CUTS Centre for International Trade

Campaign on WTO

CUTS @ SEATTLE

Commerce Ministry Discriminates between Public Interest and Business Interest for WTO Summit

October 4, 1999, New Delhi, India

Two leading non-governmental organisations, CUTS and Gene Campaign, have charged the Ministry of Commerce for discriminating between public interest NGOs and business chambers in nominations to the official Indian delegation to the 3rd Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) starting November 30th in Seattle, USA. The government is as usual sending a big delegation of bureaucrats to the WTO meeting. This time it has decided to take businessmen along but has chosen not to include those groups that fight for the interests of the common man.

In a press briefing here today, Dr. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, New Delhi and Mr Pradeep S Mehta of Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), Jaipur said that several letters from both NGOs arguing that both civil society and big business should be part of the Indian negotiating team , remain unanswered. The Commerce Ministry has not even bothered to reply in the negative. The situation is that the Commerce Ministry has included two members each from CII (Confederation of Indian Industry ) and FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ) in the Indian team. However , not a single NGO, not even those that the Commerce Ministry has been consulting, like Gene Campaign and CUTs have been included in the official delegation.

Mr. Mehta and Dr. Sahai said that it was quite ridiculous that Gene Campaign and CUTS have not been asked to join the official delegation when these are the two NGOs who have been appointed to the National Advisory Committee on International Trade .
The Advisory Committee of which CII and FICCI are also members, was set up to provide competent, technical expertise and to assist the Ministry in formulating the Indian position for the various subjects that have to be negotiated in the WTO and in international trade. The National Advisory Committee which is headed by the Commerce Minister, was set up in March 1999 after the specific recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce . This Committee made the recommendation after hearing evidence from experts on the poor functioning of the Commerce Ministry and the doubts about in house skills to tackle the many complex, technical subjects like TRIPs that are coming up in the WTO.

Dr. Sahai and Mr. Mehta charged the Commerce Ministry with exhibiting a bias in favour of the corporate sector and big money and against civil society groups where the interests of the ordinary person are anchored. Both Dr. Sahai and Mr. Mehta pointed out that during the Advisory Committee meetings the subject of non-governmental participation in the Seattle negotiating team was discussed. The Commerce Minister, Mr. Hegde, had clearly stated that representative non- governmental members of the Advisory Committee , both from among the NGOs and the industry would be part of the Indian team.

Then came the elections and shortly after that the Commerce Ministry announcement that big business and business groups would be part of the official Indian team but civil society would not.

What is further embarrassing is that while our Commerce Ministry behaves in this fashion, other more enlightened nations like Kenya, Finland, Norway and Denmark have already nominated public interest NGOs together with business organisations to their official delegation. Several other countries are following suit and involving various stakeholders in their official teams for Seattle. In other similar meetings such as the Earth Summit in 1992, the Social Summit in 1995 and the Women’s Summit in 1996, public interest NGOs have been members even of India’s official delegation.

Over 1114 NGOs from nearly 90 countries of the world have asked for a moratarium on further negotiations and expansion of the WTO. India is a strong and vocal supporter of this view. “Given the huge and popular unrest against globalisation and expansion of the WTO’s ambit, India would be sending a very wrong signal by not including representatives of civil society in its official delegation to Seattle”, said Mr. Mehta.

Dr. Sahai added that particularly on the subject of TRIPs ( Traded Related Intellectual Property Rights) which is the most contentious issue of the Seattle meet, Indian NGOs are recognised to be a dominant force . They are in the forefront of the international movement to articulate and protect the interests of developing countries. It is a matter of great regret that the Commerce Ministry has chosen to deprive the Indian team of the strength of its civil society. For further information contact: Gene Campaign.

BACK

CUTS' Statement at the WTO High-level Meeting on Trade and Environment

March 15-16, 1999, Geneva, Switzerland

Trade and Environment is just one subset of the larger debate on trade and sustainable development. Even though the words "sustainable development" find a frequent mention beginning with the Preamble of the WTO, and in various other Agreements annexed to the GATT 1994, the steps being taken to abide by corresponding commitments have been very few.

Currently discussions in the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), pertaining to assessing the impact of multilateral trading system on sustainable development have been narrowed down to the domain of environment. Hence the other two important facets associated with sustainable development viz. economy and equity are being ignored. More so, the initiatives taken to break the "logjam" with respect to discussions in the CTE do not aim towards finding "win-win" solutions for enabling North to embark on the path of sustainable consumption (by reducing over-consumption) and the South to initiate measures towards eradicating poverty (by getting rid of under-consumption). In fact the agenda of the CTE, and the submissions by some countries portrays how big trading countries are trying to increase their capacity to access markets, and simultaneously protect their domestic industry from competition, using environment protection as a tool.

It is in this context that the big trading countries have to understand their role based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Importantly, these countries should also realise the potential of coming closer to the "win-win" situation (mentioned above) by engaging into dialogues with the civil society from developing and less developed countries within the framework of the CTE.

The recent decision of the appellate body of the dispute settlement system of the WTO on the 'shrimp-turtle' dispute shows that environmental concerns are making their impact felt in the decisions of the dispute settlement body. Hence, there does exist a possibility that environmental concerns would not be relegated to the background at the cost of preserving the multilateral trading system.

Another important issue that needs immediate attention is that WTO is becoming too legalistic for comfort. The open ended interpretation of 'exhaustible natural resources' under the 'gasoline' case (Venezuela v/s USA) or the 'shrimp-turtle' (USA v/s India) case has reduced the possibility of establishing meaning(s)/definition(s) through 'consensus' in the concerned committees or in the General Council.

This is going against the intent of negotiators representing developing and less developed countries who had actually visualised that interpretation of issues through 'consensus' would help maintain stability of the multilateral trading system.

The current trend of securing jurisprudence through the dispute settlement system of the WTO, especially on environmental issues, poses a substantial risk to the stability of the multilateral trading system as the party(ies) involved in the dispute may not agree to the interpretation of the concerned issue.

At this juncture it is also important to note some members of the civil society in the North interpret sustainable development as sustainable environment, thereby neglecting issues of poverty, debt, and employment, which are of crucial importance to developing and less developed countries.

With these disturbing trends as a backdrop, we find that this HLM provides a good opportunity for the international community to deliberate and find solutions on the vexed issues being discussed in the CTE that constrain the developing and less developing countries from embarking on the path of sustainable development, within the framework of the multilateral trading system.

Context	Way Forward
Containing poverty in the South	The international community must realise that unless the links between the chain of trade--market access--sustainable development nexus are not strengthened and more so are not used to eradicate poverty in the South, the goals of WTO will not be realised.
Multilateral coexistence: MEAs and WTO	The international community must focus on the questions raised by UNEP during the July' 98 meeting of the CTE: What does CTE understand by the term "trade measures" in context of Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs)? What does the CTE view as measures in MEAs that are consistent with WTO rules? What does the CTE view as sustainable trade policies and how can these policies strengthen MEAs?
Production and Process Methods (PPMs)	Realising the need for formulating strategies that would help embark nations on the path of sustainable development, the international community needs to appreciate that PPMs are endogenous factors and vary according to local conditions. Therefore, The best course is to leave it for developing and less developed countries to incorporate advanced PPMs in accordance with their absorption capacity. Till the 'tuna-dolphin' case, the issues pertaining to PPMs were well within the negotiating intent of the drafters. With the emergence of the WTO it may have been felt that trade has to accommodate environment. While this linkage may exist, legalistic/jurisprudential expansion of international community's intent in setting trade rules is now fraught with a threat to the multilateral trading system.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and environment	With respect to the access and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and practices (EST&Ps) and the possible hurdle that would be created by the TRIPs Agreement we suggest the following: Creating of the Multilateral Technology Fund, which can provide subsidy to the IPR owner through its government for the transfer of EST&Ps.

BACK

CUTS' Statement at the WTO High-level Meeting on Trade and Development

March 17-18, 1999, Geneva, Switzerland

Multilateralism and a rule-based system have been the principal gain for developing countries for the World Trade Organisation (WTO), because it provides protection for the weaker countries.

However the experience gained so far shows that this has failed on various grounds. The language itself of several agreements has been crafted in a manner, which is not harmonious with the language that prevails in weaker countries. More so there are not enough safeguards that would reduce the obligations of the weaker nations. Importantly the developing and less developed countries have not been able to extract the necessary and appropriate flexibilities on the basis of the existing socio-political milieu within their boundaries.

As we come to the end of the Millennium an important step would be to assess the impact of these Agreements signed under the Uruguay Round on poverty, rural development, environment etc. This is important especially for convincing the developing and less developed countries about the positive impacts of trade liberalisation being carried out on the WTO platform.

This High Level Symposium (HLS) provides a good opportunity for the international community to deliberate and find solutions on issues that restrain market access of developing and less developed countries. Possible solutions to some of these issues have been articulated below.

Context	Way Forward
Special and differential treatment Flexibilities for developing and least developed countries through opt-outs	The international community must commit themselves to honest implementation of special and differential treatment under various Agreements as promised to developing and less developed countries. The developed countries should also assist developing and less developed countries in terms of financial and technical assistance to help them make an effective transition from their special and differential status. Flexibilities should be provided to developing and least developed countries in implementation of the accords including allowing them an opt-out where it is not possible for them to implement it. After all there are other plurilateral agreements under the WTO umbrella without a single-undertaking commitment.
Agriculture Textiles & Clothing	The international community should seriously note that the special and differential treatment provided to developed nations in these Agreements on Agriculture and on Textiles & Clothing have been used beyond their spirit. Hence the developed countries need to reduce and rein in their concessional periods provided for in these Agreements. The trade policy reviews of the developed countries should also clearly reflect the steps they have initiated in the area of structural adjustment for these sectors.
Tariff peaking Tariff escalation Non-tariff barriers Antidumping	The international community should accord high priority to the reduction and elimination of barriers, both tariff and non-tariff to trade in products and services. Efforts being taken to eliminate restrictions that differentiate unreasonably between products, in their primary and processed form, currently or potentially, of particular export interest to developing and less developed countries should be accelerated.
Capacity building with an emphasis in the area of dispute settlement	Special emphasis must be given on devising strategies whereby developing and least developed countries would be in a position to effectively use the dispute settlement mechanism for their benefit. The establishment of the ‘Legal Advisory Centre’ outside the purview of the WTO would be the first step in this direction. The rich countries should financially support this Centre.
Building constituencies	In order to build constituencies in developing and less developed countries the WTO must have rules which will empower these countries to organise awareness and training programmes on WTO issues, and to create an enabling mechanism for the same. The trainings should include media persons and the civil society.

Abort TRIPs Campaign

Third World Intellectuals and NGOs’ Statement Against Linkage (TWIN-SAL)

Event Reports

Report of the Third Ministerial Meeting of WTO	1st-2nd December 1999
A panel discussion on The Vexed Issue of Linkages	1st December 1999
A Workshop on Anti-Dumping and the WTO Dispute Settlement System	2nd December, 1999
Recommendations of a regional seminar “From Seattle Ministerial to UNCTAD-X: Issues of Concern”	22nd -23rd January 1999

Contact CITEE

CUTS Centre For International Trade, Economics & Environment (CITEE)

D–217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park,

Jaipur 302 016, India,

Ph: +91(0)141-228 2821-3

Fx: +91(0)141-228 2485

Email: cuts@sancharnet.in,citee@cuts.org