneva ministerial outcome should also for any additions in the agenda, if countries wanted.  

Brazil wanted a message for the strengthening of the multilateral system and the needs of developing countries. The General Council should be the locus for implementation or any other areas of work. 

A number of Southern African countries said that if they had not expressed any views so far, it was because their ministers were meeting in Harare and were considering these very issues.  

The formal meeting of the General Council Thursday agreed on the organization of the May ministerial meeting, with a formal opening session on 18 May, with two working sessions (instead of earlier proposals for informal meetings of the ministers) in the afternoon of 18 and morning of 19. The working sessions, with the secretariat keeping minutes and make them available to delegations, would deal with the implementation issues and guidelines for future work.