Fragmented accomplishments?

After the disastrous happenings at the Seattle MC, the morale in the WTO Secretariat and among the members was low. In its aftermath, Mike Moore, the DG of WTO and the General Council Chairman, decided that the first thing to get the negotiations back on track was to build confidence among members. Accordingly, they zeroed in on four basic points: a plan to assist the LDCs, a focus on implementation issues, focus on technical cooperation and capacity building, and procedures for ensuring more effective participation of all Members. The WTO Secretariat and the General Council worked on these fronts in the run-up to the Doha Ministerial Conference and, keeping these sensitivities in mind, prepared a short 9-page draft Ministerial Declaration, with most of the text agreed upon (the Seattle declaration was 34 pages long, with lots of text that was unresolved).

The issues in Doha

The final Ministerial Declaration was 9-pages long and had 52 paras. From its text, it was clear that it was a please-all document, and covered almost all issues of importance to everyone. The developed countries got their Singapore issues (Investment, Competition, Government Procurement and Trade Facilitation), with a mandate to first develop the modalities for the negotiations in the current round and start negotiations on draft agreements in the next round. The issues of core labour standards and trade and environment were also included. It was clear that the US was the driver of the draft declaration, and that the EC had managed to get most of their issues into the draft.

There was a mention of the importance of implementation issues, and how these would be handled and outstanding issues would be included in the work programme. As a result, the main negotiating areas of Agriculture, Services, Non-Agricultural goods, and TRIPS were included. There was an agreement to begin negotiations in the area of ‘Rules’, which covered anti-dumping, subsidies and safeguards.

From the point of view of developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), there was a discussion on special and differential treatment, technical cooperation and capacity-building and an acknowledgement of the Zanzibar Declaration of LDC Ministers in July 2001, which emphasised the need to integrate LDCs into the multilateral trading system through better market access and developing their export base.

In addition to the Ministerial Declaration, there was a separate declaration on TRIPS and public health issues, which recognised the acute public health emergency being faced in developing countries and LDCs in the areas of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other epidemics. It also recognised the need for them to take carve-outs from TRIPS, and sought flexibility in the TRIPS agreement in order to address these public health emergencies. The declaration also underlined the need for developed countries to extend technology transfer to developing countries and LDCs.

Is development really on the agenda?

The Doha Round was touted as a ‘Development Round’, but questions remained on how seriously development issues of importance to developing countries and LDCs would be addressed in the round. In fact, developing countries and LDCs were not really in favour of launching a new trade round for the simple reason that many of the decisions relating to them were still not implemented, mainly in the area of agriculture trade and textiles and clothing. This was the reason that developing country and LDC groupings such as African and Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), the G-77, Group of LDC countries (which met in Zanzibar in September 2001) and Organisation of African Unity had announced on the eve of the Doha Round that many of the areas of concern to them and agreed in the Uruguay Round were still unmet. Some of these areas were: continued high levels of domestic support to agriculture in developed countries, high tariffs on agricultural goods in developed countries, and the continued use of non-tariff barriers such as technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. There was also a feeling that developed countries were unfairly using anti-dumping and countervailing duties and safeguards to keep developing country exports out.

Even with a catch-all text, the civil society and NGOs were critical of the MC saying that there was no binding on developed countries to deliver on the ‘development’ issues mentioned in the text. Developing countries and LDCs also felt that since many of the issues of export interest to them were still unresolved, as described above, any new trade round must address their issues first. On the other hand, the corporates and businesses of the developed world would stand to gain through market access acquired in developing country and LDC markets. On the declaration on Public Health and TRIPS, while it could be construed as a win for developing countries and LDCs, there was no obligation on developed countries to extend any financial aid or transfer of technology.

To sum up, the issues that developing countries and LDCs wanted addressed were varied:

* Reduction of domestic support to agriculture and tariffs on agriculture goods in the US, the EC and Japan;

* Duty-free and quota-free access to exports from LDCs;

* Relaxation of TRIPS in cases of public health and emergencies;

* Acknowledging the difficulty in implementing Uruguay Round agreements, and a provision for Special and Differential Treatment;

* Full implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.

The developed countries, on the other hand, wanted market access in goods and services from developing countries and LDCs. The EC wanted to begin negotiations on competition, environment and investment, and the US and EC wanted liberalisation of services trade, particularly in finance, telecom and IT services.

Conclusion

The Doha MC can be called successful as compared to the Seattle MC, to the extent that there was a consensual Declaration. And, even developing countries and LDCs agreed, albeit reluctantly, to launch a new trade round. However, the tagline of ‘Doha Development Round’ was not entirely convincing because there were many issues of interest to developed countries that had nothing to do with development, but were focused on market access for their goods and services. Moreover, the issues of investment and environment found their way into the declaration. It was still a long road ahead to realise the development ambitions of developing countries and LDCs through free trade.

The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal.